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.
Comments
They have an incompetently administered network from an abuse standpoint.
However, that's on purpose ($$), rather than a result of general stupidity.
Busted for running an exit node? The Tor people should really try to raise more awareness about this kind of thing. All they say is "DMCA safe harbor, bro" but of course that doesn't cover any legal issues other than copyright. Still, in the U.S. I don't think you can be found to have mens rea unless you were aware of a "high probability" of illegal use of your exit node.
No IPv6 support...
Now you're just looking for things to complain about.
Happened to me too once, but it hasn't happened recently.
Not really. It's not that hard to implement... they're just super lazy.
hack brand like cc. sell on dark place for spoof still. bad man.
Sure, it may be easy. But if a plan doesn't come with IPv6, that's that. Not something to complain about. Different situation if the plan-included IPv4 address you get is already banned left and right.
It's not about if it comes with a plan or not..it's not even the practical use of IPv6. It's about the fact that something so basic, is still pretty much nonexistent in 2015, almost 2016. The fact that it's been asked by a gallon of times for them to implement, and it's fallen on deaf ears.
But to each their own..agree to disagree.
How is ipv6 useful? Exactly. Its not. Its not falling on deaf ears. They're just smart enough to not spend money/time on implementing useless features. They're a budget host after all.
Uhmm, to connect to IPv6-only budget VPS instances, for example.
@miau
Send me your IP and I'll be happy to take a look at that.
You're welcome. https://tunnelbroker.net/
Ok, to connect to IPv6-only budget VPS without doing a whole bunch of work that you wouldn't need to do if you just had IPv6.
So you're asking ColoCrossing (a super budget provider) to do a whole bunch of work for you?
No, I think he is asking ColoCrossing (a super budget provider) to look at the calendar and see its mid 2015 and implement native IPv6 network wide.
I don't think that ColoCrossing is a super budget provider. They're also trying to serve that market, though that doesn't fill a whole DC. From what I understand, they have quite some enterprise clients as well and that's the problem with rolling out IPv6: those are usually not ready for IPv6.
I'm not trying to defend them or anything: my personal opinion is that IPv6 should have been rolled out long ago for those clients requesting it. Though I can understand it if it isn't rolled out for all clients right now.
Setting up a HE tunnel as an intermediary solution is really quite simple. I believe I've even written the tutorial on how to do it a while back. It shouldn't cost more than half an hour, or an hour for a whole bunch of servers.
Not sure if you're trolling or serious here.
Honestly im being serious. While its an unpopular stance here on LET, for most real world purposes IPv6 is still an afterthought.
As for the HE tunnel solution, can't the clients just do that themselves? Am I being ignorant here?
People can do HE tunnels themselves, but a lot of people don't want single-homed HE IPv6
As much as I do support IPv6, you are correct when you say that it is often an afterthought. I use it extensively behind dual stack proxies for game servers and web servers that I run, but I wouldn't start an IPv6 only website, for example, because adoption is so low. It does provide a cheap way to give services a dedicated IP address, which is nice for separation and documentation.
One small advantage is that IPv6 can tend to be better at peak times in some areas, as it typically is only routed through more modern and less congested routers.
This question is asked every now and then - this post summarizes it (though it seems VPSBoard has a new plugin, and it has messed up the post formatting...).
You're actually highlighting the issue with your stance right there. The fact that people consider it an afterthought is the root of the problem.
Consider what would happen if phone numbers or postal codes are about to run out, but nobody would be using the new phone number or postal code format. There would be some serious issues in that case.
The same with IPv6. If people won't adopt it before it's "too late" the issue will only be bigger when IPv4 are actually running out.
+1
Like what? You think the phone companies and the postal companies would just sit there losing money instead of rushing at speed-light to server their customers before the go to some up and coming competitor?
The ColoCrossing network is ready for ipv6. In fact we already announce it. We haven't rolled it out to customers yet because there are security concerns amongst others which we have to handle as to make sure we don't cause network interruptions in the process.
Things like automated network control, ddos protection, etc, are all issues still with ipv6. Consider this, if you're an enterprise medical customer of ColoCrossing, and the thought of ipv6 has never entered your mind, yet your services go down due to an ipv6 based security issue, you're not going to be happy.
What I'm trying to say is that it's a balancing act. We want to serve all aspects of our customer base and for that reason we are working to do just that, in time.
Then it's not ready, despite what you may think.
ColoCrossing still own LET?
In the case that you mentioned that your network is IPv6 ready, wouldnt you just be able to assign IPv6 connectivity to the clients who request it? I assume then all the public hate for lack of IPv6 will go away
HE does not allow more than 5 tunnels per user.
HE IPv6 is also missing routes to Cogent.
HE is simply NOT PRODUCTION READY does NOT PROVIDE ANY SLA and does NOT GUARANTEE anything.
ANY DATACENTER should have IPv6 by 2015 - CC HAS A /32 ALLOCATION and ALL THEIR UPSTREAMS SUPPORT IPv6 NATIVELY plus ALL THEIR ROUTERS HAVE NATIVE IPv6 SUPPORT.
There is NOT A SINGLE REASON for them TO NOT PROVIDE IPv6.
I don't think they would. Yet hosting companies (and more worryingly: ISPs) seem to be doing so.
You can get a /48 per tunnel and use one box (or router even) to distribute that across your nodes. That's about 65,000 /64s and should be enough for most hosts.
I agree with you that it's not perfect, but HE is just an example. You can also get a box elsewhere that supports IPv6 and tunnel it through that. That's a somewhat more time-consuming (and costly) option, though.
BuyVM managed to make it work from Buffalo and people were quite happy with that. I can't see why others cannot do the same (aside from perhaps not knowing how to).
Well, Jon just explained there is and it's hard to argue: some software is simply not ready for it and it could cause issues. So I can understand not enabling IPv6 for those customers. It should be that customer's loss, though.
I believe though that having "non-compatible" customers shouldn't mean they can't provide it to customers who are "compatible", like VPS providers.
Providing IPv6 != Configuring it by default. Further, no DC i know provides IPv6 by DHCP6/Autoconf anyway - it's always manual config.