Credit to Digital Ocean for ipv6 offering
owen at delong.com
Tue Jun 17 21:09:21 UTC 2014
On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz at 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%.
More information about the NANOG