Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at
Wed May 4 03:15:13 CEST 2011

On May 3, 2011 6:09 PM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at> wrote:
> On May 3, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >> So, I'm at fault because my OS can only put a single /128 per
jail()/prision and make a decision based on that?
> >
> > Very much appreciated that you use the feature but could you please stop
> > confusing users with your imprecise comments.  Thanks.
> >
> > That OS has been able to do more than a single address for a jail for
> > v4 and v6 since May 2009 in any release (i.e. FreeBSD 7.2 and later and
> > with that in all currently supported releases).
> > Actually it has always been able to do more than a single /128 for
> > IPv6 since IPv6 for jails has been supported.  I am running jails
> > with quite a few addresses.
> Sorry about that, while my statements are imprecise, (ie: you can bind to
multiple ips per prision/jail()) you can not bind to a larger subnet.
> My frustration is that in the VPS universe, having a single IP per nlri is
an excellent starting point.  I am suspicious of people who want to assign
2^64 to a a host "because you can".  Next time I need to inflict some pain
in myself I will take this over to ipv6 at ietf.  I see many people (including
those internal to my employer) getting wrapped around the axle on making the
prefect the enemy of the good.  While I'm upset about the state of the IPv6
internet as it exists today, I do hope that we are going to see continued
progress in the right direction.  This announcement is a clear case of
someone making progress and I've seen people complain about how a 3rd party
deployed IPv6 instead of saying "Kudos!".
> Me? I say Kudos, Congratulations and more please!

Kudos indeed.  Let's not make perfect the enemy of good.


> - Jared
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list