Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: nsp: ipv6

Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support

 

 

nsp ipv6 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


nicholas.hatch at gmail

May 3, 2011, 1:50 PM

Post #1 of 15 (3374 views)
Permalink
Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support

http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
http://www.linode.com/IPv6/

-n


sethm at rollernet

May 3, 2011, 2:02 PM

Post #2 of 15 (3267 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
> http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
> http://www.linode.com/IPv6/
>


Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.

~Seth


jared at puck

May 3, 2011, 3:34 PM

Post #3 of 15 (3263 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On May 3, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

> On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
>> http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
>> http://www.linode.com/IPv6/
>>
>
>
> Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
> suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.

If you're doing it inside a VM, either real or pseudo-VM (eg: FreeBSD Jail), you can do this easily with your existing scaling systems. You likely want a globally routed IP that is easily reachable.

While many people are critical of IPv6 offerings, (I'm sure Owen will share your /128 fail thoughts) - the mere fact of offering it at all is a step in the right direction.

If you are a provider of IPv4 hosting, and can, Provide IPv6 alongside at the same time. On my personal side, I've made all my FreeBSD jails have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address. This does not mean you need to bind() to both, but it does make it possible to do an outbound connect(), and bind() when ready.

Bringing the connectivity to the host (network) and making it available is the first major step.

I'm not sure I would purchase colocation from anyone today that was unable to provide IPv6 on the same lan, even if it's some (ick) 6PE or (double-ick) tunnel.

- Jared


prox at prolixium

May 3, 2011, 3:59 PM

Post #4 of 15 (3263 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 06:34:32PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> While many people are critical of IPv6 offerings, (I'm sure Owen will
> share your /128 fail thoughts) - the mere fact of offering it at all
> is a step in the right direction.

Yes, but.. it could sway other hosting providers who are considering
IPv6 offerings into adopting the same model. IMHO, it's a bad
precedent.

Just my 2c.

- Mark

--
Mark Kamichoff
prox [at] prolixium
http://www.prolixium.com/
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc

May 3, 2011, 4:00 PM

Post #5 of 15 (3259 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:34:32 -0400
Jared Mauch <jared [at] puck> wrote:

>
> On May 3, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> > On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
> >> http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
> >> http://www.linode.com/IPv6/
> >>
> >
> >
> > Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
> > suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.
>
> If you're doing it inside a VM, either real or pseudo-VM (eg: FreeBSD Jail), you can do this easily with your existing scaling systems. You likely want a globally routed IP that is easily reachable.
>
> While many people are critical of IPv6 offerings, (I'm sure Owen will share your /128 fail thoughts) - the mere fact of offering it at all is a step in the right direction.
>

Sometimes when things aren't done right, they do more damage than if
they weren't done at all. The fact they've created a special charge for
more than a single address creates an inherent demand for single address
sharing methods.

They should do the maths on how many individual IPv6
addresses they get for their annual RIR fee to see how silly they've
been by being unnecessarily precious about them.


> If you are a provider of IPv4 hosting, and can, Provide IPv6 alongside at the same time. On my personal side, I've made all my FreeBSD jails have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address. This does not mean you need to bind() to both, but it does make it possible to do an outbound connect(), and bind() when ready.
>
> Bringing the connectivity to the host (network) and making it available is the first major step.
>
> I'm not sure I would purchase colocation from anyone today that was unable to provide IPv6 on the same lan, even if it's some (ick) 6PE or (double-ick) tunnel.
>
> - Jared


marc.blanchet at viagenie

May 3, 2011, 4:03 PM

Post #6 of 15 (3269 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

another hosting provider dyndns used to have a hosting service which had
IPv6 support. And yes they were also providing a single ipv6 address....
(Now their hosting service is no more offered. don't think it is related
to ipv6 thought)

Marc.

Le 11-05-03 19:00, Mark Smith a écrit :
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:34:32 -0400
> Jared Mauch<jared [at] puck> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 3, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
>>>> http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
>>>> http://www.linode.com/IPv6/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
>>> suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.
>>
>> If you're doing it inside a VM, either real or pseudo-VM (eg: FreeBSD Jail), you can do this easily with your existing scaling systems. You likely want a globally routed IP that is easily reachable.
>>
>> While many people are critical of IPv6 offerings, (I'm sure Owen will share your /128 fail thoughts) - the mere fact of offering it at all is a step in the right direction.
>>
>
> Sometimes when things aren't done right, they do more damage than if
> they weren't done at all. The fact they've created a special charge for
> more than a single address creates an inherent demand for single address
> sharing methods.
>
> They should do the maths on how many individual IPv6
> addresses they get for their annual RIR fee to see how silly they've
> been by being unnecessarily precious about them.
>
>
>> If you are a provider of IPv4 hosting, and can, Provide IPv6 alongside at the same time. On my personal side, I've made all my FreeBSD jails have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address. This does not mean you need to bind() to both, but it does make it possible to do an outbound connect(), and bind() when ready.
>>
>> Bringing the connectivity to the host (network) and making it available is the first major step.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would purchase colocation from anyone today that was unable to provide IPv6 on the same lan, even if it's some (ick) 6PE or (double-ick) tunnel.
>>
>> - Jared


--
=========
IETF81 Quebec city: http://ietf81.ca
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
Space Assigned Number Authority: http://sanaregistry.org


jared at puck

May 3, 2011, 4:09 PM

Post #7 of 15 (3258 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On May 3, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

> Sometimes when things aren't done right, they do more damage than if
> they weren't done at all. The fact they've created a special charge for
> more than a single address creates an inherent demand for single address
> sharing methods.
>
> They should do the maths on how many individual IPv6
> addresses they get for their annual RIR fee to see how silly they've
> been by being unnecessarily precious about them.

So, I'm at fault because my OS can only put a single /128 per jail()/prision and make a decision based on that? Sadly it's not as easy to OS shop as you might want to suggest. I suggest contributing code if you wish to change that model, but suggesting that people should not deploy something because they aren't using it the way you prescribe it to be is a different issue.

- Jared


bzeeb-lists at lists

May 3, 2011, 5:06 PM

Post #8 of 15 (3268 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On May 3, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:

> So, I'm at fault because my OS can only put a single /128 per jail()/prision and make a decision based on that?

Very much appreciated that you use the feature but could you please stop
confusing users with your imprecise comments. Thanks.

That OS has been able to do more than a single address for a jail for
v4 and v6 since May 2009 in any release (i.e. FreeBSD 7.2 and later and
with that in all currently supported releases).
Actually it has always been able to do more than a single /128 for
IPv6 since IPv6 for jails has been supported. I am running jails
with quite a few addresses.

It is true though that you cannot assign a /64 to a jail without
experimental features but then you'd still need to configure each
address you'd want to use on the interface (inside the jail) so it's
only a matter of who configures it, which usually isn't a problem
with hosting providers these days as you get your webui to configure
things for VPS serivces and are happy.


That all said I have also seen hosting providers where you get a /64
on your pvlan but then they have nd table limits so you are trapped
by the time you have a dozen and five IPv6 only https hosts for those
4% being able to reach them out there.
Then there are others who'll happily route you an extra /64 to each
of your boxes or give you a /56 or /48 and let you do what you want.
And these are just "mass market" click and provision already but mostly
for bare metal customers.

Looking around there are plenty of VPS services also providing IPv6 as well
and shared web hosting also gets it more often these days and I'd actually
be a lot more happy with single individual restricted addresses (as long as
I can add more without any hassle - no fee, full automation) in these
environments as a /64 on a shared LAN with hundreds of instances where
people might have their own root account sounds like a horrible thing to me.
Just seen that for v4 on a Xen instance somewhere again and *cough* ...
The fun they had ... *cough* For that the software stacks in these
environments are just not ready yet properly handling and filtering nd6, etc.

/bz

--
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.


jared at puck

May 3, 2011, 6:09 PM

Post #9 of 15 (3262 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On May 3, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:

>> So, I'm at fault because my OS can only put a single /128 per jail()/prision and make a decision based on that?
>
> Very much appreciated that you use the feature but could you please stop
> confusing users with your imprecise comments. Thanks.
>
> That OS has been able to do more than a single address for a jail for
> v4 and v6 since May 2009 in any release (i.e. FreeBSD 7.2 and later and
> with that in all currently supported releases).
> Actually it has always been able to do more than a single /128 for
> IPv6 since IPv6 for jails has been supported. I am running jails
> with quite a few addresses.

Sorry about that, while my statements are imprecise, (ie: you can bind to multiple ips per prision/jail()) you can not bind to a larger subnet.

My frustration is that in the VPS universe, having a single IP per nlri is an excellent starting point. I am suspicious of people who want to assign 2^64 to a a host "because you can". Next time I need to inflict some pain in myself I will take this over to ipv6 [at] ietf I see many people (including those internal to my employer) getting wrapped around the axle on making the prefect the enemy of the good. While I'm upset about the state of the IPv6 internet as it exists today, I do hope that we are going to see continued progress in the right direction. This announcement is a clear case of someone making progress and I've seen people complain about how a 3rd party deployed IPv6 instead of saying "Kudos!".

Me? I say Kudos, Congratulations and more please!

- Jared


cb.list6 at gmail

May 3, 2011, 6:15 PM

Post #10 of 15 (3264 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On May 3, 2011 6:09 PM, "Jared Mauch" <jared [at] puck> wrote:
>
>
> On May 3, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> >> So, I'm at fault because my OS can only put a single /128 per
jail()/prision and make a decision based on that?
> >
> > Very much appreciated that you use the feature but could you please stop
> > confusing users with your imprecise comments. Thanks.
> >
> > That OS has been able to do more than a single address for a jail for
> > v4 and v6 since May 2009 in any release (i.e. FreeBSD 7.2 and later and
> > with that in all currently supported releases).
> > Actually it has always been able to do more than a single /128 for
> > IPv6 since IPv6 for jails has been supported. I am running jails
> > with quite a few addresses.
>
> Sorry about that, while my statements are imprecise, (ie: you can bind to
multiple ips per prision/jail()) you can not bind to a larger subnet.
>
> My frustration is that in the VPS universe, having a single IP per nlri is
an excellent starting point. I am suspicious of people who want to assign
2^64 to a a host "because you can". Next time I need to inflict some pain
in myself I will take this over to ipv6 [at] ietf I see many people (including
those internal to my employer) getting wrapped around the axle on making the
prefect the enemy of the good. While I'm upset about the state of the IPv6
internet as it exists today, I do hope that we are going to see continued
progress in the right direction. This announcement is a clear case of
someone making progress and I've seen people complain about how a 3rd party
deployed IPv6 instead of saying "Kudos!".
>
> Me? I say Kudos, Congratulations and more please!
>

Kudos indeed. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good.

Cb

> - Jared


sethm at rollernet

May 3, 2011, 10:35 PM

Post #11 of 15 (3260 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On 5/3/11 6:15 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> Kudos indeed. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good.
>


It's an acceptable first step, but it still falls short for many who are
not new to IPv6. I was honestly initially excited to see that maybe
there would be someplace I can put a stupid simple remote monitoring
thing for my network, but was quickly disappointed because:

1) I'd want probably two IPv6 addresses. Not 2^64, but a simple two, as
in address #1 and address #2.

2) Charging for additional IPv6 addresses. I strongly believe that *at
this point* we need to encourage IPv6 use. I do not feel that charging
extra for IPv6 helps adoption, and in fact may hinder it because there
is no quantifiable benefit to the extra cost. I really, really don't
want to encourage providers to charge extra for IPv6.

~Seth


roger at jorgensen

May 4, 2011, 12:17 AM

Post #12 of 15 (3252 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On tir, mai 3, 2011 23:02, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
>> http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
>> http://www.linode.com/IPv6/
>>
>
>
> Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
> suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.

http://www.vr.org/ also give you IPv6, 5 /128 and charges nothing, and
don't look like they charge for the next 5 either.


--
---


------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID
roger [at] jorgensen | - The Future is IPv6
-------------------------------------------------------

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


cb.list6 at gmail

May 4, 2011, 7:31 AM

Post #13 of 15 (3243 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

On May 4, 2011 12:17 AM, "Roger Jørgensen" <roger [at] jorgensen> wrote:
>
>
> On tir, mai 3, 2011 23:02, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> > On 5/3/2011 13:50, nick hatch wrote:
> >> http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/03/linode-launches-native-ipv6-support/
> >> http://www.linode.com/IPv6/
> >>
> >
> >
> > Only a /128 and they charge for more? Ugh, IPv4-think prevails, I
> > suppose. I guess it's slightly better than nothing.
>
> http://www.vr.org/ also give you IPv6, 5 /128 and charges nothing, and
> don't look like they charge for the next 5 either.
>
>

Really. I am surprised this is seen as a big deal. Softlayer and arp
networks both provided a full /64 .... no charge ...

There are options .... people can sell what they want and you can buy what
you want.

That said, lets get away from what is right and wrong. If it's the right
service at the right price, go with it.
You do have options.

Funny that 3gpp requires all phones to have /64 .... no options.

Cb

> --
> ---
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID
> roger [at] jorgensen | - The Future is IPv6
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>


martin at millnert

May 4, 2011, 6:32 PM

Post #14 of 15 (3234 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

Hi,

On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 22:35 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 5/3/11 6:15 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >
> > Kudos indeed. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good.
> >
>
>
> It's an acceptable first step, but it still falls short for many who are
> not new to IPv6. I was honestly initially excited to see that maybe
> there would be someplace I can put a stupid simple remote monitoring
> thing for my network, but was quickly disappointed because:
>
> 1) I'd want probably two IPv6 addresses. Not 2^64, but a simple two, as
> in address #1 and address #2.
>
> 2) Charging for additional IPv6 addresses. I strongly believe that *at
> this point* we need to encourage IPv6 use. I do not feel that charging
> extra for IPv6 helps adoption, and in fact may hinder it because there
> is no quantifiable benefit to the extra cost. I really, really don't
> want to encourage providers to charge extra for IPv6.
>
> ~Seth

>From what I saw when I checked around the US VPS market a few months
ago, competition is ridicules (high). I do not think finding a provider
in the VPS market that will give you plenty of IPv6 space is going to be
very hard in the relatively near future.

Regards,
Martin


bjorn at mork

May 6, 2011, 1:35 AM

Post #15 of 15 (3214 views)
Permalink
Re: Virtual hosting provider Linode announces v6 support [In reply to]

Martin Millnert <martin [at] millnert> writes:

> I do not think finding a provider in the VPS market that will give
> you plenty of IPv6 space is going to be very hard in the relatively
> near future.

I am actually a bit surprised that someone finds this hard now, or that
announcing v6 support today is something to write about. This is a
weird thread.

Personally, I am very satisfied with Bytemark for IPv6 VPS hosting. They
are obviously not US based, but I see that as an advantage :-)

Don't know why I would need more than the /64 they set up by default for
all servers, both dedicated and virtual, but you can get a /48 on
request according to their documentation:
http://www.bytemark.co.uk/support/technical_documents/ipv6


Bjørn

nsp ipv6 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.