All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Do you use IPv6?
Hello fellow stoned people and not so stoned people!
I'm curious to know why IPv6 faces so much resistance from the masses? It seems that the general sentiment people have is "Meh, IPv6. Meh. Whatever." Some people actively disable IPv4 altogether in favor of IPv4 only.
I see some VPS providers require request by support ticket to enable IPv6, as in my case with RackNerd. I've to go through them, and can only get 100 IPv6 for my instance. I'm not criticising RN. Just curious what's up?
Some providers outright don't even offer IPv6. In this day and age, in my opinion, it pretty much ought to be a staple. Why wouldn't we provide IPv6? It's not like we're going to run out of them. Does it increase infrastructure costs to setup and/or provide routed ipv6 blocks to customers? I'm not familiar with the hosting business in this context.
TL;DR: Why don't you use IPv6 (if you don't)? If you turn off IPv6, why?
Thank you. Sincerely,
The stoned Guy
Comments
I've used IPv6 from the start of HE's free IPv6 tunnel. The first dual stack IPv4 + native IPv6 KVM VPS that I used was about 10 years ago. Thereafter, I preferred to choose a service having dual stack of IP. Until now, all of main optic-cable ISP's in my country use CGNAT, then hereby native IPv4 was the past. But, we/I have the new difficulties: roundtrip to my my ISP router is about 90ms to 900ms
What the hell config that ISP should do to have your IPv6-enabled services/apps gone smoothly to IPv6-enable clients/users, while IPv6 is easier to learn than IPv4?!
I've lost a hosting service that provides a /8 subnet of IPv6, as @yoursunny could prove this - malihosting.ml
Don't ask the reason anymore. Just a transition époque.
You ever just get so stoned that you're now more stoned than you were before that?
I'm pretty much always in favour of IPv6 but if I play devil's advocate for a moment, the main reason why a lot of providers won't bother offering it is because it's lots of effort expended for little gain.
99% of customers will not care if their VPS has IPv6 or not, and it's basically a whole other network to maintain, setup in images, give support for, etc.
Having it available in a ticket is like a compromise, the customers who really need IPv6 can have it and support is provided for those few, rather than going to the lengths of supporting it for every single customer. I pretty much always will inquire about IPv6 if its not there and usually get pretty positive responses saying yeah thats fine here's an IP and gateway
Should they be caring? In my opinion, maybe they should be. But I'm not a provider. They should make the decision that makes the most sense for their business and customer base. If they could implement it really easily and decided not to then I would definitely raise my eyebrows, but most of the time they have legitimate reasons for not putting in the effort and I'm okay with that.
It's you, again, the person who demanded for providers to advertise something they don't sell.
1. How could one "disable IPv4" while "in favor of IPv4 only"? Maybe in your country, the ethnic minorities are put into concentration camps in the name of love by Miniluv?
Edit 0:
Thanks for correction.
All problems you mentioned can be resolved with money. RackNerd's pricing is low-end, so I happily accept what they offer. If tremendous IPv6s are necessities, why not go to OVH, DigitalOcean or AWS? You won't be disappointed by the services you pay for.
IPv4 and IPv6 are incompatible with each other. As a result, it will take time and money to upgrade infrastructure. Even Google Cloud provides IPv6 in limited geo-locations. I've no prejudice against IPv6 as long as it works as good as IPv4.
It's a typo. People disable IPv6 in favor of IPv4.
Yes I use it, mobile networks make extensive use of it and the costs for IPv4 will force more and more usage.
This being said there were some problems with IPv6 implementation and still are today:
back in the old days IPv6 routing was always way below par/IPv4 routing, but even nowadays if there is a problem only with IPv6 it tends to get solved with less urgency than say if there is a problem with IPv4 routing;
tunnels are good to get started, but for the long term a full dual stack is needed and preferred of course;
look at the Disney+ thread and at what you sometimes experience with GitHub, where the CDN or some other part of the stack are IPv6 enabled, but the main app is not - it keeps giving you strange problems due to most operating systems preferring IPv6 (the newer protocol) over IPv4 (technically, the old protocol) when available etc.
IPv4 addresses are quite easy to remember, most IPv6 addresses are not.
In a certain sense IPv6 is not new, it is quite old by any internet standard. And it seems to share some of the things that slowed the initial adoption of DNSSEC, which BTW should be called DNSAUTH or similar.
Some will say that both IPv6 and DNSSEC are over-engineered, but it is not easy to make things right.
Last but not least there are the established, incumbent, old guard telcos and providers who sit on a lot of IPv4 space and there is only very little incentive to upgrade the networks to IPv6. It will be done faster and faster now, because the incentives are growing (IPv4 costs are high and real!) and the costs for fully implementing IPv6 are trending towards zero, especially if network gear has to be replaced anyway (and engineers trained for it).
What is really cool about IPv6 besides not needing (CG)NAT is the sheer size of it, while you scan the entire IPv4 internet in 30 minutes to a few hours, try to do that with IPv6 and you will see what a difference in size it is ;-)
YES!
Sadly none of my country's mobile networks uses IPv6. CGNAT all the way, for 171M active subscribers.
Same here
yes. In my country, the 2 main mobile/Fixed LTE networks give IPv6 and the only fiber ISP is in the process of rolling out IPv6.
I use IPv6 on all of my servers.
Yes, full support for IPv6. I quite like IPv6 and don't really understand the hate (dislike sure, but hate?)
I blame @jsg
ISP provides IPv6, many sites have IPv6, so... using it daily without even knowing it.
Because I don't need it. To me, it's useless (for now).
Not only do I use IPv6, I've been using Yggdrasil's experimental end-to-end encrypted IPv6 network in production for some things. https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/
If I need to move large files between geographically distant locations, I find that IPv6 is almost always a little bit faster.
Non-scientific test I ran the other day with a 5GB test file going to our NL location from a new (not yet public) Dallas, TX location we're testing:
Yggdrasil speeds are more on par with IPv4/v6 when not doing long hauls and greatly depends on what peers are used to get the data from Point A to Point B, though. Still pretty fast for what it is and it's stable enough that I feel comfortable using in some parts of our operation.
@yoursunny your competitor is here ! name-independent routing scheme!
LOL. What is his project? I've heard it mentioned but haven't seen it. I'd love to check it out and promote it if it's something we use.
If you want to use Yggdrasil, feel free to use our public peer nodes as shown on the page here: https://incognet.io/privacyprojects
I'm slowly starting to deploy it, but overall, my clients don't need it/want it, I have far more important things to deal with, and just really no demand.
Not for internal networking
Yes. And I actively avoid providers that don't have native v6 connectivity. Not having to mess around with NAT/port forwarding is awesome.
His project(s) do NDN6, (name-based) vs (name-independent), wow ! Take a brick to sit down seeing both of sides discuss, then.
Link: https://github.com/yoursunny/ndn6-tools
Yes. IPv4 over IPv6 DS-Lite
Not sure if it's a domestic only lame mechanism though since basically no foreign brand router supports it.
It improves my internet experience a lot.
Let me change the question a bit: Do you use IPv6 only? (for your VPSs)
Because, if you do, I might like IPv6 a bit better due to it freeing up IP4 addresses. But my hopes are low as I guess that most IPv6 users (on VPSs) have IP4 too.
I disable IPv6.
60% of my server infrastructure is IPv6-only ('cause it's not needed, may save a few bucks, makes things simpler to manage, and the logs less noisy
). And if these IPs are more useful somewhere else, e.g. to delay by a few hours the great ipv4 shortage, fine.
I even sometimes went as far as asking a nice provider to remove any IPv4 from a server or vps (not caring for a discount - I'm happy if the extra profit makes a great provider longer-lived).
Only 2 servers are dual-stack v4/v6 - one being the web-exposed frontend for obvious reasons, the other a v6+NATv4 dns recursor for the sake of simplicity.
FWIW pretty much all servers at Facebook are IPv6-only. No private (RFC1918) IPv4 addresses at all. The only IPv4 servers are at the very edge of the network, for non-IPv6-compatible clients. https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-study-facebook-moving-to-an-ipv6-only-internal-network/
I've got some "NAT" VPSes where I don't use the shared IPv4 at all, if that counts?
For me its IPv6 first IPv4 second. My whole home network and VPS is IPv6 ready. I get a /64 from my VPS provider and a /56 for my house. All my domains have their unique IPv6 address even SSH listens on a unique IPv6 address. Inbound home VPN is IPv6 only since IPv4 is constantly under attack.
Typo? ("IPv4 servers ... for non-IPv4-compatible clients")
Plus: So, did facebook return most of its IP4 ranges?
Sorry, no, doesn't count because simply not using IP4 addresses (as opposed to not holding them) doesn't free IP4 addresses. The "standard" case of what I was talking about would be "I use IPv6 only and returned all IP4 associated with my VM(s)".
Are you familiar with a company called ColoCrossing?