Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support

[Mark Smith]

On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:34:32 -0400
Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote:

> 
> On May 3, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> 
> > On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
> >> http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
> >> http://www.linode.com/IPv6/
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
> > suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.
> 
> If you're doing it inside a VM, either real or pseudo-VM (eg: FreeBSD Jail), you can do this easily with your existing scaling systems.  You likely want a globally routed IP that is easily reachable.
> 
> While many people are critical of IPv6 offerings, (I'm sure Owen will share your /128 fail thoughts) - the mere fact of offering it at all is a step in the right direction.
> 

Sometimes when things aren't done right, they do more damage than if
they weren't done at all. The fact they've created a special charge for
more than a single address creates an inherent demand for single address
sharing methods.

They should do the maths on how many individual IPv6
addresses they get for their annual RIR fee to see how silly they've
been by being unnecessarily precious about them.


> If you are a provider of IPv4 hosting, and can, Provide IPv6 alongside at the same time.  On my personal side, I've made all my FreeBSD jails have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address.  This does not mean you need to bind() to both, but it does make it possible to do an outbound connect(), and bind() when ready.
> 
> Bringing the connectivity to the host (network) and making it available is the first major step.
> 
> I'm not sure I would purchase colocation from anyone today that was unable to provide IPv6 on the same lan, even if it's some (ick) 6PE or (double-ick) tunnel.
> 
> - Jared