@timsan said:
It seems that IPv6 only vps services will become the next very big thing in the (inexpensive) VPS world.
I disagree. I don't think providers will ever do IPv6 only
Some of them already do.
People will buy it seeing the price tag, some things won't work because of it being IPv6 only and it will result in either tons of support tickets and refund or cancellation right away.
Or, you target customers that know what they are doing and understand what they are buying. I've been running ipv6 only for over a decade and have 30+ vps's with ipv6 only, I cant remember ever opening a ticket for any of them.
If you outsource support you're paying 3 USD per ticket. Leasing IPv4 from IPXO costs 0.35 USD per IP per month so yeah.. it really doesn't make sense.
Sell them without support then. It's just an additional step to scare away customers to stupid to run ipv6 only, so win-win.
Also if you're advertising on Google ads etc it might cost you 30 USD to get a customer. If having IPv6 only leads to worse user experience & higher cancellation rate it's not worth it there either.
Again, do not target customers that are not capable of running ipv6 only.
@DB_HTP said: @rcy026 I run IPv6 only where I don't need IPv4, like a website behind cloudflare proxy too.
@rcy026 said: Again, do not target customers that are not capable of running ipv6 only.
Yes. My argument is entirely built around your average joe, not specific IPv6 know-all people.
The average joe does not even know if he runs ipv6 or ip4 and he does not care as long as his phone shows the daily facetube videos or tiktoks or whatever.
People that rent servers are usually way above the average joe when it comes to technical skills and to be honest, they should know the difference between ipv6 and ip4 or they have no business running a server on the public internet. We seriously should stop adapting everything for idiots.
While most people in here know the difference some don't. If a provider could do something so that only experienced people who know what they're doing buys it then it makes sense.
@rcy026 said: We seriously should stop adapting everything for idiots.
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/how-to-update-packages-and-security-updates
+
countless of other posts with 1000+ upvotes on stackoverflow. I'm sure you could imagine yourself when you first started learning Linux. Having IPv4 + IPv6 surely made the whole ordeal easier. My point is a person like this wouldn't know the difference, they'd buy whatever was cheapest and then complain. Offering no support, no refund, sure that would help but they'd get bad reviews and people might see them in a bad way. Making the user experience better, even if it costs more for the provider is worth it in my opinion. There will always be that one guy.
From a providers standpoint user experience is #1. If dual stack could improve that experience then they will do it.
If I understand things correctly, the point of going IPv6-only VS dual stacking is to save costs? In that case:
Just ask yourself: Why are they offering PayPal when only accepting ACH or SEPA is cheaper? Or why do they spend money on a nice looking UI? The answer is always UX, and most of the time having a good UX pays for itself.
@DB_HTP said: Just ask yourself: Why are they offering PayPal when only accepting ACH or SEPA is cheaper?
There's really nothing to ask ourselves. Regular SEPA transfers are only processed during business hours and can take up to 24-48 hours to complete. There's something as SEPA instant payments, but not every bank supports it.
ACH debits, such as bill payments or withdrawals, generally take 1-3 days to process, while ACH credits, such as direct deposits or vendor payments, usually take one day to process.
Same-day ACH, which typically incurs an additional fee, processes on the same business day.
Furthermore, the seller would need both EU and US bank accounts to sell to the EU and US clientele.
@DB_HTP said:
While most people in here know the difference some don't. If a provider could do something so that only experienced people who know what they're doing buys it then it makes sense.
@rcy026 said: We seriously should stop adapting everything for idiots.
When I started with Linux ipv6 was not even a thing.
My point is a person like this wouldn't know the difference, they'd buy whatever was cheapest and then complain.
Absolutely correct, I have never questioned that. Believe me, I've been in the hosting industry for over 30 years, I know very well that idiots complain. The question is, should we design everything we do to fit those idiots and cater to their every wish, or should we simply state that there will always be idiots and move on?
I made the chose to not cater to people that buy whatever is cheapest and then complain, and it is the best choice I've ever made. Today I do not have to deal with customers that buys a $4/month unmanaged VPS and then complains and register a chargeback when the vps does not automatically install wordpress and walk their dog. This whole idea that what the customer thinks he is buying somehow is more important than what the provider actually sold him has to stop.
Offering no support, no refund, sure that would help but they'd get bad reviews and people might see them in a bad way. Making the user experience better, even if it costs more for the provider is worth it in my opinion. There will always be that one guy.
User experience or idiot experience? We have to draw the line somewhere.
A customer that buys a vps but do not understand the difference between ip4 and ipv6 can hardly qualify as even a user. If you have any valid reason, whatever simple it might be, to run and administer your own server on the public internet, then you know that difference. Otherwise your opinion on user experience is completely irrelevant, because you have no idea what you are dealing with anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a superior user experience as long as the user has somewhat reasonable expectations. What I'm trying to say is that if a customers buys peanuts and then complains that he did not get diamonds, the problem is not what the provider delivered, the problem is what the customer expected. The customer has a shitty user experience, yes, but that is only because he has no clue what he is doing and has nothing to do with the services provided.
From a providers standpoint user experience is #1. If dual stack could improve that experience then they will do it.
As every provider does today. You will find very few providers without ipv6.
If I understand things correctly, the point of going IPv6-only VS dual stacking is to save costs?
It's one of the reasons, yes. The fact that it is 2024 and ipv6 has been a standard for 30 years or so is another.
In that case:
Just ask yourself: Why are they offering PayPal when only accepting ACH or SEPA is cheaper?
I have absolutely no idea, and I do not understand why you are asking me?
Or why do they spend money on a nice looking UI? The answer is always UX, and most of the time having a good UX pays for itself.
I have no idea how this discussion came to be about UI? Have I ever questioned that a nice looking UI is a good thing? I usually strongly advocate nice UI's wherever possible.
My point was, and still is, that if a provider sells a VPS clearly stating "THIS VPS COMES WITH IPV6 ONLY" and a customer buys it and expects ip4, then the problem is not with the provider and they should in no way be held responsible. The customer is an idiot and if they are unsatisfied and wants to complain, then let them complain. You will never make a customer like that satisfied and we should all stop trying.
@DB_HTP said:
From a providers standpoint user experience is #1. If dual stack could improve that experience then they will do it.
As every provider does today. You will find very few providers without ipv6.
For VPS, IPv6 is somewhat more common nowadays, but look at mail or webhosting providers and IPv6 support is still fairly hard to find (mxroute is a good example here). And even if providers claim to support IPv6, it's very often just second class support (e.g. GreenCloudVPS doesn't support Reverse DNS for IPv6). Also, how do providers treat an IPv6 outage? Will this be as high priority to resolve as an IPv4 outage (will the provider even notice? Maybe their monitoring is IPv4 only?)
@DB_HTP said:
From a providers standpoint user experience is #1. If dual stack could improve that experience then they will do it.
As every provider does today. You will find very few providers without ipv6.
For VPS, IPv6 is somewhat more common nowadays, but look at mail or webhosting providers and IPv6 support is still fairly hard to find (mxroute is a good example here). And even if providers claim to support IPv6, it's very often just second class support (e.g. GreenCloudVPS doesn't support Reverse DNS for IPv6). Also, how do providers treat an IPv6 outage? Will this be as high priority to resolve as an IPv4 outage (will the provider even notice? Maybe their monitoring is IPv4 only?)
Depends on where you look.
Lowend, yes, many providers still treat ipv6 like an add-on "best effort" kind of service. Some, but not all. There are some serious providers even in the lowend market, and more and more providers seems to realize that they will have to run to ipv6 pretty soon.
Go highend and it's the other way around. Big hosting providers like Scaleway, AWS and many others are ipv6 first and ip4 second, often with an added cost if you want ip4. Global carriers encapsulate ip4 to move it over their ipv6 backbones, and a lot of cellphone networks have been ipv6 only for many years. Everything new is built with ipv6 and then you solve the ip4 connectivity with proxies or tunnels.
Comments
Some of them already do.
Or, you target customers that know what they are doing and understand what they are buying. I've been running ipv6 only for over a decade and have 30+ vps's with ipv6 only, I cant remember ever opening a ticket for any of them.
Sell them without support then. It's just an additional step to scare away customers to stupid to run ipv6 only, so win-win.
Again, do not target customers that are not capable of running ipv6 only.
Indeed; my main production stuff was v6-only for the last few years. The idea that v6 is somehow tricky or complicated is just absurd.
@rcy026 I run IPv6 only where I don't need IPv4, like a website behind cloudflare proxy too.
Yes. My argument is entirely built around your average joe, not specific IPv6 know-all people.
The average joe does not even know if he runs ipv6 or ip4 and he does not care as long as his phone shows the daily facetube videos or tiktoks or whatever.
People that rent servers are usually way above the average joe when it comes to technical skills and to be honest, they should know the difference between ipv6 and ip4 or they have no business running a server on the public internet. We seriously should stop adapting everything for idiots.
While most people in here know the difference some don't. If a provider could do something so that only experienced people who know what they're doing buys it then it makes sense.
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/how-to-update-packages-and-security-updates
+
countless of other posts with 1000+ upvotes on stackoverflow. I'm sure you could imagine yourself when you first started learning Linux. Having IPv4 + IPv6 surely made the whole ordeal easier. My point is a person like this wouldn't know the difference, they'd buy whatever was cheapest and then complain. Offering no support, no refund, sure that would help but they'd get bad reviews and people might see them in a bad way. Making the user experience better, even if it costs more for the provider is worth it in my opinion. There will always be that one guy.
From a providers standpoint user experience is #1. If dual stack could improve that experience then they will do it.
If I understand things correctly, the point of going IPv6-only VS dual stacking is to save costs? In that case:
Just ask yourself: Why are they offering PayPal when only accepting ACH or SEPA is cheaper? Or why do they spend money on a nice looking UI? The answer is always UX, and most of the time having a good UX pays for itself.
There's really nothing to ask ourselves. Regular SEPA transfers are only processed during business hours and can take up to 24-48 hours to complete. There's something as SEPA instant payments, but not every bank supports it.
ACH debits, such as bill payments or withdrawals, generally take 1-3 days to process, while ACH credits, such as direct deposits or vendor payments, usually take one day to process.
Same-day ACH, which typically incurs an additional fee, processes on the same business day.
Furthermore, the seller would need both EU and US bank accounts to sell to the EU and US clientele.
When I started with Linux ipv6 was not even a thing.
Absolutely correct, I have never questioned that. Believe me, I've been in the hosting industry for over 30 years, I know very well that idiots complain. The question is, should we design everything we do to fit those idiots and cater to their every wish, or should we simply state that there will always be idiots and move on?
I made the chose to not cater to people that buy whatever is cheapest and then complain, and it is the best choice I've ever made. Today I do not have to deal with customers that buys a $4/month unmanaged VPS and then complains and register a chargeback when the vps does not automatically install wordpress and walk their dog. This whole idea that what the customer thinks he is buying somehow is more important than what the provider actually sold him has to stop.
User experience or idiot experience? We have to draw the line somewhere.
A customer that buys a vps but do not understand the difference between ip4 and ipv6 can hardly qualify as even a user. If you have any valid reason, whatever simple it might be, to run and administer your own server on the public internet, then you know that difference. Otherwise your opinion on user experience is completely irrelevant, because you have no idea what you are dealing with anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a superior user experience as long as the user has somewhat reasonable expectations. What I'm trying to say is that if a customers buys peanuts and then complains that he did not get diamonds, the problem is not what the provider delivered, the problem is what the customer expected. The customer has a shitty user experience, yes, but that is only because he has no clue what he is doing and has nothing to do with the services provided.
As every provider does today. You will find very few providers without ipv6.
It's one of the reasons, yes. The fact that it is 2024 and ipv6 has been a standard for 30 years or so is another.
I have absolutely no idea, and I do not understand why you are asking me?
I have no idea how this discussion came to be about UI? Have I ever questioned that a nice looking UI is a good thing? I usually strongly advocate nice UI's wherever possible.
My point was, and still is, that if a provider sells a VPS clearly stating "THIS VPS COMES WITH IPV6 ONLY" and a customer buys it and expects ip4, then the problem is not with the provider and they should in no way be held responsible. The customer is an idiot and if they are unsatisfied and wants to complain, then let them complain. You will never make a customer like that satisfied and we should all stop trying.
For VPS, IPv6 is somewhat more common nowadays, but look at mail or webhosting providers and IPv6 support is still fairly hard to find (mxroute is a good example here). And even if providers claim to support IPv6, it's very often just second class support (e.g. GreenCloudVPS doesn't support Reverse DNS for IPv6). Also, how do providers treat an IPv6 outage? Will this be as high priority to resolve as an IPv4 outage (will the provider even notice? Maybe their monitoring is IPv4 only?)
Depends on where you look.
Lowend, yes, many providers still treat ipv6 like an add-on "best effort" kind of service. Some, but not all. There are some serious providers even in the lowend market, and more and more providers seems to realize that they will have to run to ipv6 pretty soon.
Go highend and it's the other way around. Big hosting providers like Scaleway, AWS and many others are ipv6 first and ip4 second, often with an added cost if you want ip4. Global carriers encapsulate ip4 to move it over their ipv6 backbones, and a lot of cellphone networks have been ipv6 only for many years. Everything new is built with ipv6 and then you solve the ip4 connectivity with proxies or tunnels.
Check this: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019/05/17/an-introduction-to-linux-virtual-interfaces-tunnels
ip6tnl will do
Only ipv6 is indeed more affordable. The prerequisite is bandwidth support. The network can sometimes be very fast but also slow.