On May 3, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
> Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
> suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.
If you're doing it inside a VM, either real or pseudo-VM (eg: FreeBSD Jail), you can do this easily with your existing scaling systems. You likely want a globally routed IP that is easily reachable.
While many people are critical of IPv6 offerings, (I'm sure Owen will share your /128 fail thoughts) - the mere fact of offering it at all is a step in the right direction.
If you are a provider of IPv4 hosting, and can, Provide IPv6 alongside at the same time. On my personal side, I've made all my FreeBSD jails have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address. This does not mean you need to bind() to both, but it does make it possible to do an outbound connect(), and bind() when ready.
Bringing the connectivity to the host (network) and making it available is the first major step.
I'm not sure I would purchase colocation from anyone today that was unable to provide IPv6 on the same lan, even if it's some (ick) 6PE or (double-ick) tunnel.