IPv6! And a question.

Congrats on the rollout of v6, guys! Can't wait for Dallas to be turned up soon.

One question, though. Your FAQ states:

> A single IPv6 address can be assigned to your Linode for free.

Does that really mean you're assigning a single /128 for free? If so, that seems really silly and somewhat going against how IPv6 was designed to be implemented.

50 Replies

Yup. Each IPv6 enabled Linode gets one address assigned.

You'll be able to have multiple pools of IPv6 addresses assigned to your account that are bound to a specific datacenter. These are inherently 'shared' across all your IPv6 enabled Linodes in that datacenter.

We'll also be rolling out support to have an entire /64 routed to one of your IPv6 Linodes, which you can then route wherever you please.

-Chris

Okay, thanks for clarifying, Chris!

Are there plans to support reverse DNS for IPv6 addresses?

@caker:

We'll also be rolling out support to have an entire /64 routed to one of your IPv6 Linodes, which you can then route wherever you please.
That's how it is supposed to be used.

Hope you don't plan to charge extra for this.

@neo:

@caker:

We'll also be rolling out support to have an entire /64 routed to one of your IPv6 Linodes, which you can then route wherever you please.
That's how it is supposed to be used.

Hope you don't plan to charge extra for this.
Yeah. I've been a strong proponent of "if you need IP6 now, use HE tunnels" on the understanding that linode would eventually produce an IP6 solution of their own.

But one address is… umm.

It's 99.9% likely that your customers will never need more than 1 IP6 address but given that IP6 is generally given out as a /64 (or Panix a /96 since they're oddly subnetting) this single IP6 address is… weird. Given the size of linode as a company you could easily get a /48 for each DC and that'd allow 65k /64 customers in each DC. Heck even a /64 would allow 2^32 /96 customers (which is what Panix has done).

I admit to being boggled.

I think the allocation plan is good, so long as the prices are kept reasonable. For instance, $1 for a block of 16 and $5 for an entire /64. I don't want to see IP addresses handed out like candy like they were in IPv4, with large blocks of allocated but unused space.

@BarkerJr:

I don't want to see IP addresses handed out like candy like they were in IPv4, with large blocks of allocated but unused space.
Why not?

@neo:

@BarkerJr:

I don't want to see IP addresses handed out like candy like they were in IPv4, with large blocks of allocated but unused space.
Why not?

IPv4 addresses were handed out in large chunks because people thought that they had plenty of IPv4 addresses to go around. Turns out they were wrong. Very very wrong.

There's no guarantee that the same won't happen with IPv6 addresses, if people start handing them out like candy. Seriously, what would you do with 2^64 addresses, other than waste them?

Relevant: http://xkcd.com/865/

@hybinet:

@neo:

@BarkerJr:

I don't want to see IP addresses handed out like candy like they were in IPv4, with large blocks of allocated but unused space.
Why not?

IPv4 addresses were handed out in large chunks because people thought that they had plenty of IPv4 addresses to go around. Turns out they were wrong. Very very wrong.

There's no guarantee that the same won't happen with IPv6 addresses, if people start handing them out like candy. Seriously, what would you do with 2^64 addresses, other than waste them?

Relevant: http://xkcd.com/865/

What are you talking about? You do know the size of the IPv6 address space, right?

Let's get some big numbers going here.

Size of 2000::/3 IPv6 global unicast space:

42,535,295,865,117,307,932,921,825,928,971,026,432 unique addresses

As noted earlier, Linode has a registered /30, which means roughly speaking they could hand out 17,179,869,184 /64 blocks off of this space alone.

You might think "well, that might not be enough! What if they need another /30!?"

Off of the total IPv6 global unicast space mentioned before, IANA could give out 134,217,829 /30's.

Essentially, this means that off of Linode's single registered /30 space, they could hand out a single /64 to every person on the Earth, to the estimulated population of the earth around 2025, twice over, still have room, and could buy another /30 to do it all over again.

@A-KO:

What are you talking about? You do know the size of the IPv6 address space, right?

Let's get some big numbers going here.

Size of 2000::/3 IPv6 global unicast space:

42,535,295,865,117,307,932,921,825,928,971,026,432 unique addresses

As noted earlier, Linode has a registered /30, which means roughly speaking they could hand out 17,179,869,184 /64 blocks off of this space alone.

I'm not implying that Linode, or any existing hosting company for that matter, does not have enough IPv6 addresses to hand out for the foreseeable future.

I do, however, agree with @BarkerJr that it's a bad idea to hand out IPv6 addresses like candy. This is more of a theoretical concern than a practical one, though it might become a practical problem in a few decades. 2^128 might look like an awfully large number right now, but people thought the same way about 2^32 only 30 years ago, and they were wrong. History has a tendency to repeat itself, no matter how unlikely you think it might be. Just wait until people start walking around with billions of anti-cancer/anti-diabetes/whatever nanobots in their blood stream, each with a /64 or even a /96 carelessly allocated to them.

There is no reason for any device to have more than 1 IP address allocated to it, except in certain circumstances such as failover or multiple SSL web sites. In fact, I found it rather disappointing that IPv6 was designed in such a way that makes it convenient for hosting providers to allocate /64 to each and every server. So I'm perfectly fine with having 1 IPv6 address per Linode, as long as it is easy and not too costly to acquire more addresses whenever needed.

@hybinet:

@A-KO:

What are you talking about? You do know the size of the IPv6 address space, right?

Let's get some big numbers going here.

Size of 2000::/3 IPv6 global unicast space:

42,535,295,865,117,307,932,921,825,928,971,026,432 unique addresses

As noted earlier, Linode has a registered /30, which means roughly speaking they could hand out 17,179,869,184 /64 blocks off of this space alone.

I'm not implying that Linode, or any existing hosting company for that matter, does not have enough IPv6 addresses to hand out for the foreseeable future.

I do, however, agree with @BarkerJr that it's a bad idea to hand out IPv6 addresses like candy. This is more of a theoretical concern than a practical one, though it might become a practical problem in a few decades. 2^128 might look like an awfully large number right now, but people thought the same way about 2^32 only 30 years ago, and they were wrong. History has a tendency to repeat itself, no matter how unlikely you think it might be. Just wait until people start walking around with billions of anti-cancer/anti-diabetes/whatever nanobots in their blood stream, each with a /64 or even a /96 carelessly allocated to them.

There is no reason for any device to have more than 1 IP address allocated to it, except in certain circumstances such as failover or multiple SSL web sites. In fact, I found it rather disappointing that IPv6 was designed in such a way that makes it convenient for hosting providers to allocate /64 to each and every server. So I'm perfectly fine with having 1 IPv6 address per Linode, as long as it is easy and not too costly to acquire more addresses whenever needed.

Multi-homing is quite acceptable in the v6 world and it's very possible you end up with 3 or 4 different IPv6 addresses, depending on your setup. (Temporary Global, Random Global, Manual Global, Private-NonRoutable)–per machine based on RA and OS settings.

@hybinet:

@A-KO:

There is no reason for any device to have more than 1 IP address allocated to it, except in certain circumstances such as failover or multiple SSL web sites. In fact, I found it rather disappointing that IPv6 was designed in such a way that makes it convenient for hosting providers to allocate /64 to each and every server. So I'm perfectly fine with having 1 IPv6 address per Linode, as long as it is easy and not too costly to acquire more addresses whenever needed.

You list two reasons why a device must have more than one IP address, but there are also a lot of good and even more subjective reasons why a server should have more than one address. Obviously most situations can be made to work with a single IP address, we do it today with IPv4, but then again we also have NAT in our IPv4 world.

I don't think IPv6 was designed such that a hosting provider would allocate a /64 to each and every server much less VPS, but with the way it is currently in use today globally, it will probably be more hassle than its worth to allocate less than a /64 per customer / per physical location. An example scenario might be an administrator dealing with abuse, first time around they'll block the individual full IPv6 address - subsequent abuses will probably result in the network being blocked which they'll have no choice but to assume its an entire /64 at a minimum.

Personally I'm glad Linode has decided to go forward with their native IPv6 implementation in all data centers where they can do so, but I must admit I too also hope a more streamlined approach can be found for all those involved. I know what my first question will be, how much for the additional addresses?

Even a /116 would give most customers more than enough addresses, and Linode could hand out 7.74*10^25 of them.

This isn't really about protecting the internet, it's about making money.

@hybinet:

I do, however, agree with @BarkerJr that it's a bad idea to hand out IPv6 addresses like candy. This is more of a theoretical concern than a practical one, though it might become a practical problem in a few decades. 2^128 might look like an awfully large number right now, but people thought the same way about 2^32 only 30 years ago, and they were wrong. History has a tendency to repeat itself, no matter how unlikely you think it might be. Just wait until people start walking around with billions of anti-cancer/anti-diabetes/whatever nanobots in their blood stream, each with a /64 or even a /96 carelessly allocated to them.
I think it's hard to appreciate just how mind-numbingly large 2^128 is.

I know for myself (having grown up with IPv4 and even participating in the working group that led to CIDR, so I've worried about address exhaustion for a while) I feel bad being assigned a /64 when I know I just need a few addresses. It just feels so - inefficient.

At the same time there's just so many of them it's hard to grasp. And there are efficiencies within the network by assigning larger blocks to be used locally (and even if sparsely), not to mention the freedom of easier management of local usage. In other words, handing larger blocks out "like candy" can actually have benefits.

You can do all sorts of calculations (and there are a bunch of web pages that show sample comparisons), but just to piggy-back on your example. Wikipedia says the median estimates for carrying capacity of the earth is about 10 billion people. Let's double that to 20 billion. Even at that point, you could still give out almost a billion /64s to each person on the planet, or almost 2.5x more addresses than the 7x10^27 estimate for atoms in a human body a quick google search turned up. (I haven't tried to fully account for the various reserved bits of the space, but the numbers are still astronomical, and besides - the nanobots would probably share a link-local space rather than actually needing global addresses)

So I think your nanobots are safe. Plus every possible electronic component designed for use by each human, plus any possible device they may need to interact with, and so on…

Maybe expanding to other planets might stretch things more, but I suspect we'll be able to have an "off world" prefix with its own space somehow - if IP still exists in any sort of incarnation at that point.

-- David

I believe the reason Linode is offering only one IPv6 address at this point is purely technical (it is easier for them to setup) and has absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that IPv6 addresses "should not be given out like candy".

IPv6 was DESIGNED with the idea that every computer will get /64 address space.

I think some people here are taking their IPv4 mindset and applying it to IPv6 as they're scared of address exhaustion. We've got to cram every user into a single /64 to save the IPv4 mess from happening again!

A single address per machine is fine, however if someone wants to start routing those IP addresses - don't think like IPv4.

If I want to tunnel my home network behind a Linode, ideally I'd need a /48. Allocate a couple of addresses inside a /64 for the Linode and my router, and then route a /64 to my home router. If your head is still allocating things the IPv4 way, say a couple of addresses for the Linode and router, and then a /112 because 65k addresses is surely enough? Oooops, now it's impossible to use radvd because you're using ridiculous netmasks.

IPv6 was designed so that all the routing goes on in the first 64 bits of an address.

@neo:

IPv6 was DESIGNED with the idea that every computer will get /64 address space.

Where did you get that idea from?

@AVonGauss:

@neo:

IPv6 was DESIGNED with the idea that every computer will get /64 address space.
Where did you get that idea from?
IPv6 official specification documents.

rfc3177 (Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to Sites) recommends assignment of /48 to end consumer sites (this is significantly more than /64, just in case this needs to be explained also).

And /48 per consumer site is in fact the norm among current IPv6 ISPs and hosting providers. So if Linode gives us /64 per node they will be behind standard recommendation and accepted norms. But not as far behind as they will be if they continue with one IP per node approach.

Knowing the quality of people behind Linode I don't doubt for a second that they understand all this very well, and the current one IP per node is just a temporary solution.

A question:

Great news for the net and for new customers, but what is the improvement on switching to IPv6 for existing linode customers?

Does it worth the effort?

That RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 6177 as of March. In either case, the recommendations apply to end sites, not individual hosts. There is nothing in either RFC, to the best of my knowledge, that mandates or recommends allocating a /64 to a single host (server, workstation, toaster, etc).

ISPs and tunnelbrokers assume that they are providing connectivity to a site with multiple hosts, and as such, they purvey according to RFC 3177 (and 6177) recommendations.

Your Linode is a single host, and as it shares a single layer 2 subnet with thousands of other hosts, it can (and, for all practical purposes, must by default) achieve connectivity within the spirit and letter of IPv6 allocation standards using a single IP address within a common /64.

(Again, same thing as the point-to-point /64 of a HE tunnel, or even the IPv4 /24 your Linode already has.)

I have not understood why it worth the effort, I'm not a sys admin, I'm not really focused on this matter.

Are you saying that we "must" switch to IPv6?

@sblantipodi:

Are you saying that we "must" switch to IPv6?

Eventually, yes. There will be a point in the future when there are hosts on the internet that can only be accessed via IPv6.

@anderiv:

Does that really mean you're assigning a single /128 for free? If so, that seems really silly and somewhat going against how IPv6 was designed to be implemented.
@neo:

IPv6 was DESIGNED with the idea that every computer will get /64 address space.
No it's not. Why the hell would every single IPv6-enabled device need 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses assigned to it?

Look at IPv6's built-in stateless address autoconfiguration. A device can negotiate or derive its single unique address, along with routing information. There is no mechanism in autoconf to receive anything larger than a single address. IPv6 is designed, quite deliberately, for each device to have ONE address.

What you're confused by is the encouragement to use one /64 per site or network – like a campus, or a datacenter, or an office. And then devices within that subnet negotiate for one individual address.

-Chris

There are far more "clients" on the Internet than there are "servers", so any notion of conserving IPv6 address space on servers while every client automatically gets /48 (or at least "more than /64" as the updated document puts it) is quite frankly ridiculous.

Having abundant addresses on a typical server is extremely beneficiary. We have been running with address shortage for so long, some of us can't imagine things being done any other way.

Typical servers are comprised of multiple virtualized hosts (if you serve more than one web site from your node your server is one of them). We have worked out address conservation techniques (for some of the services) to make these multiple hosts survive on single IP (HTTP host header, SNI, NAT, etc.) but all these workarounds come at a price (performance, complexity, flexibility, etc.).

If we switch to IPv6 with it's abundant address space, it would be truly ironic if VPN on your server will continue to utilize NAT for logged in remote VPN clients because your hosting provider have given you a single IPv6 address for your node.

Some of you people are unbelievable.

I'm guessing 'caker' has a reliable xanax connection in order to keep the top of his head from blowing off dealing with some of you whiners.

IPv6 is no where near production ready. Leaving the Linode Data Center on IPv6 and you get to go where on native IPv6?

1 IPv6 is plenty to play with, and it's already been announced more will be available for a small administration fee.

Geesh people - what more do you want from a AFFORDABLE VPS host that provides top notch tech/service?

@caker:

What you're confused by is the encouragement to use one /64 per site or network – like a campus, or a datacenter, or an office. And then devices within that subnet negotiate for one individual address.
I think you are confused. The encouragement is to use "more than /64" per site or network, specifically to allow assigning /64 to every computer. The idea is that computer will no longer have to use NAT for things like connected peripherals, VPN clients, virtualized services etc.

As to "why the hell" every computer would need so many? I agree, the whole 128-bit address scheme was a definite overkill (seems they overcompensated for the previous blunder of using too little address space by using far too large), but what's done is done, we are moving to 128-bit address space, and it would be beyond ironic if our servers will end up with a single IPv6 address.

While IPv6 RAs only support 1 IPv6 address each, there's nothing stopping you from sending multiple of them. Even my home computers get 2 IPv6 addresses each, one in my 6to4 subnet and another in my HE tunnelled subnet, all automatically.

As for automatic subnet assignments, that's what DHCPv6 PD is for (read: real world ISPs already rolling this out, that's how we get our /64 at work), and you should be able to send multiple of them too, even if each related to a different RA; haven't tested the multiple DHCPv6 PD scenario yet though.

Cheers,

Antonio

@neo:

(..) and it would be beyond ironic if our servers will end up with a single IPv6 address.
I think at this point I'm going to join the incredulity bandwagon with vonskippy. How do we reach points like this, especially given Caker's earlier comment - the very first response in this thread no less! - about shared data center blocks and /64s being available down the road? Is it that horrible that out of the gate we get a single endpoint address for each Linode and does anyone really believe with the generally intelligent way Linode provides for most other resources that we won't have reasonable blocks available as the implementation proceeds?

I'm happy to be able to test native IPv6 at this point (or over the next short while depending on my Linode's data center), and expect I'm doing so earlier than if I had to wait for the controls for address block assignment, management and routing were in place. If I absolutely need to test managing a larger block, I'll stick with the HE tunnels for now, which are eminently usable for that purpose.

But it's not like I seriously expect that larger blocks won't be available if needed. To be honest I'm not really sure that I'd need a single Linode to have a /64 anyway - I find Caker's suggestion of blocks sharable among my Linodes in a single DC much more interesting, in terms of practical impact. But I'm sure others have other needs. I just think we're getting a little out there with worry at this point.

– David

@db3l:

Is it that horrible that out of the gate we get a single endpoint address for each Linode (…)

Don't forget that it's autoconfigured, and local traffic is unmetered. Hang out on IRC for awhile and see how often people end up neck deep in alligators setting up a private IPv4 address.

If they'd gone with the tunnelbroker approach(*), people'd still be riding the pitchforks because the intent and spirit of IPv6 had been violated, but we'd also be damned to an eternity of it not working right with CentOS half the time. -rt

(*) The only way to get a subnet to each customer on Day 1, really. Routers have finite resources, and given that you probably don't want to renumber when you move to a different physical host, something's going to have to keep track of every subnet…

@db3l:

@neo:

(..) and it would be beyond ironic if our servers will end up with a single IPv6 address.
I think at this point I'm going to join the incredulity bandwagon with vonskippy. How do we reach points like this, …
Let me rephrase that for you: it would be beyond ironic if getting more than single IPv6 address for our servers will cost extra per month.

As to how did we reach a point like this? My guess is by assuming too much instead of reading what is actually being said. For example, I personally have no interest in using IPv6 whatsoever. Reason being I anticipate the IPv4 cutoff date to be… nowhere in the foreseeable future, and if I have to maintain working IPv4 anyway, why bother to maintain both of them?

@neo:

The encouragement is to use "more than /64" per site or network, specifically to allow assigning /64 to every computer. The idea is that computer will no longer have to use NAT for things like connected peripherals, VPN clients, virtualized services etc.

There was never, and still is not, a design or desire to assign each computer an entire /64 - that would make absolutely no sense nor have any real world practical value. If that were really the desire, they would have just stopped at 64-bits since there would be no need for further bits since each host would already have a unique id.

@AVonGauss:

@neo:

The encouragement is to use "more than /64" per site or network, specifically to allow assigning /64 to every computer. The idea is that computer will no longer have to use NAT for things like connected peripherals, VPN clients, virtualized services etc.
There was never, and still is not, a design or desire to assign each computer an entire /64 - that would make absolutely no sense nor have any real world practical value. If that were really the desire, they would have just stopped at 64-bits since there would be no need for further bits since each host would already have a unique id.
Did you read the text you replied to? Really? The "further bits" will be used to assign routable addresses to whatever this computer decides to assign them to, all the staff which currently gets NAT addresses, like connected peripherals, VPN clients, virtualized services etc.

Perhaps a few specific examples will be easier to understand. I run a few VMs on my desktop, for various reasons. Currently they all get NAT addresses from my computer. With this new setup my computer will be able to give them real routable addresses. I also sometimes connect IP capable peripherals to my desktop, things like mobile phones, and they also get NAT addresses from my computer. I also VPN into my computer sometimes, and guess what, I get NAT address from my computer again. I hope you got the idea…

@neo:

Did you read the text you replied to? Really? The "further bits" will be used to assign routable addresses to whatever this computer decides to assign them to, all the staff which currently gets NAT addresses, like connected peripherals, VPN clients, virtualized services etc.

Perhaps a few specific examples will be easier to understand. I run a few VMs on my desktop, for various reasons. Currently they all get NAT addresses from my computer. With this new setup my computer will be able to give them real routable addresses. I also sometimes connect IP capable peripherals to my desktop, things like mobile phones, and they also get NAT addresses from my computer. I also VPN into my computer sometimes, and guess what, I get NAT address from my computer again. I hope you got the idea…

I was being a little tongue and cheek, but no, I don't really undersand why you believe each computer needs a /64. You really are confusing sites (such as your residence) and computers. Most residential providers in the US seem to be leaning toward allocating a /64 to each residence, but even that is not solidified yet. Your home gateway (router) would manage or facilitate the propagation of addresses from your /64 allocation from the ISP, allowing your computer, devices, VMs all to obtain or derive their own IPv6 address (i.e. /128). If your computer is also your gateway, such as a cable modem plugged directly in to your computer you would need to perform additional configuration, but it would be much easier to buy a router.

@AVonGauss:

I don't really undersand why you believe each computer needs a /64.
I don't. Where did I say that? In fact, I specifically said I think 128-bit address scheme is a definite overkill. But that is what we have.

@AVonGauss:

Most residential providers in the US seem to be leaning toward allocating a /64 to each residence, but even that is not solidified yet.
No they don't. Most IPv6 ISPs allocate /48 to each residence. As recommended by relevant standards (previous version directly recommended /48, the recently updated version recommends more than /64 but not necessarily /48). The standard is very explicit in the part where it says every consumer site should get more than /64. Which allows every computer at that site to get /64.

@neo:

I don't. Where did I say that? In fact, I specifically said I think 128-bit address scheme is a definite overkill. But that is what we have.

About a page back…

@neo:

IPv6 was DESIGNED with the idea that every computer will get /64 address space.

@neo:

I think you are confused. The encouragement is to use "more than /64" per site or network, specifically to allow assigning /64 to every computer. The idea is that computer will no longer have to use NAT for things like connected peripherals, VPN clients, virtualized services etc.

@neo:

@AVonGauss:

Most residential providers in the US seem to be leaning toward allocating a /64 to each residence, but even that is not solidified yet.

No they don't. Most IPv6 ISPs allocate /48 to each residence. As recommended by relevant standards (previous version directly recommended /48, the recently updated version recommends more than /64 but not necessarily /48). The standard is very explicit in the part where it says every consumer site should get more than /64. Which allows every computer at that site to get /64.

Which ISPs, specifically, would you be referring to?

So these two statements are equivalent in your opinion:

1) IPv6 was DESIGNED with the idea that every computer will get /64 address space.

2) I believe each computer needs a /64 address space.

Really?

@vonskippy:

Some of you people are unbelievable.

I'm guessing 'caker' has a reliable xanax connection in order to keep the top of his head from blowing off dealing with some of you whiners.

IPv6 is no where near production ready. Leaving the Linode Data Center on IPv6 and you get to go where on native IPv6?

1 IPv6 is plenty to play with, and it's already been announced more will be available for a small administration fee.

Geesh people - what more do you want from a AFFORDABLE VPS host that provides top notch tech/service?
I have to agree with vonskippy. While I do know that IPv6 is the future of the internet, it seems that many think that the whole thing is going to collapse tomorrow if we don't all change right now.

I followed the other thread prior to the recent announcement that IPv6 was released on Linode. Man that thing was a MESS… And you know what? The Linode staff actually listened to everyone building their bomb shelters and arks, and gave everyone what they wanted.

Now people have the audacity to complain that they are only handing out one address per node for the time being? Give me a break…

I for one, want to thank you caker and the rest of the linode staff for your hard work. You really provide a great service, and I'm sure that I'm not the only grateful one. Thank you.

RFC3177 States:
> Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing guidelines

[RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as:

  • /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers

  • /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design

  • /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting.

Is a linode a device? Is a website or a mail server a device? Is it 'absolutely known' that nothing running on a linode could ever be considered a device?

In any case 1 IPv6 address is a billion times better than 0 IPv6 addresses. Shame I have to wait to get one in London.

I've got absolutely no problem with there just being one IPv6 address at first. After all, the primary reason to get IPv6 support in the near future is to begin testing compatibility, and after that, to maintain connectivity when the first IPv6-only hosts go online. However, I would eventually expect subnets (of whatever size) to be made available for free to all Linode customers.

I run a small VPN on my Linode, for example, which I use when I want to bounce my traffic through another country (the US), or when I'm on my laptop on an untrusted connection somewhere. It would be useful to have extra IPs so that each VPN tunnel can get its own routable IP. I can also see it being useful for other things.

Game servers don't strictly require different IPs, since the definition of a standard port is a bit looser with games (where the master server handles that normally regardless of port), but with the abundance of IPs in IPv6, that isn't an issue anymore (you can just throw IPs at individual servers). There's also SSL issues (the whole one-IP-per-site thing). I can see some other potential uses for having a large supply of IPs handy.

So, one IP per server is fine for now. Perhaps for the next year or two, even. But eventually, those subnets should be free.

It isn't fine at all. Assigning IP addresses in ones and twos is an IPv4 problem, one that shouldn't have to be dealt with.

Part of experimenting with IPv6 is having more addresses than you know what to do with assigned to you. That's when you can do "virtual hosting" properly, for one thing.

Over at SoftLayer, where I moved one of my services after growing it here first (thanks Linode!), I was one of the first to try their IPv6 support when it was still beta. My server was assigned a /64. That's still the default, and is as it should be.

Edit: in fact, my servers at Steadfast and at Wholesale Internet are all each assigned a /64.

@Xan:

Over at SoftLayer … my server was assigned a /64.

Same at bytemark.co.uk. I got a /64 on a virtual machine.

From my understanding of the allocation rules a /64 would seem to be normal.

If you haven't seen the Newark announcement and looked at the IPv6 page again, worth a look. Thank you Linode!

@caker:

You'll be able to have multiple pools of IPv6 addresses assigned to your account that are bound to a specific datacenter. These are inherently 'shared' across all your IPv6 enabled Linodes in that datacenter.
As promised. http://www.linode.com/IPv6/ has a little more info, but for now if you want a Pool assigned simply open a ticket.

Enjoy!

-Chris

@caker:

@caker:

You'll be able to have multiple pools of IPv6 addresses assigned to your account that are bound to a specific datacenter. These are inherently 'shared' across all your IPv6 enabled Linodes in that datacenter.
As promised. http://www.linode.com/IPv6/ has a little more info, but for now if you want a Pool assigned simply open a ticket.

Enjoy!

-Chris
Awesome.

@caker:

@caker:

You'll be able to have multiple pools of IPv6 addresses assigned to your account that are bound to a specific datacenter. These are inherently 'shared' across all your IPv6 enabled Linodes in that datacenter.
As promised. http://www.linode.com/IPv6/ has a little more info, but for now if you want a Pool assigned simply open a ticket.

Enjoy!

-Chris

Thanks a lot! Not to criticize or anything (he he), but I think the whole controversy could have been easily avoided if the initial announcement also stated "Additional IPv6 addresses are free".

Thanks again for a great work!

@caker:

As promised. http://www.linode.com/IPv6/ has a little more info, but for now if you want a Pool assigned simply open a ticket.

Enjoy!

-Chris

Wonderful! I might ask to move my Linode from London just so I can get on native IPv6 sooner.

I noticed today that the IPv6 FAQ page indicates that reverse DNS for IPv6 addresses has now been enabled. Yay! But in checking out the manager page it still seems oriented towards IPv4 only.

Is this just a case of the FAQ getting updated in advance of the manager or is there something I'm missing?

– David

Linode Staff

Remote Access subtab -> Reverse DNS. Then perform a forward lookup. It will present you with both A and AAAA results.

-Chris

@caker:

Remote Access subtab -> Reverse DNS. Then perform a forward lookup. It will present you with both A and AAAA results.

-Chris
Ah, I see. My bad for not experimenting more. I think I expected separate entry fields since I use different domains for IPv4 vs. IPv6, but it just takes any lookup response and matches on either (or presumably both) types. So my IPv6 name lookup only updates the AAAA reverse record and leaves the IPv4 address with its existing name. Nice.

Oh, and thanks on the IPv6 work to date too! It was nice (even for a very modest corporate site) to be able to have native IPv6 and participate in IPv6 day. Even if it does still take a long time for more prevalent use.

– David

Reply

Please enter an answer
Tips:

You can mention users to notify them: @username

You can use Markdown to format your question. For more examples see the Markdown Cheatsheet.

> I’m a blockquote.

I’m a blockquote.

[I'm a link] (https://www.google.com)

I'm a link

**I am bold** I am bold

*I am italicized* I am italicized

Community Code of Conduct