Howdy, Stranger!

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

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
Time4VPS clients wanting IPv6 - let them know!
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Time4VPS clients wanting IPv6 - let them know!

Started a mini-petition over here on time4vps's community site:
https://community.time4vps.eu/discussion/107/petition-to-add-ipv6-modules

Time4VPS, as some of you might know, does not have IPv6 support, but currently also does not even include the OpenVZ IPv6 modules enabled that would allow tunnelbrokers to work. IPv6 is basically a necessity in 2016 going forward, so if you want them to support IPv6, post in that thread on their forums / this thread here / drop them a support ticket asking for it, since according to their staff the main reason for not having any support for it whatsoever is "lack of demand by users".

Thanked by 2Shot2 elgs

Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

«1

Comments

  • dailydaily Member
    edited July 2016

    texteditor said: IPv6 is basically a necessity in 2016 going forward

    Yeah.. I don't know man. I think it's lame they don't support it though.

  • The million dollar question is, is there demand for this? the answer right now for time4vps at least is no.

  • YmpkerYmpker Member

    @zafouhar said:
    The million dollar question is, is there demand for this? the answer right now for time4vps at least is no.

    As long as they have an IPv4 pool, the answer will probably be know. Yes, there might be some exeptions who want to make full use of IPv6 but I can see this being the minority. Anyway I will write a ticket or post there to help those who need it :)

  • bersybersy Member

    @Ympker Cut your sig and link amount in it please.

  • MikePTMikePT Member, Provider

    I'm unable to open the petition in my OPO. Will signup. I have a few clients (I'm a reseller) that want IPv6.

    Thanked by 2Ympker texteditor
  • @MrGeneral said:
    I'm unable to open the petition in my OPO. Will signup. I have a few clients (I'm a reseller) that want IPv6.

    to be honest, dropping a support ticket as a feature request might go pretty far too

    Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

  • K4Y5K4Y5 Member

    @bersy said:
    @Ympker Cut your sig and link amount in it please.

    How else do you expect him to feed his pets without the returns from those affiliate links? :P

  • MikePTMikePT Member, Provider

    @texteditor said:

    @MrGeneral said:
    I'm unable to open the petition in my OPO. Will signup. I have a few clients (I'm a reseller) that want IPv6.

    to be honest, dropping a support ticket as a feature request might go pretty far too

    I won't open a ticket but reply to the forum thread and/or vote

    Thanked by 1Ympker
  • bersybersy Member
    edited July 2016

    K4Y5 said: How else do you expect him to feed his pets without the returns from those affiliate links? :P

    I'm really OK with aff links, my pets are also hungry ;) It's a matter of rules and respect to LET members, that's all.

  • ZappieZappie Member, Provider

    https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/1413767/#Comment_1413962

    Seems that just "demand" wont cut it, you will need real demand :P

    Affordable VPS in Auckland, New Zealand and Johannesburg, South Africa . We take hosting seriously.

  • @Zappie said:
    https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/1413767/#Comment_1413962

    Seems that just "demand" wont cut it, you will need real demand :P

    This sounds like he hates IPv6

    Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

  • I would rather have them do KVM offerings first. But I signed the petition anyways.

  • YmpkerYmpker Member

    @K4Y5 said:

    @bersy said:
    @Ympker Cut your sig and link amount in it please.

    How else do you expect him to feed his pets without the returns from those affiliate links? :P

    You do realize that from all the links in my Sig only 1 is an affilate link?

  • dailydaily Member

    @Ympker said:

    @K4Y5 said:

    @bersy said:
    @Ympker Cut your sig and link amount in it please.

    How else do you expect him to feed his pets without the returns from those affiliate links? :P

    You do realize that from all the links in my Sig only 1 is an affilate link?

    Please read the rules here.

    Signatures may contain only text, with a maximum of two lines, and hyperlinks, with a maximum of three in total.

  • YmpkerYmpker Member
    edited July 2016

    @daily said:

    @Ympker said:

    @K4Y5 said:

    @bersy said:
    @Ympker Cut your sig and link amount in it please.

    How else do you expect him to feed his pets without the returns from those affiliate links? :P

    You do realize that from all the links in my Sig only 1 is an affilate link?

    Please read the rules here.

    Signatures may contain only text, with a maximum of two lines, and hyperlinks, with a maximum of three in total.

    Aight adjusted it^^

    Thanked by 1bersy
  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

    Could you perhaps justify the 'basically a necessity' statement?

    HE and cogent don't even communicate over IPv6 so it seems there are a few more fundamental issues to resolve before doing this at a host level.

    Thanked by 2deadbeef Setsura
  • rm_rm_ Member

    AnthonySmith said: HE and cogent don't even communicate over IPv6

    Whew, finally there's something we all can use as an excuse to put off deploying IPv6!

  • @texteditor said:

    @Zappie said:
    https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/1413767/#Comment_1413962

    Seems that just "demand" wont cut it, you will need real demand :P

    This sounds like he hates IPv6

    Doesn't prioritize resources on shitty request by a handful of people -> hater. Don't use logic too much, you'll be left with none... oh wait :D

    Interested to see how many requests it will get now that it's pinned. The current ...7 isn't exactly a stampede.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

    rm_ said: Whew, finally there's something we all can use as an excuse to put off deploying IPv6!

    Not at all, but going in at this level with a petition backed up by nothing but a broad statement seems a little odd to me.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • DigitalFyreDigitalFyre Member, Provider

    texteditor said: IPv6 is basically a necessity in 2016 going forward

    Honestly, IPv6 has been a necessity for quite a few years now. It's sad to see that some companies (big and small) still don't support it.

    Thanked by 2sin elgs
  • OnSebastianOnSebastian Member, Provider

    IPv6 should be provided by every hosting company for a few years already.

    In Germany even the big ISP's (like Telekom, Telefonica, ...) managed to add IPv6 support for their DSL/internet connections, so a hosting company not being able to support IPv6 for its customers as of today is mostly outdated in my opinion.

    Even if the host can't properly assign /64 IPv6-networks for the customers (based on any software limitations currently maybe) they should at least offer 1 or more IPv6 addresses with an option to assign more free of charge if required.

    Thanked by 1elgs

    OnVirt | VPS hosting with SSD storage & KVM. Privacy Protection, Made in Germany. | Featured on LowEndBox.com

  • tommytommy Member

    I've asking these question before, they said no ETA.

    Let's bet which dot-name will collapse first ;)

  • bersybersy Member
    edited July 2016

    tommy said: I've asking these question before, they said no ETA.

    Yep, they have been saying that since 2014 or even earlier.

    It's a shame, but if people really need IPv6, they can go elsewhere. Time4VPS probably doesn't lack for customers anyway.

    @OnSebastian A nice clean new website design, it seems blue palette is a webhosters trend nowadays :)

    Thanked by 1OnSebastian
  • tommytommy Member

    I don't really care much about IPv6 (but it nice to have) ;)

    Let's bet which dot-name will collapse first ;)

  • K4Y5K4Y5 Member

    What is all this fuss about petitioning a hosting company to implement IPv6, when the said company simply doesn't care about it? Has anyone bothered to think along the lines that maybe, just maybe, majority of the customers of said host simply don't care about it either?

    Just calm the fuck down and use services provided by other hosts that offer IPv6, if it is so darn important.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • time4vpstime4vps Member, Provider

    K4Y5 said: when the said company simply doesn't care about it

    We care. And we care a lot. This thread is bookmarked and we read given arguments for IPv6 very closely. Logic arguments and enough necessity may lead to faster IPv6 availability.

    At the moment most of our customers doing fine with IPv4 pool. It would be nice to see arguments for IPv6 with these questions answered:

    • What will you do with IPv6 that can't be done with IPv4?
    • How often do you use IPv6 on production environment?
    • For which service do you deploy IPv6?
    • Desirable IPv6 subnet (Example: /64)?

    Logic demand for certain features are ALWAYS implemented. Otherwise we will focus our energy on more important features such as KVM, server image clone etc.

    Time4VPS - time for your personal server

  • @time4vps said:

    K4Y5 said: when the said company simply doesn't care about it

    • What will you do with IPv6 that can't be done with IPv4?

    End-to-end connectivity without NAT, for one. Not everyone has an IPv4 address to their home, especially in less developed parts of the world

    • How often do you use IPv6 on production environment?

    It accounts for well more than half of my traffic, I run most network services that link nodes (including FTP, VPNs, and anything I can) over v6

    • For which service do you deploy IPv6?

    HTTP, FTP, OpenVPN, my home-brewed bittorrent large file synchronization system is built on IPv6-only builds of Hefur + btpd, SSH

    • Desirable IPv6 subnet (Example: /64)?

    /64 is what is recommended, but I can easily adapt to having just /128 if I have to (or, failing that, even a tunnelbroker would be nice)

    Thanked by 1rm_

    Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

  • tommytommy Member
    1. since I use ipv6 for vpn, I use to access my work and home server which in behind NAT.
    2. only few of my site had IPv6 enabled, since 99% of our local ISP didnt use IPv6,
    3. apache, nginx, openvpn
    4. /64 for sure.

    stats after running IPv6 for few years, my visitor never reach 5%, when I disable IPv6 for testing for few month, my visitor still same, I suspect since they use dual stack and Linux/Browser ipv6 first if failed fall back to ipv4.

    I prefer KVM on t4v more than ipv6

    Let's bet which dot-name will collapse first ;)

  • rm_rm_ Member
    edited July 2016

    My Tinc VPN cloud is IPv6-only for simplicity and security reasons, so whenever I get a random box without IPv6 it's always such a hassle to set up tunnels (and then those don't work reliably enough), etc, that I might as well not bother. Actually I won't, because all hosts I am now using long-term for important stuff do support IPv6, and it's just easier to avoid entirely those that don't.

    Thanked by 2Shot2 vimalware
  • @rm_ said:
    My Tinc VPN cloud is IPv6-only for simplicity and security reasons, so whenever I get a random box without IPv6 it's always such a hassle to set up tunnels

    Oh hey tinc-over-IPv6-as-a-backend buddy, I've have the same problem integrating a few hosts into my mesh due to the 'no IPv6 issue.

    It's frustrating because I like to deploy administration panels & RPC through tinc to nodes, and I always have to have one or two dual-stack nodes proxy traffic that can be latency sensitive

    Thanked by 1Shot2

    Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

  • sinsin Member

    @DigitalFyre said:

    texteditor said: IPv6 is basically a necessity in 2016 going forward

    Honestly, IPv6 has been a necessity for quite a few years now. It's sad to see that some companies (big and small) still don't support it.

    I'm very happy that Verizon FIOS just rolled out IPv6 here in Northern Virginia :) I get quite a few visitors via IPv6 on my sites as well.

  • Didn't someone on LET want to ban non IPv6 offers?

    Thanked by 1ErawanArifNugroho
  • raindog308raindog308 Moderator

    I'm perfectly happy with ipv4 from time4vps and don't care if they implement ipv6.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef

    For LET support, please visit the support desk.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

    whats this necessity nonsense?

    I like Ipv6 as much as the next man but someone needs to justify the 'necessity' beyond IPv4's running out please?

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • NeoonNeoon Member
    edited July 2016

    Who is even using Time4VPS?

    Didn't got a Kimsufi? has /64 IPv6 Subnet, best ever.

  • Gut feeling: time4vps rolls out ipv6 with the KVM launch.

    It's 2016 and a Half. (disclaimer: speculation.)

    @time4vps said: Otherwise we will focus our energy on more important features such as KVM, server image clone etc.

    Snapshots, YASS.

    Tired of LET scams?
    A Moderated forum : https://talk.lowendspirit.com/

  • @AnthonySmith said:
    whats this necessity nonsense?

    I like Ipv6 as much as the next man but someone needs to justify the 'necessity' beyond IPv4's running out please?

    Yes I agree, IPv6 is totally unnecessary if you don't count that one huge issue that it was designed to solve

    Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

  • tr1ckytr1cky Member

    As for me, I don't want ipv6 on my time4vps VPS.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef

    tsdns.io - free, redundant, DDoS-protected TSDNS

  • @raindog308 said:
    I'm perfectly happy with ipv4 from time4vps and don't care if they implement ipv6.

    +1. Build a useful feature first :)

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

    texteditor said: Yes I agree, IPv6 is totally unnecessary if you don't count that one huge issue that it was designed to solve

    I am not looking to pick a pointless fight, but if you have IPv4 then IPv6 is redundant, saying that it is pretty much a necessity with no further information is a bit weak imo.

    IPv6 is a business decision right now, not a necessity, if your petition had genuine use cases to illustrate why it is a necessity from a customer stand point and a fair percentage of them agree then fair enough.

    I offer IPv6 primary services myself so I do get it, but to be honest with around 5000 IPv6 primary containers deployed with only NAT IPv4 as a 'supplement' IPv6 use is still under 2% which if anything shows it absolutely is not necessary.

    But that was really the point of my question, just interested in why you think it is when hardly anyone actually uses it as a primary and globally its a pile of shit quite frankly.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • WilliamWilliam Member, Provider

    The logic in not having v6 if your upstream has it is... well... yea, there is none.

    I argue and argue and argue but some people are just not interested, even if you provide them tunnel, config and IP space as a one-stop solution for free.

    Does it make sense?

    Thanked by 1elgs
  • ShadeShade Member

    William said: Does it make sense?

    Nope.

    Hey there... nothing to see here

  • elgselgs Member

    I really don't see any reason that people are not using IPv6 today. IPv4 is not necessarily at all if everything is IPv6 enabled.

  • elgselgs Member

    @AnthonySmith said:
    whats this necessity nonsense?

    I like Ipv6 as much as the next man but someone needs to justify the 'necessity' beyond IPv4's running out please?

    My justification is that if your backend applications are connected with IPv6 network, it's a huge save of IPv4 cost. Think about it when you have hundreds or even thousands of nodes world wide.

  • elgselgs Member
    edited July 2016

    @time4vps said:
    We care. And we care a lot. This thread is bookmarked and we read given arguments for IPv6 very closely. Logic arguments and enough necessity may lead to faster IPv6 availability.

    Great to hear that you care.

    At the moment most of our customers doing fine with IPv4 pool. It would be nice to see arguments for IPv6 with these questions answered:

    I'm not one of them.

    • What will you do with IPv6 that can't be done with IPv4?

    All my applications and databases are connected with IPv6 network.

    • How often do you use IPv6 on production environment?

    All the time. We actually don't need IPv4 addresses for some services.

    • For which service do you deploy IPv6?

    Like the databases, and application servers that do not directly talk to the legacy IPv4 users.

    • Desirable IPv6 subnet (Example: /64)?

    A /128 is enough for a VPS.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

    elgs said: All my applications and databases are connected with IPv6 network.

    can be done on existing IPv4

    elgs said: All the time. We actually don't need IPv4 addresses for some services.

    But you could just as easy use IPv4 like 98% of others

    elgs said: Like the databases, and application servers that do not directly talk to the legacy IPv4 users.

    But if they were on IPv4 they would work just fine as well.

    elgs said: My justification is that if your backend applications are connected with IPv6 network, it's a huge save of IPv4 cost. Think about it when you have hundreds or even thousands of nodes world wide.

    What cost? there is no cost.

    What does cost money is the time it would take a company in man hours to implement IPv6 and potentially add more equipment and complexity.

    Again, I am not looking for a pointless fight, I push IPv6 myself but no one uses it and I am yet to hear a use case that shows it is necessary.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • rm_rm_ Member
    edited July 2016

    AnthonySmith said: can be done on existing IPv4

    You suggest him to spend time and effort migrating his infrastructure back to IPv4? Just to be able to also add a Time4vps box in there?

    AnthonySmith said: Again, I am not looking for a pointless fight

    Right, you're already fighting it -- spreading your anti-IPv6 FUD giving excuses for providers to delay adopting it.

    Thanked by 2elgs vimalware
  • @AnthonySmith said:

    What cost? there is no cost.

    What does cost money is the time it would take a company in man hours to implement IPv6 and potentially add more equipment and complexity.

    So you are actually arguing that customers should waste even more time retooling their setup for IPv4, multiplied by however many customers are in the same position, just so a provider can avoid implementing something they should have implemented a decade ago and will certainly have to get done in the next decade anyways?

    Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

    rm_ said: Right, you're already fighting it -- spreading your anti-IPv6 FUD giving excuses for providers to delay adopting it.

    Ok I am out, this complete lack of reason or logic is the problem imo.

    You really have no chance at convincing anyone if all you can do is take the school yard stance of I want it and anyone that disagrees is wrong.

  • @AnthonySmith said:

    rm_ said: Right, you're already fighting it -- spreading your anti-IPv6 FUD giving excuses for providers to delay adopting it.

    Ok I am out, this complete lack of reason or logic is the problem imo.

    You really have no chance at convincing anyone if all you can do is take the school yard stance of I want it and anyone that disagrees is wrong.

    Your response was literally "why should the provider put in the effort when all his cutomers can instead"

    You're the one who hurled reason and logic out of the thread

    Thanked by 1rm_

    Contractually bound by a verbal non-disclosure agreement

Sign In or Register to comment.