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.
How many IPv6 addresses does a typical user need for daily use?
rafathossain
Member, Host Rep
in Help
Hello,
We are planning to provide our clients with IPv6. But, it's huge IP Space. What subnet should be perfect for regular use ? We were thinking of /112 but that's also huge, about 65536 /128 Usable Addresses.
Does really someone need that much usable IPs ?
Comments
@yoursunny
You are biased because with ipv4 there is scarcity so you have learnt to think in terms of number of ip addresses available. With ipv6 don't think in term of number of ip addresses. The length of an ipv6 address allows could stuff like SLAAC. Let your users have that. Give a /64.
Either /56 or /60 per server.
Protocol recommendation is /64 per subnet, but a server may need multiple subnets, for sub-delegation to VPN clients and containers.
Setup as a routed subnet, not on-link, so that your switch/router only has one or two entries, regardless of how many individual addresses are actively in use.
What you need its just 1 IPv4 , doesnt need IPV6 at all they suck.
I think the issue is more to do with what others do when blocking IPv6 addresses as they will usually block a whole /64. So by handing out a /64 to each users, they will be a lot less likely to be affected by the actions of other users.
Handing out /64s also helps with random IP scans.
Oh god, not again...
Another person counting individual /128s as if they were IPv4
No, people don't need that many IPs, but they may need just one /64, which is pretty much the same as one IPv4 address.
IPv4 perspective is entirely incorrect when considering IPv6. IPv6 differs from IPv4, don't look at it through the lens of old IPv4 perspectives.
Its design differs fundamentally. It's not about the number of individual /128 addresses or if you can't switch completely yet have in your mind something like /64 = one IPv4 address for easier transition.
You're not getting from your ISP 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, but one /64. Work with that.
That's also how the internet sees your IPv6. Do shit and your /64 will get banned, blacklisted, etc. Example: https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/combined-spam-sources-css/#css-how-handle-ipv6
I can go into detailed technical explanations why is that, but since we've done that hundreds of times before, I suggest you to browse it by yourself.
Can you just point (URL) that explanation ? I can read myself though
I can, but I won't. There are at least 10, if not more, discussions about this on LET. We go through this in cycles every few months. Find them by yourself.
Enter into google search something like:
site: lowendtalk.com /64 subnet(I don’t want to sound rude, but that's really tiresome...)
Maybe @rcy026 and @rm_ are willing to go through that again?
Sure.
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/108381/providers-please-assign-a-64-per-server-otherwise-your-ipv6-will-be-worthless/p1
https://slash64.net/
https://www.networkworld.com/article/742850/cisco-subnet-the-logic-of-bad-ipv6-address-management.html
Props for asking opinions and I won't waste time repeating what others have said but:
when I see a provider offering anything but a /64 (or larger) I immediately question what other aspects of your business you may be doing incorrectly and move on.
Just something to think about, or not.
42
this!
Hi,
a normal user needs 1 IPv6 address.
A power user ( running multiple docker container, VPN clients, instances of what ever, .... ) may need more IPs ( /64 is quiet much much much too big to be ever used ).
And users who are using it for commercial business related things or illegal / semi-illegal / dangerous for IP reputation things will need as much as they can get as cheap as they can get it.
Most providers will give a /64 network because its a senseful logical size ( just like /48 or /32 ) and because most providers will give a /64 network, most providers consider a /64 the pendent of a single IPv4 address ( which will be a topic if providers want to block/limit access to content ). -- Thats why very most customers who ask for > /64 network are either commercial users or simply doing something to dodge this blocks/limits.
/64 should be by LAW!
Oh, God... and you're an LIR? That's terrible.
Maybe you should read some of the posts or URLs above yours to learn the basics? IPv6 is not "one address". Forget the old IPv4 mindset- IPv6 works differently...
Hi,
i am sorry, but i can not read/get any bit of information from your lines.
If you disagree with my opinion, please point out with what exactly and why.
If this is not worth your time, then please allow me to ignore your writing as some troll spam.
Edit: I am perfectly willing to change my opinion if there are fact based information that rule my position nonsense or "terrible" :-)
Can you at least do some basic homework on what IPv6 is and how it works? RFCs exist for a reason.
That's absolutely not the reason why internet consider one /64 = one end user. Again, RFCs exist for a reason.
Hi,
i am sorry, but you just added 0 information to your previous message.
I am perfectly fine to be your easy prey. This is your perfect time to shine. All you need to do is to paste some real, useful information ( like the link to the RFC you refer to and the section ( or sentences where something is written that render my opinion wrong ).
Like: "according to RFC 1234 abc, section xyz its like Q > F, Z < Y and as a logical consequence your wanna-be knowledge sucks / is plain wrong".
If you cant do that / dont want to do that / no time / what ever, then all this messages about " you are terrible/stupid/not worth my time/do your home work/job/what ever" is just general troll bla bla.. nothing real based on nothing and just hot or even cold air.
Right now i can not judge if you are just a troll time waster or just someone who lacks of experience howto "win" a conversation in the sense of convincing others with fact based information to comply with your point of view.
It’s hard to make response to your post because it doesn't make any sense at all. It's as if you’re completely new to the hosting industry (which would be fine, but I think you're not). Are links people posted above you too hard to open? To grasp at least the basics.
Just look at this clueless nonsense: "Most providers will give a /64 network because its a senseful logical size ( just like /48 or /32 ) and because most providers will give a /64 network, most providers consider a /64 the pendent of a single IPv4 address"
Oh, so that's the reason why internet consider one /64 as one end user? And not because established and well elaborated RFC standards?
And wtf is "senseful logical size"?
Assigning a /64 prefix to an end user in IPv6 have sense because the IPv6 architecture and many of its core features are designed around this standard. Few examples:
Giving a /64 to end users isn't just a guideline - it's foundational to how IPv6 is designed to function efficiently and seamlessly. It's not IPv4. It works differently. Forget the old IPv4 mindset... We went at LET through this at least ten times. There are literally more than 10 threads where people have explained the logic behind /64 and how IPv6 works.
Hi,
thank you for some beef on the bones.
But actually i do not really understand your critics. Maybe my english just sucks ( for sure it does anyway hrhr ), but:
If:
i write: " its a senseful logical size " and
you write: " Assigning a /64 prefix to an end user in IPv6 have sense "
is in my little world just the same. I say its senseful ( full of sense ;-) ) and you write it "have sense".
I do actually see no difference in there ( except that you explained it more detail ). But i simply did not claim otherwise ( at least i did not want to ).
Maybe your problem is based on my statement "because most providers will give a /64 network, most providers consider a /64 the pendent of a single IPv4 address" but thats simply the truth, based on my experience and feedback from customers and other technicans.
People who are paid to filter traffic on a large scale like for example akamai will have to think about where a logical entity starts and where it ends. Since the IPs are the most clear factor, they must decide what a single entity is. Something within a /112 ? /32? /64? ... they decided to start at a /64 everything smaller will be automatically seen as the same entity/host. Something bigger "might" be a candidate for a bigger entity. And why did they go for at least /64? Because /64 is the ( like you already pointed it out ) standard.
Thats it. From my understanding this does not stand against your statement.
So, i dont see the problem here and why you think that i lack of knowledge ( while for sure its true that my knowledge in IPv6 could be for sure better ).
I believe it was ICANN recommendation to provide a /64 to consumers.
Hi,
thats actually a very nice reference for this topic.
I think at least @yoursunny will love this part:
So from what i read from this ripe document is, that /64 was choosen because of technical facts, similar to what @Mumbly pointed out.
At the same time there seems to be different opinions existing what to give to a single customer.
As it seems to me essentially the point is what customer we are talking about.
An endcustomer like a big company who goes finally IPv6 and needs to do proper subnetting..... or a 7$/year VPS customer who might not need proper subnetting...
That's a good read. It does make sense, if a provider can afford to handle /32 IPv4 to the customer then they should be able to handle gving out /48 IPv6 too and let the user enjoy how many subnets they want.
I'm still huge networking noob but I like to learn how it all works. Funnily I've been troubleshooting IPv6 connectivity problems with two hosts lately (with help of ChatGPT it's understandable even for me) and it turns out they switched to handing out /48 but the images or set up scripts seem to be for old way of /64. Sucks that the initial config was bad but props to @HostSlick and HT-Hosting that they are upgrading their IPv6 procedures to modern, generous standards.
Personally I got the impression that IPv6 is finally getting into shape to be used regularly in production, only few hosts are nowadays without IPv6 connectivity at all (thanks @yoursunny ?) even on the lowest plans and flash deals. And my home connection will soon get upgrade to modern fiber with IPv6 support it looks like. My phone operator already supports it.
The more IP you give to customers, the more they'll abuse them ...
It's not uncommon to want a larger block than a /64. My ISP at home provides a /56 to each customer, mainly to allow customers to subnet it. This lets you create up to 256 /64 subnets. I have a /64 subnet for my regular network, a separate /64 subnet for IoT devices that need internet access, and another /64 subnet for guest devices. Some ISPs provide a /60 which is usually sufficient - it allows up to 16 subnets.
No, that does not work this way. As long as you efficiently handle abuse cases (I mean not only complaints but ToS violation in general) and in timely manner, implementing preventive measures if possible, you are fine.