Howdy, Stranger!

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

How many ipv6 per client - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

How many ipv6 per client

2»

Comments

  • @HostEONS said:

    @LittleCreek said:
    I am about ready to offer ipv6 to clients but was wondering what is the typical number of ipv6 clients expect? I have a /64.

    We provide /64 per VPS but we allow only 50 IPv6 IP to be used from that /64 per VPS, as adding too many IPv6 can saturate your router/switch

    We ran into an issue with one client, he was running some IPv6 proxy or deamon - "ndppd" and it was causing pfem (the PFE manager) in our switch to crash, causing short outages, but then we instructed client to limit to 50 ipv6 and also restricted it on vps node and never had issues

    Most clients hardly use 1-2 IPv6 IP but even 1-2 abuse users can cause a lot of issues

    If you provide routed IPv6, the number of addresses in use would not affect the router in any way.
    Then, you can limit on-link IPv6 to one address only. It needs to be in another /64, which could be a link-local address.

    Thanked by 1brueggus

    The end is nigh for Ubuntu 16.04. Providers still offering Ubuntu 16.04 past EOL will be ashamed.

  • SpartanHostSpartanHost Member, Provider

    @yoursunny said:
    Let's ask @MaxKVM and @SpartanHost and @EvolutionHost why they don't have routed IPv6.

    Main goal for us was to allow it to be possible to move /64 subnets between VPS nodes in the same VLAN making routed IPv6 not possible but maybe no one cares about being able to keep the same IPv6 subnet if they're migrated to another VPS node? Certainly would be operationally easier on our end if we did routed IPv6 to each VPS node.

  • @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:
    Let's ask @MaxKVM and @SpartanHost and @EvolutionHost why they don't have routed IPv6.

    Main goal for us was to allow it to be possible to move /64 subnets between VPS nodes in the same VLAN making routed IPv6 not possible but maybe no one cares about being able to keep the same IPv6 subnet if they're migrated to another VPS node? Certainly would be operationally easier on our end if we did routed IPv6 to each VPS node.

    For many use cases, it is very important to keep the same IPv6 routed subnet during a live migration event. The subnet would be written into config files, DNS records, etc.
    Changing the IPv6 routed subnet is as bad as changing the IPv4 address - you have to schedule maintenance window, inform users in advance, and keep both subnets attached for a few days so that DNS updates take effect.

    The end is nigh for Ubuntu 16.04. Providers still offering Ubuntu 16.04 past EOL will be ashamed.

  • SpartanHostSpartanHost Member, Provider

    @yoursunny said:

    @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:
    Let's ask @MaxKVM and @SpartanHost and @EvolutionHost why they don't have routed IPv6.

    Main goal for us was to allow it to be possible to move /64 subnets between VPS nodes in the same VLAN making routed IPv6 not possible but maybe no one cares about being able to keep the same IPv6 subnet if they're migrated to another VPS node? Certainly would be operationally easier on our end if we did routed IPv6 to each VPS node.

    For many use cases, it is very important to keep the same IPv6 routed subnet during a live migration event. The subnet would be written into config files, DNS records, etc.
    Changing the IPv6 routed subnet is as bad as changing the IPv4 address - you have to schedule maintenance window, inform users in advance, and keep both subnets attached for a few days so that DNS updates take effect.

    There wouldn't really be any technical way to do that e.g. if we routed a /48 to a VPS node and gave each VPS a /64, it wouldn't be possible to migrate any /64s from that /48 to a different VPS node. I'm aware of setups where L3 is ran on the VPS node e.g. a BGP session back to the upstream L3/router which would allow migrating /64s between VPS nodes but Virtualizor doesn't natively support such a setup.

  • @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:

    @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:
    Let's ask @MaxKVM and @SpartanHost and @EvolutionHost why they don't have routed IPv6.

    Main goal for us was to allow it to be possible to move /64 subnets between VPS nodes in the same VLAN making routed IPv6 not possible but maybe no one cares about being able to keep the same IPv6 subnet if they're migrated to another VPS node? Certainly would be operationally easier on our end if we did routed IPv6 to each VPS node.

    For many use cases, it is very important to keep the same IPv6 routed subnet during a live migration event. The subnet would be written into config files, DNS records, etc.
    Changing the IPv6 routed subnet is as bad as changing the IPv4 address - you have to schedule maintenance window, inform users in advance, and keep both subnets attached for a few days so that DNS updates take effect.

    There wouldn't really be any technical way to do that e.g. if we routed a /48 to a VPS node and gave each VPS a /64, it wouldn't be possible to migrate any /64s from that /48 to a different VPS node. I'm aware of setups where L3 is ran on the VPS node e.g. a BGP session back to the upstream L3/router which would allow migrating /64s between VPS nodes but Virtualizor doesn't natively support such a setup.

    1. Don't route the /48.
    2. On L3 router: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the host node as nexthop. This can be automated by sending SSH or NETCONF commands to the router.
    3. On host node: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the VPS link local address as nexthop. This can be automated by executing ip route commands.

    Blame Virtualizor if certain feature is missing.

    The end is nigh for Ubuntu 16.04. Providers still offering Ubuntu 16.04 past EOL will be ashamed.

  • SpartanHostSpartanHost Member, Provider

    @yoursunny said:

    @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:

    @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:
    Let's ask @MaxKVM and @SpartanHost and @EvolutionHost why they don't have routed IPv6.

    Main goal for us was to allow it to be possible to move /64 subnets between VPS nodes in the same VLAN making routed IPv6 not possible but maybe no one cares about being able to keep the same IPv6 subnet if they're migrated to another VPS node? Certainly would be operationally easier on our end if we did routed IPv6 to each VPS node.

    For many use cases, it is very important to keep the same IPv6 routed subnet during a live migration event. The subnet would be written into config files, DNS records, etc.
    Changing the IPv6 routed subnet is as bad as changing the IPv4 address - you have to schedule maintenance window, inform users in advance, and keep both subnets attached for a few days so that DNS updates take effect.

    There wouldn't really be any technical way to do that e.g. if we routed a /48 to a VPS node and gave each VPS a /64, it wouldn't be possible to migrate any /64s from that /48 to a different VPS node. I'm aware of setups where L3 is ran on the VPS node e.g. a BGP session back to the upstream L3/router which would allow migrating /64s between VPS nodes but Virtualizor doesn't natively support such a setup.

    1. Don't route the /48.
    2. On L3 router: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the host node as nexthop. This can be automated by sending SSH or NETCONF commands to the router.
    3. On host node: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the VPS link local address as nexthop. This can be automated by executing ip route commands.

    Blame Virtualizor if certain feature is missing.

    What you mention did come to mind but sadly completely unsupported by Virtualizor so that's where we're let down.

  • brueggusbrueggus Member

    @yoursunny said:
    Blame Virtualizor if certain feature is missing.

    How long is your grace period until providers not offering routed subnets get added to the list?

    Thanked by 1yoursunny
  • @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:
    1. Don't route the /48.
    2. On L3 router: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the host node as nexthop. This can be automated by sending SSH or NETCONF commands to the router.
    3. On host node: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the VPS link local address as nexthop. This can be automated by executing ip route commands.

    Blame Virtualizor if certain feature is missing.

    What you mention did come to mind but sadly completely unsupported by Virtualizor so that's where we're let down.

    It's time to ditch Virtualizor and make new control software.
    Let's call it hyperbrueggus.


    @brueggus said:

    @yoursunny said:
    Blame Virtualizor if certain feature is missing.

    How long is your grace period until providers not offering routed subnets get added to the list?

    Do one thing at a time. It will take a while.

    1. I'll first wait for the top three in the current list (GitHub, Google, Oracle) to come off.
    2. There would be a new list for provider offering less than /64.
    3. Not offering routed subnets comes last.

    The end is nigh for Ubuntu 16.04. Providers still offering Ubuntu 16.04 past EOL will be ashamed.

  • /64 or /114, techncically you don't need more than a /114

    Will date ur mom 4 vps

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider

    @yoursunny said:

    @SpartanHost said:

    @yoursunny said:
    1. Don't route the /48.
    2. On L3 router: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the host node as nexthop. This can be automated by sending SSH or NETCONF commands to the router.
    3. On host node: setup one /64 route per VPS, with the VPS link local address as nexthop. This can be automated by executing ip route commands.

    Blame Virtualizor if certain feature is missing.

    What you mention did come to mind but sadly completely unsupported by Virtualizor so that's where we're let down.

    It's time to ditch Virtualizor and make new control software.
    Let's call it hyperbrueggus.


    @brueggus said:

    @yoursunny said:
    Blame Virtualizor if certain feature is missing.

    How long is your grace period until providers not offering routed subnets get added to the list?

    Do one thing at a time. It will take a while.

    1. I'll first wait for the top three in the current list (GitHub, Google, Oracle) to come off.
    2. There would be a new list for provider offering less than /64.
    3. Not offering routed subnets comes last.

    Are you mad or just fucking with people?

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Free DirectAdmin, Softaculous, & Blesta! / Anycast Support! / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
  • @duckeeyuck said: /64 or /114, techncically you don't need more than a /114

    Technically, but if even one person abuses their /114 then the whole /64 is blacklisted.

    @Francisco said: Are you mad or just fucking with people?

    Francisco

    He is never fucking with people it seems like. What he says is what he thinks too.

    Thanked by 2yoursunny ariq01

    My Blog rafalblog.xyz
    Contabo GmbH insanely cheap VPS |

Sign In or Register to comment.