3 ms·
A _single_ v6 address? Are you serious? I guess we'll never get rid of NAT and other idiocy if people seriously allocate single IPv6 addresses to customers ...
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
A _single_ v6 address? Are you serious? I guess we'll never get rid of NAT and other idiocy if people seriously allocate single IPv6 addresses to customers ...
- neom 13y agoI'd eat my hat if it stays that way, as far as I know it's just while we test ipv6/deploy it to more regions, eventually we'll get with the program, so to speak. :D
- akerl_ 13y ago"initially". Take a deep breath.
- justincormack 13y agoA single IPv6 address suggests strongly that they are doing it completely wrong. A /64 is the equivalent of a single ipv4 address, and you should never be allocated less than this.
- agildehaus 13y agoLinode did the exact same thing with their IPv6 rollout.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y agoWell, and unless I am mistaken, they still route the larger subnets to your interface rather than to your machine? There it nothing wrong with testing stuff with "small" subnets, even if it may be a bit pointless, but my point is that a setup that provides you with a single address just has a structure that cannot really easily be changed in a sane way into a setup that provides you with larger subnets. A sane setup should use a transfer net on your interface, and should route your actual address space to your gateway address on that transfer net - otherwise you'll need ugly hacks such as proxy-NDP in order to be able to route addresses for sub-allocations. This flat setup without a transfer net was invented for IPv4 when IPv4 addresses became scarce, so it was a necessary evil, but it's a stupid setup that causes nothing but pain when you have billions of /64s available. That is the reason why I don't understand why anyone would even test with single-address allocations.