How many IPv6 IPs do you really use.

DalekOfSkaro

So many providers will assign a full /64 to a 128 MB / 512 MB VPS. I find it weird because of the amount of IPs within a /64 Subnet.

Honestly, do you need all these IPs? Can be truly happy with 8, 16, or 32 IPv6 IPs on your small VM? I'm just curious why the waste of IPs?

Yes, IPv6's capacity is enormous, no question. But isn't it wasteful? I can see a /64 assigned to a dedicated server, for a dedicated server can do a whole lot more than just a small VM.

Please share your thoughts. I just want to know what everyone thinks about that.

0xdragon

One or two.

trewq

With the addressing standards a /64 subnet should be allocated to an end user.

Take a read through http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177

The basic principle is that there are so many possible addresses that the allocation you get will be more than enough.

But to answer your question, I use one for each service. So 200-300 as it's designed for.

Lixxx235

Define wasteful. :P unless you start assigning a IPv6 /64 subnet to each grain of sand on Earth, good luck running out of subnets :P
There are things built into IPv6 protocol that assumes each computer uses a /64. Don't ask me why or the technical details, but do a quick search on it and you'll be presented with about 20 RFCs on it.

Microlinux

@DalekOfSkaro said:
But isn't it wasteful?

No, it's not . IPv6 was designed to be used in this way. You have to throw everything you've learned about IPv4 out the window when you think about IPv6. The two addressing schemes have virtually nothing in common.

petris

As others have said, IPv6 was meant to contain more IPs than anyone will ever need (famous last words), even if only using 64 bits of address space. Therefore, no, being assigned a /64 is not wasteful, and is large enough to allow things such as stateless autoconfiguration.

Spirit

My standard copy/paste reply in every IPv6 subnetting related thread:

This has nothing to do with IPs wasting. People should get rid of looking at IPv6 from old IPv4 perspective.

/64 is the minimum for auto assignment/SLAAC autoconfigured VPN on IPv6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAAC#Stateless_address_autoconfiguration_.28SLAAC.29 the EUI-64 mechanism for stateless autoconfiguration of IPv6 addresses requires a subnet to have 64 bits. This means most, if not all subnets (except point-to-point links), will have a size of /64 in the future.

There could be also some other trivial but pretty realistic reasons like preventing k-lines at IRC networks because "too many connections globally" (all users from same /64 are usually considered as one user).
In case of spam no one block individual /128s but whole /64 subnet because again - /64 is considered as one end user.

SNetworks1

None, never used them, never needed too.

TheLonely

Used one in total over the ~10VMs/VPSs I own...

rm_

said: a /64 subnet should be allocated to an end user.

Exactly this. If you have others in the same /64 as you in IPv6, it's about the same as having people sharing the IP with you in IPv4. Expect to be spam-blacklisted, banned from Google for automated queries, banned from IRC networks and channels, all for actions of others. Because the world assumes that any given /64 is wholely under control of one user.

Fortunately this starts to be getting through to the providers, and now more and more switch from individual addresses to subnets. Helps that SolusVM has added the subnet support in a recent version too.

said: But isn't it wasteful?

When you people say that, I imagine if those IPs weren't assigned but given to you instead, you'd go and build a house out of them, or feed them to the hungry, or use them to cure Ebola. Seriously, it's IP addresses, they're supposed to be used on the Internet, according to the Internet standards. And unlike with IPv4, in IPv6 there's enough for everybody (no, really).

Personally I am using 3x/64 at home at the moment (I want my SLAAC working in all networks, thank you very much), tunneled from one of my servers. So the bare minimum I would consider is a /60 on a VPS or dedi, but for convenience and a bit of headroom, having a /56 would be fine. Online.net actually does this part very well, I get a /48 as a customer, and free to split it into smaller subnets to assign to my actual dedis, such as a /56 per server (and then route some of those further, if so desired).

princeshoko

meh. Kids today and their fancy IPv6's .

Microlinux

@DalekOfSkaro said:
can see a /64 assigned to a dedicated server, for a dedicated server can do a whole lot more than just a small VM.

Look at it this way, a /64 is 18 quintillion addresses. When you're working on that scale, the difference between a dedicated server and a VPS is immaterial . . . really the difference between anything is immaterial . . .

rm_

Microlinux said: Look at it this way, a /64 is 18 quintillion addresses.

No, don't. That's the basic blunder that leads to the whole "wasting" misconception.
A /64 is simply the minimum end-user subnet. One.
Counting individual IPs in it (not to mention using that number in advertising etc, as some clueless marketing drones do, "with us you get 18 bazzilion IPs!") is meaningless.

AutoSnipe

In total over all my machines i have more active ipv6 then ipv4's
average of 6 active for each personal server all for different purposes.

Sad thing when my router at home doesnt support ipv6. I should really upgrade one day.
(And my ISP has given me a /48 for home usage)

trewq

@AutoSnipe said:
(And my ISP has given me a /48 for home usage)

Who are you with?

AutoSnipe

@trewq Adam Internet/iinet
business plan at home scored me a /48

trewq

@AutoSnipe said:
trewq Adam Internet/iinet
business plan at home scored me a /48

Nice. Internode give you a /64 for your PPP session and a /56 for your LAN

0xdragon

@AutoSnipe said:
trewq Adam Internet/iinet
business plan at home scored me a /48

Urgh Adam Internet..

AutoSnipe

Hahah at least im not using telstras network.
And adam was the only one that would service out in Sellicks Beach

http://bgp.he.net/AS4739

Cheaper then Direct from internode. Same nodey goodness

cygni

Here is the summary for the /64 rationale:

  - it should be easy for an end site to obtain address space to
    number multiple subnets (i.e., a block larger than a single /64)
    and to support reasonable growth projections over long time
    periods (e.g., a decade or more).

  - the default assignment size should take into consideration the
    likelihood that an end site will have need for multiple subnets
    in the future and avoid the IPv4 practice of having frequent and
    continual justification for obtaining small amounts of
    additional space.

  - Although a /64 can (in theory) address an almost unlimited
    number of devices, sites should be given sufficient address
    space to be able to lay out subnets as appropriate, and not be
    forced to use address conservation techniques such as using
    bridging.  Whether or not bridging is an appropriate choice is
    an end site matter.

  - assigning a longer prefix to an end site, compared with the
    existing prefixes the end site already has assigned to it, is
    likely to increase operational costs and complexity for the end
    site, with insufficient benefit to anyone.

   - the operational considerations of managing and delegating the
     reverse DNS tree under ip6.arpa on nibble versus non-nibble
     boundaries should be given adequate consideration.

Two providers of mine only assign /112 blocks which one could argue is sufficient, one does not currently have IPV6, while the rest provide standard /64 subnets. My productive servers all are IPV6 ready, including dns and mail server. Fail2ban is configured on the servers currently to only deny /128 offending IPV6. Also, because the ISP here only supports IPV4, the router at home is setup with he.net IPV6 tunnel, a /48 block - doing my part to keep the ball rolling.

Spencer

It is hard to imagine how many ipv6 addresses there are, but this website does a great job trying to provide some stats on them http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6AddressSizeandAddressSpace-2.htm


The fact that really stands out to me is:

-The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If we had been assigning IPv6 addresses at a rate of 1 billion per second since the earth was formed, we would have by now used up less than one trillionth of the address space.



I can't comprehend how many that actually is. IPv6 address space is really that huge

kluncrit

32 ipv6 for irc vhost

Lixxx235

Heh, online.net gives a free /48 IIRC

vpsGOD

zero as of now

Rockster

Two for IRC vhost.

Microlinux

@rm_ said:
Counting individual IPs in it (not to mention using that number in advertising etc, as some clueless marketing drones do, "with us you get 18 bazzilion IPs!") is meaningless.

Yes, that's my point, because of the scale we're talking about, the number of individual addresses becomes meaningless.

msg7086

It's like saying 65535 ports per an IPv4 is wasteful since one would only use maybe 10 ports per a VM.

And OVH was doing this "right". They only assign you a single IPv6 but reserve the rest of /64 so others won't share the same subnet with you. Maybe you can consider this as un-wasteful.

mpkossen

It doesn't really matter how many you use. What matters is which devices you have to share it with.

Google, and I'm sure others with them, see a /64 as a single address and consider SPAM sent from any address in that range to be good enough of a reason to blacklist that entire range.

@Microlinux said:
No, it's not . IPv6 was designed to be used in this way. You have to throw everything you've learned about IPv4 out the window when you think about IPv6. The two addressing schemes have virtually nothing in common.

This ^

You could do the HE.net IPv6 certification, as it's a good learning process and will get you to read quite something about IPv6.

rm_

msg7086 said: And OVH was doing this "right". They only assign you a single IPv6 but reserve the rest of /64 so others won't share the same subnet with you. Maybe you can consider this as un-wasteful.

Certainly I wouldn't put OVH on the throne for this, sure putting everyone in separate /64s makes them fullfill the "customer separation" aspect, but there is no reason to officially permit to use only one IPv6 out of that /64, other than greed and a silly misguided attempt at "product segmentation" ("Can I get more than one IPv6?" staff on their forum: "-- if you need additional IPs, get a SoYouStart server"). I heard some people on KS consider using IPv6 NAT for their VMs due to this. And while the rest of the /64 can be used, that's not official, you get no rDNS, and technically can be banned from the service for using the IPs that are not assigned to you.

As mentioned above, Online.net does this right, a /48 per customer, no matter how many servers of which lineup they have.

0xdragon

There are a lot more IPv6 available than the number of atoms that make up the Earth.

DalekOfSkaro

Thank you all for your your thoughts. It's good to know what everyone thinks