@somik said: Lets say each VM is to be assigned a /64 range. thæn any dedicated server i order should come with /56 or /48 IPv6 range?
EXACTLY!! many dedi offers comes with /56 or more!
What about 2nd level sellers? Sellers who buy a KVM and host multiple LXC containers and sell each? Should each LXC come with a /64 as well? thæn assigning a /64 to a VM is not enough. What range should the dedicated server hosing KVM be assigned? Where does it stop?
They should go get at least a /48. It is not expensive compared to what they charge for a /32 IPv4.
If you own an ASN and look around, you can easily find people who are willing to give you /48s for free as well.
The cost of IPv6 is peanuts.
And this is why many providers are still not opting in to IPv6... Cause the "standardization" is not there yet. Everyone has different expectations and requirements. So best to wait it out till a consensus is reached.
Anyway, you can always go with dedicated server providers who offer /48 IPv6, while I will always choose providers who offer /64 without worries.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
@terrorgen totally understand what you are saying but to me it just seems like 'we' are just wasting v6 like 'we' initially wasted v4.
@msatt said: Perhaps I am missing something here - appreciate supposed routing being simpler and mapping mac to a v6 subnet, but are they the real reasons or are they invented because we have the IP space?
@msatt said: @terrorgen totally understand what you are saying but to me it just seems like 'we' are just wasting v6 like 'we' initially wasted v4.
@msatt said: Perhaps I am missing something here - appreciate supposed routing being simpler and mapping mac to a v6 subnet, but are they the real reasons or are they invented because we have the IP space?
@msatt IPv6 is supposed to have a /64 for "each" end network. Meaning the last link in the IPv6 chain is supposed to have a /64 range, with it going up for each of it's parent network. This is what @terrorgen is trying to say. We are not "wasting" it per say. It is how it was designed to be used.
There are 18.4 quintillion IPv6 IPs in each /64 network and there are also a total of 18.4 quintillion IPv6 /64 subnets. We are not going to run out anytime soon. It's just that due to the "fear of running out" caused by IPv4, most network providers are limiting the subnets assigned. As I said earlier,
And this is why many providers are still not opting in to IPv6... Cause the "standardization" is not there yet. Everyone has different expectations and requirements. So best to wait it out till a consensus is reached.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
@somik said: @msatt IPv6 is supposed to have a /64 for "each" end network. Meaning the last link in the IPv6 chain is supposed to have a /64 range, with it going up for each of it's parent network. This is what @terrorgen is trying to say. We are not "wasting" it per say. It is how it was designed to be used.
So a single VPS is considered an 'end network' ?
I agree it could be running its own hypervisor (as we do) and given a /64, we then allocate /96 subnets to our clients.
Understood about the amount of V6 ips available but for me (as a provider) a /96 to a client is perfectly adequate and as mentioned, there have been no pushbacks.
@somik said: @msatt IPv6 is supposed to have a /64 for "each" end network. Meaning the last link in the IPv6 chain is supposed to have a /64 range, with it going up for each of it's parent network. This is what @terrorgen is trying to say. We are not "wasting" it per say. It is how it was designed to be used.
So a single VPS is considered an 'end network' ?
Technically, yes, since you want each client to be on their "own" network. So it's not that "each vps is considered an end network" but more like "each client is provided with an end network". It's always easier to assign network by vps rather thæn by client.
@msatt said:
I agree it could be running its own hypervisor (as we do) and given a /64, we thæn allocate /96 subnets to our clients.
Understood about the amount of V6 ips available but for me (as a provider) a /96 to a client is perfectly adequate and as mentioned, there have been no pushbacks.
As I said, if it was me, I would be happy with a single IPv6 IP cause that's all i need on 1 VPS. So providing them with more options is not a bad thing.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
@somik said: And this is why many providers are still not opting in to IPv6... Cause the "standardization" is not there yet. Everyone has different expectations and requirements. So best to wait it out till a consensus is reached.
Welp, the minimum is /64 and you agreed, so providers should give out /64 at a minimum, more with justification.
Oh you bu..er you mentioned that dangerous name. I thought I had avoided trouble - we do have working v6 and /64 honest !!!!
At least I have control of who has access to our VMs.
@somik - From previous comments, I think we pretty much agree that IPv6 use in some areas is just stupid.
@somik said: And this is why many providers are still not opting in to IPv6... Cause the "standardization" is not there yet. Everyone has different expectations and requirements. So best to wait it out till a consensus is reached.
Welp, the minimum is /64 and you agreed, so providers should give out /64 at a minimum, more with justification.
Comments
And this is why many providers are still not opting in to IPv6... Cause the "standardization" is not there yet. Everyone has different expectations and requirements. So best to wait it out till a consensus is reached.
Anyway, you can always go with dedicated server providers who offer /48 IPv6, while I will always choose providers who offer /64 without worries.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
@terrorgen totally understand what you are saying but to me it just seems like 'we' are just wasting v6 like 'we' initially wasted v4.
Get your FREE VPS if you develop Open Source software
@msatt IPv6 is supposed to have a /64 for "each" end network. Meaning the last link in the IPv6 chain is supposed to have a /64 range, with it going up for each of it's parent network. This is what @terrorgen is trying to say. We are not "wasting" it per say. It is how it was designed to be used.
There are 18.4 quintillion IPv6 IPs in each /64 network and there are also a total of 18.4 quintillion IPv6 /64 subnets. We are not going to run out anytime soon. It's just that due to the "fear of running out" caused by IPv4, most network providers are limiting the subnets assigned. As I said earlier,
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
So a single VPS is considered an 'end network' ?
I agree it could be running its own hypervisor (as we do) and given a /64, we then allocate /96 subnets to our clients.
Understood about the amount of V6 ips available but for me (as a provider) a /96 to a client is perfectly adequate and as mentioned, there have been no pushbacks.
Get your FREE VPS if you develop Open Source software
Technically, yes, since you want each client to be on their "own" network. So it's not that "each vps is considered an end network" but more like "each client is provided with an end network". It's always easier to assign network by vps rather thæn by client.
As I said, if it was me, I would be happy with a single IPv6 IP cause that's all i need on 1 VPS. So providing them with more options is not a bad thing.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
Welp, the minimum is /64 and you agreed, so providers should give out /64 at a minimum, more with justification.
Some ISPs give out /60 without asking.
Because you don't have @yoursunny as tenant.
We're the source, no cap. Address us: We/Our/Ours.
https://lowendspirit.com/discussion/comment/221016/#Comment_221016
Oh you bu..er
you mentioned that dangerous name. I thought I had avoided trouble - we do have working v6 and /64 honest !!!!
At least I have control of who has access to our VMs.
@somik - From previous comments, I think we pretty much agree that IPv6 use in some areas is just stupid.
Get your FREE VPS if you develop Open Source software
https://lowendspirit.com/discussion/comment/224842/#Comment_224842
We are known to be "dangerous". affbrr