HostDZire IPv6 Allocation Violation: Service Terminated After Configuration Error

xvps · 1:00PM

@HostDZire said:
BTW, I voted to: HostDZire was wrong
Because, as we all know, the provider is always wrong

You should provoke some more, because what is holding bad actors back from buying services during your next Black Friday sale, hijacking others' IP addresses, and then sitting back and laughing at all the drama when the wrong customers get blamed and kicked for abuse?

Flanker · 1:01PM

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

colony · 1:06PM

Awesome, it's time for my favorite HostDzire discussion again.

tzuli · 1:08PM

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

Mainfrezzer · 1:11PM

Hilarious. Love it. How the fuck can you illegally use an IP address. Cinema. My need for information has been fulfilled.

Flanker · 1:13PM

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

HostDZire · 1:14PM

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

Flanker · 1:18PM

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

Mainfrezzer · 1:18PM

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

Honestly. Customers being able to assign unrelated ipv6 addresses speaks more volumes about your setup than it does about anything else. Then calling the discovery of those holes abuse, Holy moly.

HostDZire · 1:19PM

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

Flanker · 1:24PM

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Void · 1:25PM

Yeah right, how dare they kick you out with a refund for trying IPv6 spoofing.

HostDZire · 1:26PM

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

Flanker · 1:30PM

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

HostDZire · 1:31PM

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

kintaro · 1:32PM

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

I think hes most likely implying the IPs you have used were not even close to the range that was assigned

barbaros · 1:34PM

OK, I will buy an Amsterdam deal from @HostDZire if he gets rid of @Flanker as their customer.

Let's add some fuel to the popcorn.

Murv · 1:35PM

@barbaros said: Let's add some fuel to the popcorn.

Popcorn with fuel doesn't sound too healthy

Flanker · 1:35PM

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

I think hes most likely implying the IPs you have used were not even close to the range that was assigned

Yes, that's essentially what happened.

I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses from a completely different range, well outside my assigned allocation. However, the network connectivity actually worked, so I didn't notice anything unusual at the time.

That was my incorrect assumption and my configuration mistake. I take full responsibility for it and have never denied that.

I'm not trying to justify the misconfiguration. I'm simply explaining how it happened.

kintaro · 1:36PM

@Flanker said:

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

I think hes most likely implying the IPs you have used were not even close to the range that was assigned

Yes, that's essentially what happened.

I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses from a completely different range, well outside my assigned allocation. However, the network connectivity actually worked, so I didn't notice anything unusual at the time.

That was my incorrect assumption and my configuration mistake. I take full responsibility for it and have never denied that.

I'm not trying to justify the misconfiguration. I'm simply explaining how it happened.

So you knew you had assigned IPs you shouldnt have and "assumed" it was fine.

barbaros · 1:36PM

@Murv said:

@barbaros said: Let's add some fuel to the popcorn.

Popcorn with fuel doesn't sound too healthy

How about some butter on it instead?

xvps · 1:41PM

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

I think hes most likely implying the IPs you have used were not even close to the range that was assigned

Yes, that's essentially what happened.

I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses from a completely different range, well outside my assigned allocation. However, the network connectivity actually worked, so I didn't notice anything unusual at the time.

That was my incorrect assumption and my configuration mistake. I take full responsibility for it and have never denied that.

I'm not trying to justify the misconfiguration. I'm simply explaining how it happened.

So you knew you had assigned IPs you shouldnt have and "assumed" it was fine.

No, he is writing that he by accident used the wrong IPs, and since it worked he didn't noticed anything wrong.

Flanker · 1:42PM

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

I think hes most likely implying the IPs you have used were not even close to the range that was assigned

Yes, that's essentially what happened.

I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses from a completely different range, well outside my assigned allocation. However, the network connectivity actually worked, so I didn't notice anything unusual at the time.

That was my incorrect assumption and my configuration mistake. I take full responsibility for it and have never denied that.

I'm not trying to justify the misconfiguration. I'm simply explaining how it happened.

So you knew you had assigned IPs you shouldnt have and "assumed" it was fine.

Looking back at what happened, I think I've figured out how the mistake occurred.

I was using Codex with MCP tools to configure the network. I only provided the AI agent with my assigned IPv6 /64 prefix and let it handle the configuration.

The network connection worked afterward, so I assumed everything was configured correctly and didn't investigate further.

It wasn't until I received the suspension ticket that I checked the configuration more carefully and discovered that some IPv6 addresses had been assigned from a completely different range.

If I had configured everything manually, I probably would have noticed the incorrect addresses immediately.

Unfortunately, AI tools have become so convenient that I relied too much on the result and didn't properly verify what had actually been configured.

So yes, the root cause was an AI-assisted configuration mistake combined with my failure to verify the result. The responsibility is still mine.

I genuinely had no idea that the wrong IPv6 addresses had been configured until I received the suspension ticket.

Flanker · 1:43PM

@barbaros said:

@Murv said:

@barbaros said: Let's add some fuel to the popcorn.

Popcorn with fuel doesn't sound too healthy

How about some butter on it instead?

@barbaros said:

@Murv said:

@barbaros said: Let's add some fuel to the popcorn.

Popcorn with fuel doesn't sound too healthy

How about some butter on it instead?

How about a cup of bubble tea to go with that? 🧋

xvps · 1:43PM

@barbaros said:
Let's add some fuel to the popcorn.

HostDZire · 1:47PM

@Flanker said:

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

I think hes most likely implying the IPs you have used were not even close to the range that was assigned

Yes, that's essentially what happened.

I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses from a completely different range, well outside my assigned allocation. However, the network connectivity actually worked, so I didn't notice anything unusual at the time.

That was my incorrect assumption and my configuration mistake. I take full responsibility for it and have never denied that.

I'm not trying to justify the misconfiguration. I'm simply explaining how it happened.

So you knew you had assigned IPs you shouldnt have and "assumed" it was fine.

Looking back at what happened, I think I've figured out how the mistake occurred.

I was using Codex with MCP tools to configure the network. I only provided the AI agent with my assigned IPv6 /64 prefix and let it handle the configuration.

The network connection worked afterward, so I assumed everything was configured correctly and didn't investigate further.

It wasn't until I received the suspension ticket that I checked the configuration more carefully and discovered that some IPv6 addresses had been assigned from a completely different range.

If I had configured everything manually, I probably would have noticed the incorrect addresses immediately.

Unfortunately, AI tools have become so convenient that I relied too much on the result and didn't properly verify what had actually been configured.

So yes, the root cause was an AI-assisted configuration mistake combined with my failure to verify the result. The responsibility is still mine.

I genuinely had no idea that the wrong IPv6 addresses had been configured until I received the suspension ticket.

Just post the IPs you configured.

Edit: Never mind, it won't matter. I'm going to work on something else now.

Flanker · 1:52PM

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@kintaro said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@HostDZire said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:

@Flanker said:

@tzuli said:
I just realized it was FAT32 Special, ouch

@Flanker said:

I also requested cancellation and a refund for another active service, given that the provider had made it clear it no longer wanted to continue the customer relationship.

The provider declined to refund that separate service.

Was your other service a Leaseweb VPS?

Yeah, To be fair, Leaseweb's hosting has been much more stable in my experience.

I was just trying to understand why they would refund this service but not another, especially if they believe you're malicious. Makes more sense if the other service is through Leaseweb

From my perspective, if you've already decided that I'm a malicious customer and no longer welcome on your network, then why not just cancel and refund all my remaining services?

We could simply part ways on good terms. You'd be making a generous gesture, and I wouldn't have to deal with a provider that clearly doesn't want me as a customer anymore.

Instead, I'm apparently too "malicious" to keep one VPS, but perfectly acceptable to keep paying for another.

That's the inconsistency I find difficult to understand.

Abuse that one also and this time we will terminate without refund

First, please define what you mean by "abuse" before throwing accusations around.

Don't casually label someone as an abuser without distinguishing between an accidental misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

On HostDZire's India VPS, it was apparently possible to configure unassigned IPv6 addresses and actually use them without being blocked by the network.

I acknowledge that my IPv6 configuration was incorrect, and I take responsibility for that.

But is an accidental Docker networking misconfiguration automatically considered malicious abuse simply because the provider's network allowed those addresses to work?

A configuration violation and intentional malicious abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Please don't confuse the two.

What is the list of IPs you were using? Which IP did we assign to you?

What exactly are you trying to imply by asking this?

I've already acknowledged in the support ticket that I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses outside my assigned allocation. I've never denied that, and I've taken responsibility for the misconfiguration.

You've also already provided the list of those addresses in the ticket, so I'm not sure what repeating that information here is supposed to establish.

My question is simple: Does accidentally configuring IPv6 addresses outside the assigned /64 automatically constitute malicious abuse in your view?

I'm not disputing that it was a configuration violation. I'm asking you to distinguish between a technical misconfiguration and intentional malicious activity.

Please address that distinction rather than implying that I've been denying something I've already admitted.

Just give screenshots of the reply I sent you in the ticket, where I gave you the list of IPs you were using.

What exactly is the point of this request? What are you trying to prove?

You've already provided the list of IPs in the support ticket, and I've already acknowledged that I mistakenly configured addresses outside my assigned allocation.

I'm not denying the facts, so what exactly would posting the same screenshots again establish?

If your intention is to prove that unauthorized IPv6 addresses were configured, we already agree on that.

But if you're trying to use that list as proof of malicious intent, then please explain how it establishes intent rather than simply confirming a configuration violation.

That's the distinction I've been asking you to address all along.

I think hes most likely implying the IPs you have used were not even close to the range that was assigned

Yes, that's essentially what happened.

I mistakenly configured IPv6 addresses from a completely different range, well outside my assigned allocation. However, the network connectivity actually worked, so I didn't notice anything unusual at the time.

That was my incorrect assumption and my configuration mistake. I take full responsibility for it and have never denied that.

I'm not trying to justify the misconfiguration. I'm simply explaining how it happened.

So you knew you had assigned IPs you shouldnt have and "assumed" it was fine.

Looking back at what happened, I think I've figured out how the mistake occurred.

I was using Codex with MCP tools to configure the network. I only provided the AI agent with my assigned IPv6 /64 prefix and let it handle the configuration.

The network connection worked afterward, so I assumed everything was configured correctly and didn't investigate further.

It wasn't until I received the suspension ticket that I checked the configuration more carefully and discovered that some IPv6 addresses had been assigned from a completely different range.

If I had configured everything manually, I probably would have noticed the incorrect addresses immediately.

Unfortunately, AI tools have become so convenient that I relied too much on the result and didn't properly verify what had actually been configured.

So yes, the root cause was an AI-assisted configuration mistake combined with my failure to verify the result. The responsibility is still mine.

I genuinely had no idea that the wrong IPv6 addresses had been configured until I received the suspension ticket.

Just post the IPs you configured.

Edit: Never mind, it won't matter. I'm going to work on something else now.

YOU ALREADY HAVE THE FULL IP LIST, SO STOP REPEATING THE SAME DEMAND AND EXPLAIN EXACTLY HOW THOSE IPS PROVE MALICIOUS INTENT RATHER THAN A CONFIGURATION MISTAKE!

cchlops · 1:53PM

Whenever I look at this merchant, I get the impression of a zoo monkey "toying" with the audience outside—believing it is the one doing the teasing, yet never realizing it can never escape the cage of the rules.

Murv · 1:55PM

@HostDZire said: Just post the IPs you configured.
Edit: Never mind, it won't matter. I'm going to work on something else now.

Now I have to really know. Can you whisper me the IPs he configured?

xvps · 1:57PM

@Murv said:

@HostDZire said: Just post the IPs you configured.
Edit: Never mind, it won't matter. I'm going to work on something else now.

Now I have to really know. Can you whisper me the IPs he configured?

666:666:666::666

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

HostDZire IPv6 Allocation Violation: Service Terminated After Configuration Error

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

HostDZire IPv6 Allocation Violation: Service Terminated After Configuration Error

Comments