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.
Would you get a IPv6 ONLY VPS?
DataIdeas-Josh
Member, Patron Provider
Comments
I think an IPv6 ONLY server is a rung on the ladder down from a standard IPv6 + NAT IPv4, so it'd have to be priced accordingly. For perspective, the going rate is under 10 bucks a year.
Me, if so, it'd be because it was insanely cheap and had plenty of resources that would make it useful enough for me to bother with the "limits" of IPv6-only (simple things break)
If not, it's because you kinda still NEED to have access to IPv4. I know you could use some NAT64 type of DNS hackery, but it just kinda reinforces my belief that IPv6 is a compatibility hack for IPv4.
Hopefully that is taken as constructive and helps
If I had the choice between a v6 and v4 VPS at the same cost, then v4 every day, especially if the v4 comes with a v6
That being said, if there is a super-cheap v6, I would glady scoop it up. For web applications, v6 is fine behind CloudFlare even to v4-only customers, seedboxes/other uses are just fine too with only v6, so I don't see a reason to not switch other than habit of typing IPv4 addresses.
No. I have too many services that do not provide IPv6 that integrating two stacks becomes a pain. IPv4 is the common denominator.
Over time I will filter out those providers, but the reality is that my current IPv4-only services are cheaper than IPv6-only offers.
I love IPv6 but my ISP does not support them. Making every login on a Ipv6 only server hard. But if the provider provides a way I can access the server even if I only have Ipv4 that would be great.
Lucky for us now there is Cloudflare which makes everything okay.
Is there another alternative to cloudflare offering proxies so Ipv4 can access Ipv6 websites?
If the deal is right (i.e. better than a previous plan that sold for $12/yr for 500GB HDD), I would probably be happy to buy and idle.
That's the sorta thing I'm talking about. Give me 500GB, no, 1TB of storage for $12/year on IPv6-only and I'll be happy to compromise with the IPv6-only side... that's about the cap for me personally.
An IPv6 box with no IPv4 access whatsoever has limited usefulness.
If it has dedicated CPU cores, I can use it for continuous integration during software development.
If it has large amounts of RAM, I can use it for caching. It would be accessed from my other servers only.
If it has large amounts of HDD, I can run Nextcloud. My residence has HE tunnel so it's a direct access. When I'm elsewhere, I can dial into the house VPN.
I won't place my websites on such a box, even if Cloudflare would enable visitors to reach it. My websites rely on communicating with APIs, and not every API service have IPv6.
IPv6 only is useful for private server, like backup or database server
This. IPv6-only is fine for storage servers or backend services. For anything end user-facing IPv4 is still needed because of ISPs who got stuck in the 90s.
No, because there are too many ISPs that are providing IPv4 only.
for small vps mostly idle, ipv6 is a great option. Let's say in IP Cost $1.5 / month. If a VPS with IPV4 cost $2 / month, it means the difference ipv6 vs ipv4 is 75%.
But for production vps which require high performance vps, e.g. $20/ month vps, it's just a mere 12.5% difference. And it sure is not worth the trouble.
Because i mostly user high performance server, I would consider ipv6 only if there is a huge difference in pricing ( >$7 )
You could always cloudflare it. Cloudflare provider IPV4 -> IPV6 translation and have multiple ports for web services.
I tend to stay away from providers who do not have IPv6 connectivity. In my case I'd rather have IPv6 than IPv4. Should be cheaper, and I can always use a reverse proxy. (CloudFlare or nginx on a dual-stack server)
Having NAT IPv4 helps a lot for legacy websites, tho.
You can use a tunnel broker service, such as the popular one from HE. I would, however, change your OS settings so that it'll prefer IPv4 over IPv6, so that it doesn't attempt to route over the tunnel first instead of directly connecting via IPv4.
YES if thats is FREE Lifetime with high performance.
I'm lucky enough to have HE tunnel server within 2ms. I live in Gaithersburg MD and there's a tunnel server in Ashburn VA. Thus, IPv6 is as far as IPv4 for me.
A few drawbacks still:
I don't see a problem with IPv6 only. The only issue is with some internet providers not offering it, but nowadays we can configure a tunnel, or connect from another machine which offers IPv6 (like a NAT box).
I would actually love ip6 only vps for low cost vps only it should have a ip4 nat connectivity so, i can ssh (access)it from anywhere....
Sure.
Already have some. Always looking for more.
Considering here in Canada only 27% the Canadian network uses IPv6, I never would. I don't have a IPv6 address at home, and most people I know don't.
I already have servers that only provides services over ipv6, so it would not be a problem to run them without ipv4. Several of my hostnames only have AAAA pointers so they are not even reachable over ipv4.
But I think it depends a lot on where you do business, ipv6 usage seems to be much lower in the US compared to the EU. Most ISP's here in Scandinavia already runs full ipv6 in their networks so here it's basically a non-issue.
No.
I would, if it was to be a cheap backup server like the other guys mentioned.
I guess maybe some people use ipv6 only service to host dark web or even deep web. Just my 2 cents.
yes, I also has several IPv6 only servers. I also buy from providers that has IPv6.
Intresting i would say 67% indian networks use ipv6
It would be nice if a provider could provide a discount on their services if a user opts not to have IPv4.
Indian mobile networks, you mean. Wired is still stuck on v4, for the most part.
Absolutely No.
because it's a technical idiocy, it's impractical on multiple levels, plus I simply do not need 20 mio. or 20 bln. IP addresses.
Also it's the wrong approach. The right approach would be to use IP4 more reasonably and responsibly, e.g. by not letting have some colleges and corporations /8 to /16 spaces. Plus, one could switch the military to IPv6 (plus a /22 IP4 space for public facing services) and regain immense address spaces. Plus one could overhaul NS, in particular to provide an 'AP' record type (address plus port) which would be much simpler technically than IPv6 and would regain lots and lots of IP addresses too. Reason: Nowadays the approach of having fixed ports (e.g. 80 for http and 443 for https) is extremely wasteful. Going that route would effectively multiply the available IP4 space because a massive number of IP4 addresses are wasted for one to four services only.
So the real question should be "Would you get a VPS with 1 IP with 8 ports only if you could run any service on any port (e.g. https on port 12345)"? (You'd be able to get another 8 ports for e.g. $1 per year but only few would really need that).
My clear answer: YES absolutely.
Ports are wasteful indeed. Who needs 65536 addresses???
I only use port 0.
Other ports are for weaklings.