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...

Edited.

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.

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.


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.

About a page back...







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?

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:


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.

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!

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.

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!