On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka <grzeg...@janoszka.pl> wrote:
> On 2014-06-17 21:46, David Conrad wrote: >>>>> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses. >>>> Wow. Harsh. I burn more than that just in my living room. >>> I don't think that is too harsh as all 8 are assigned to a single server. >>> So if I have three VPS's, I have 24 total addresses. >> In the case of my 3 VPS's, I've received /64s from both RootBSD.net and Arp >> Networks or 55,340,232,221,128,654,848 addresses. I'm not sure I see a >> rationale for assigning 8 addresses. That is, I could understand assigning a >> single address or a /64 but 8 addresses? I'd think that'd be more >> complicated/error prone than either the /128 or /64 options. A bit odd. > > There are still applications that break with subnet smaller than /64, so all > VPS providers probably have to use /64 addressing. > > /64 for one customer seems to be too much, on the other side 8 IP's can be > not enough in some cases. I think 65536 out of shared /64 for one server can > be enough. You can easily automate provisioning and reverse DNS assuming you > assign /112 for each server. > If you block SLAAC and provide connectivity to only the static IP's, your > abuse folks should appreciate it (yes, I know you can spoof v6). There's no problem with assigning at least a /64 per customer even for VPSs. There are plenty of /64s to go around. Please stop trying to push the IPv4 scarcity mentality into IPv6. Subnet where it makes sense to subnet and assign a /64 to each subnet, whether it has 2 hosts or 2,000 hosts does not matter. In reality, the difference in waste between a /64 with 2,000 hosts on it and a subnet with 2 hosts on it is less than 0.00001%. Owen
