Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Why so few VPS providers can do proper IPv6?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Why so few VPS providers can do proper IPv6?

The OpenVZ VPS with venet is just broken, nearly impossible to do anything networking related (if you ever need more than the venet interface), especially IPv6.. SolusVM does nothing but breaks whatever you are doing with IPv6....
But even for KVM, how often I see providers giving 2 x IPv6 addresses? They really have no idea how to do IPv6.... And when you ask them for a /64, they throw you all kinds of justification BS at you like you are trying to get an IPv4 /16 for ARIN....

Is there any VPS provider that can provide a routed /48 to the VPS?

Thanked by 1rm_
«1

Comments

  • Why not use he.net ipv6 tunnel.

    Ontopic, most people will not need anything bigger than a /64 if its just for a vps.

    Thanked by 1gibster
  • asdfljasfdlj said: Is there any VPS provider that can provide a routed /48 to the VPS?

    I can provide it, but have yet to meet anyone who needed more than a dozen /64, it is a VPS afterall

    Thanked by 1NexHost
  • deployvmdeployvm Member, Host Rep
    edited November 2015

    asdfljasfdlj said: But even for KVM, how often I see providers giving 2 x IPv6 addresses? They really have no idea how to do IPv6....

    SolusVM supports both individual IPv6 address and subnets for KVM.
    For my deployment in RU, I have only a /64 assigned to my rack. Assigning subnets such as /112 requires further configuration at the switch or you could possibly try a 'dirty' method of setting a default route. So, using individual addresses is the best option for me.

    I do have to say, that there are many addresses that will be unused and is not efficient at all.

    It really depends on the ISP and datacentre you work with.

  • Ideally native IPv6 is less hassle to deal with. MTU issues, HE's tunnel endpoints can get overloaded, DDoS'ed etc.. Those transition techniques should have been dead by now.

    Most people don't need 2GB of RAM, 100GB of disk, or 1TB of data

  • @miTgiB said:
    I can provide it, but have yet to meet anyone who needed more than a dozen /64, it is a VPS afterall

    If someone needs a dozen /64s, why not give them a larger prefix instead of discontinuous /64s? If the customer is requesting just a /64 every time, that's probably their own fault...

  • miTgiBmiTgiB Member
    edited November 2015

    asdfljasfdlj said: If someone needs a dozen /64s, why not give them a larger prefix instead of discontinuous /64s? If the customer is requesting just a /64 every time, that's probably their own fault...

    Why give them even more than they need? They requested a dozen /64, I provided a dozen /64 and the customer was happy. Even pointed their rDNS at their nameserver.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    People normally buy VPSs for their simplicity and not for complex networking configurations. People especially don't buy OpenVZ for any kind of advance networking because of the venet limitation (I've never used veth before and I've never seen a provider that offers it either).

    In reality, 99% of VPS providers cater to 99% of VPS clients. For the other 1% of clients, a dedicated server is probably more your thing.

    SolusVM originally only allowed assigning individual IPv6 addresses which is why we only provider 16 for each of our KVM VPSs by default, we would offer /64s or bigger but it would break our the primary service we offer (OpenVZ) so thanks to SolusVM's horrible original implementation we're stuck giving out individual IPs.

  • tehdantehdan Member
    edited November 2015

    Most people don't need all 65536 TCP/UDP ports an IPv4 can use. Why not artificially restrict the number of ports available 'because it's only a VPS'?

    Thanked by 1Shot2
  • tehdan said: Why not artificially restrict the number of ports available 'because it's only a VPS'?

    That's exactly what LowEndSpirit does, and it makes perfect sense to reduce costs.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep
    edited November 2015

    @singsing said:
    That's exactly what LowEndSpirit does, and it makes perfect sense to reduce costs.

    LES uses OpenVZ so it makes sense to limit the number of IPv6 unless clients want to be on a broken node (we set a hard limit of 128 IPs per VPS unless IPv6 is being greatly under utilized and then we'll raise it to 256 with a ticket but only on rare occasion). Then again I don't know if SolusVM enforces a limit or not so giving every LES VPS a /64 without any limits would make it really easy for one person to break some OpenVZ functionality.

  • tehdantehdan Member
    edited November 2015

    @singsing said:
    That's exactly what LowEndSpirit does, and it makes perfect sense to reduce costs.

    Yes that's a NAT, and they make it really clear it's not 'normal'. It makes sense because of the cost of ipv4.

    You don't need it with IPv6 - they are essentially free. A key design goal of IPv6 was to eliminate the need for Nat. One of the ways it does this is by making a /64 a standard allocation unit. Also iirc IPv6 Nat in Linux has never really been written because you don't need it.

    if someone selling s VPS with 1 IPv6 went to the lengths LES do to explain why only 1 IPv6 complicates your life then I'd have no problem with it (wouldn't buy their services since I could get IPv6 done right for the same price) .

    The frustration is providers who think they are doing it right, or worse still know it's wrong but think they can get away with it.

    There is a standard, it says give a /64 and you should. If you don't assign the full /64 to the VPS you should so least reserve it so your customers aren't getting screwed over. I understand @kujoe does this and I think it's a fair compromise on openvz as long as it's clear to your customer that's what they'll get.

  • tehdantehdan Member
    edited November 2015

    Whilst we're artificially restricting customers internet access for no good reason, did you know the IP header wastes 8 whole bytes for a protocol number - who on earth needs 255 different ip protocols?!

    Seriously - just drop anything that's not tcp or udp, and gre if they pay you far out the ass for it.

    Profit!!

  • tehdan said: did you know the IP header wastes 8 whole bytes for a protocol number - who on earth needs 255 different ip protocols?!

    Logic fail. "8 whole bytes" can represent up to 18446744073709551616 different protocols. I agree that that would be too many.

    Thanked by 1tehdan
  • You're right, I of course meant 8 bits :)

  • miTgiB said: I can provide it, but have yet to meet anyone who needed more than a dozen /64, it is a VPS afterall

    KuJoe said: giving every LES VPS a /64 without any limits would make it really easy for one person to break some OpenVZ functionality.

    The problem is not that any customer needs more than 128 IPs. The problem is that the IPs for all VPS's often/always are from the same /64.

    A /64 is the new 1 IPv4 and websites treat people from the same /64 as the same person (e.g. google).

    Thanked by 1tehdan
  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    Jack said: Curious on how it would break it?

    I'd rather not say on here because I know the kind of people who visit this forum. ;)

    4n0nx said: The problem is that the IPs for all VPS's often/always are from the same /64.

    I agree. A client should definitely get their own /64 of IPv6 even if they aren't able to use all of the IPs they should be able to pick the IPs they want from that /64 without having to share it with other clients.

    tehdan said: There is a standard, it says give a /64 and you should.

    I thought a /64 was the standard also but there was a recent thread on here where users were saying a /48 is standard and any provider giving out only a /64 to each client is wrong.

  • KuJoe said: I agree. A client should definitely get their own /64 of IPv6 even if they aren't able to use all of the IPs they should be able to pick the IPs they want from that /64 without having to share it with other clients.

    Oh, so you do it like that?

  • KuJoe said: I thought a /64 was the standard also but there was a recent thread on here where users were saying a /48 is standard and any provider giving out only a /64 to each client is wrong.

    I can't see the need for more than a /64 on a VPS. Unless it's for nested virtualization and additional clients that each need a /64.

    Having only a /64 for a rack as another poster mentioned though is ridiculous.

  • tehdantehdan Member
    edited November 2015

    Larger subnets are preferable according to the standards, but in fairness the standards do not cite $1/month vps's as a use case.

    Less than a reserved /64 per customer is broken. If you want/need to force your customers to use only certain ips from this you are at least not screwing them over. Ovh do this as well as @kujoe.

    A /48 is justifiable, but overkill in practice. Best practice IMO is to allocate people a /64 (or ideally slightly more) by default, and let people take more on request.

    hoarding mentality on the part of providers is misguided to the point of stupidity and you're best off looking for providers with a clue. Nobody will get rich off hoarded IPv6 in our lifetimes.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    If I could do things over I probably would assign a /40 per data center and a /56 per client but too late for that now. One of the downsides to getting into IPv6 so early I guess. :(

    @4n0nx said:
    Oh, so you do it like that?

    Yeah, our OpenVZ VPSs come with a /64 per client per location (meaning a client will share that /64 between all of their VPSs in that location, I did this because at the time I was writing Wyvern everybody was saying it's a /64 per client and not per device).

    @singsing said:
    Having only a /64 for a rack as another poster mentioned though is ridiculous.

    Yeah, especially since ISPs will be blocking /64s instead of individual IPs if I remember correctly.

  • tehdantehdan Member
    edited November 2015

    KuJoe said: I did this because at the time I was writing Wyvern everybody was saying it's a /64 per client and not per device).

    nothing authoritative has ever said this.

  • rm_rm_ IPv6 Advocate, Veteran
    edited November 2015

    @asdfljasfdlj I make a list of providers with proper IPv6 allocation, which are suitable for the purposes of personal IPv6 tunneling. It's in Russian so use Google Translate or just click through the provider website links.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    tehdan said: nothing authoritative has ever said this.

    At the time, a /64 was the recommendation per end-user though so I went based on that since there was nothing else to go off of.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    KuJoe said: People especially don't buy OpenVZ for any kind of advance networking because of the venet limitation (I've never used veth before and I've never seen a provider that offers it either).

    /me waves

    /* self promo */

    It's included if you do HA or anycast for us. We have a stallion update due this Winter that'll allow users to request routed subnets (next-hop a /64 to a /128, or even some IPV4) as well as BGP sessions.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1Shot2
  • @KuJoe said:
    At the time, a /64 was the recommendation per end-user though so I went based on that since there was nothing else to go off of.

    What is your source on this? It's simply not a reasonable interpretation or rfc's 3177 or 6177.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    @tehdan said:

    I am not a networking person so everything I know about IPv6 I learned from LET and a few Google searches here and there when I didn't understand what people were talking about here. When I was in college 4-5 years ago IPv6 was never even mentioned in any of my networking classes so it's still relatively new to me. As for RFCs, no clue.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • asdfljasfdljasdfljasfdlj Member
    edited November 2015

    @tehdan said:
    Whilst we're artificially restricting customers internet access for no good reason, did you know the IP header wastes 8 whole bytes for a protocol number - who on earth needs 255 different ip protocols?!

    Seriously - just drop anything that's not tcp or udp, and gre if they pay you far out the ass for it.

    Profit!!

    You wonder why the Internet is so broken? People are dropping ICMP/ICMPv6 for no reason

    Thanked by 1rm_
  • @asdfljasfdlj said:
    You wonder why the Internet is so broken? People are dropping ICMP/ICMPv6 for no reason

    And selling it as premium 100GBps DDOS protection :(

    Thanked by 2asdfljasfdlj tux
  • @Francisco said:
    as well as BGP sessions

    If you do this, you'll have me back as a customer in less than a heartbeat.

    Thanked by 1Francisco
  • @0xdragon said:
    If you do this, you'll have me back as a customer in less than a heartbeat.

    +1 on that!

    Thanked by 1Francisco
Sign In or Register to comment.