<p><br>
On May 3, 2011 6:09 PM, "Jared Mauch" <<a href="mailto:jared@puck.nether.net">jared@puck.nether.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On May 3, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:<br>
><br>
> >> So, I'm at fault because my OS can only put a single /128 per jail()/prision and make a decision based on that?<br>
> ><br>
> > Very much appreciated that you use the feature but could you please stop<br>
> > confusing users with your imprecise comments. Thanks.<br>
> ><br>
> > That OS has been able to do more than a single address for a jail for<br>
> > v4 and v6 since May 2009 in any release (i.e. FreeBSD 7.2 and later and<br>
> > with that in all currently supported releases).<br>
> > Actually it has always been able to do more than a single /128 for<br>
> > IPv6 since IPv6 for jails has been supported. I am running jails<br>
> > with quite a few addresses.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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@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!".<br>
><br>
> Me? I say Kudos, Congratulations and more please!<br>
></p>
<p>Kudos indeed. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good. </p>
<p>Cb</p>
<p>> - Jared</p>