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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Time4VPS clients wanting IPv6 - let them know!
texteditor
Member
in Providers
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".
Comments
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.
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
@Ympker Cut your sig and link amount in it please.
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
How else do you expect him to feed his pets without the returns from those affiliate links? :P
I won't open a ticket but reply to the forum thread and/or vote
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.
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
I would rather have them do KVM offerings first. But I signed the petition anyways.
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^^
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.
Whew, finally there's something we all can use as an excuse to put off deploying 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
Interested to see how many requests it will get now that it's pinned. The current ...7 isn't exactly a stampede.
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.
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.
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.
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
I don't really care much about IPv6 (but it nice to have)
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.
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:
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.
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
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
HTTP, FTP, OpenVPN, my home-brewed bittorrent large file synchronization system is built on IPv6-only builds of Hefur + btpd, SSH
/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)
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
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.
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