I have not tried it out, this makes it look like DO beat Azure to market
on ipv6
http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/17/digitalocean-ipv6/
Speaking of Azure and ip adresses
Not impressed at all. DO customers have been asking for IPv6 for around two years now with responses of, "It's coming". Now they are getting press because they are rollingit our ONLY in their Singapore market which is its newest data center. Those of us here in the US are still getting the same ole, "It's coming" responses.
There are other VPS's out there that are already givinf IPv6 addresses. I have two with www.peakservers.com where I get one IPv4 and 8 IPv6 addresses.
I think that's a bit harsh. I congratulate them for getting the first step done in the process of making it available for all customers.
Jared Mauch
Yep, same with Linode, they've had IPv6 live in their locations for a
couple years now. I spun up an ipv6-enabled VM about 18 months ago and
have had no issues since.
David
I don't think it is harsh when they lead their customers on with no progress.
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/is-ipv6-available
digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/2639897-ipv6-addresses
Take note of the original post dates and the responses. Original questions were in 2012 with responses of Q4 2012 to Q1 2013.
Robert
Agreed as well. It isn't hard to dual stack, maybe they bought some junk gear that has issues in the older datacenters? 
Howevveeerrr.... they are also the cheapest thing going (other than Vultr.com) so you also get what you pay for
Sure, I've seen the same thing with OpenSRS and others with things like IPv6 glue and DS records for DNSSEC, but when they make it public/supportable, I still congratulate the engineers who made it happen.
Could they have done it harder/better/faster/stronger [1]? Sure. We've been doing IPv6 for over a decade as a commercial service. I still am happy when networks get IPv6 enabled. There's a long road, and Digital Ocean is just one party that needs to make things happen. Wayport/attwifi, TWCable, and even Comcast who is a leader here in the USA could do more but it's all gated on internal criteria that I'm not aware of.
- Jared
- Jared
Agreed as well. It isn't hard to dual stack, maybe they bought some junk gear that has issues in the older datacenters?
We all have junk kicking around that we wish we didn't have.
Howevveeerrr.... they are also the cheapest thing going (other than Vultr.com) so you also get what you pay for
Even Facebook who has talked publicly about their IPv6 deployments and issues they have encountered has faced major hurdles in operation of networking and host behaviors.
(start on page 11)
http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WorldIPv6Congress-IPv6_LH-v2.pdf
- Jared
There are other VPS's out there that are already givinf IPv6 addresses.
Yep, I use rootbsd.net and arpnetworks.com and have been happy with both.
I have two with www.peakservers.com where I get one IPv4 and 8 IPv6 addresses.
Wait. What? Do you mean 8 /64s?
Regards,
-drc
There are other VPS's out there that are already givinf IPv6 addresses.
Yep, I use rootbsd.net and arpnetworks.com and have been happy with both.
I have two with www.peakservers.com where I get one IPv4 and 8 IPv6 addresses.
Wait. What? Do you mean 8 /64s?
No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
There have also been reports from some DO users of HE tunnels being blocked. Not sure what the status of that is.
Wow. Harsh. I burn more than that just in my living room.
I don't think that is too harsh as all 8 are assigned to a single server. So if I have three VPS's, I have 24 total addresses.
There have also been reports from some DO users of HE tunnels being
blocked. Not sure what the status of that is.
It was all rumors. All the tunnel providers have been never blocked us or
anyone who wanted to previously add a tunnel to our virtual servers. HE
has been generously peering with us for both ipv6 transport and their 6to4
nats for awhile. There was a misunderstanding with SiXXS when we first
started to announce v6 addresses, once cleared up it wasn't a customer
offering things went back to normal. And it wasn't blocked, they just
didn't allow people to get tunnels for our ipv4 addresses and 1 or 2 got
caught it having their tunnels removed when they went to switch the ip they
were connected to.
If you know of other examples, it's not being reported to us and please let
us know so we can look into it.
Those of us here in the US are still getting the same ole, "It's coming"
responses.
There will be something in the US and EU with v6 in a reasonable amount of
time (although I'm sure not fast enough for some people). we're not
listing a date because we got stuck behind some scale and non-technical
things that delayed it in the past.
A more in depth answer is we're migrating our backend code to a newer
revision and it was faster to not try to support v6 on both revisions and
concentrate on the migration and v6 (and other coming features) on the
newer version. It's just faster to get it rolled out everywhere going
this direction.
Bryan Socha
Network Engineer
DigitalOcean
This is a joke, right?
AlanC
Addresses are a scarce resource; one shouldn't
waste them needlessly.
I'm sure if more addresses are needed, customers
can purchase additional IPs on a monthly basis.
Matt
It's offered at a low low price of $.00000000000001 per IPv6 address[1].
[1] /64 minimum of course.
Robert,
There are still applications that break with subnet smaller than /64, so all VPS providers probably have to use /64 addressing.
/64 for one customer seems to be too much, on the other side 8 IP's can be not enough in some cases. I think 65536 out of shared /64 for one server can be enough. You can easily automate provisioning and reverse DNS assuming you assign /112 for each server.
If you block SLAAC and provide connectivity to only the static IP's, your abuse folks should appreciate it (yes, I know you can spoof v6).
There are still applications that break with subnet smaller than /64, so all VPS providers probably have to use /64 addressing.
Wouldn't that argue for /64s?
/64 for one customer seems to be too much,
In what way? What are you trying to protect against? It can't be address exhaustion (there are 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 possible /64s in the currently used format specifier. If there are 1,000,000,000 customer assignments every day of the year, the current format specifier will last over 6 million years).
Regards,
-drc
+1+1+1 re living room