IPv6 subnet/extra IPv6 IPs on cloud instances/VPS
BMPCreated with Sketch.BMPZIPCreated with Sketch.ZIPXLSCreated with Sketch.XLSTXTCreated with Sketch.TXTPPTCreated with Sketch.PPTPNGCreated with Sketch.PNGPDFCreated with Sketch.PDFJPGCreated with Sketch.JPGGIFCreated with Sketch.GIFDOCCreated with Sketch.DOC Error Created with Sketch.
Question

IPv6 subnet/extra IPv6 IPs on cloud instances/VPS

H
by
HendrikV
Created on 2018-01-31 07:31:58 (edited on 2024-09-04 14:25:20) in Public Cloud

Good day,

Where/how can we petition for better IPv6 support on these instances?

They only have a single IPv6 IP, and I need more per instance. I can have up to 7 IPv4s but I'm looking/needing for IPv6 IPs ;(
)Same trouble with the 2016 VPss, while the previous generation I recall had a full /64)
Upvotes (10)
3948 Views
2 Replies ( Latest reply on 2025-03-27 11:14:51 by
HendrikV
)
A

+1
A /64 per customer/server is a must!
Helpful (0)
C

I have 17 (!) IPv4 addresses on my VPS instance but only 1 (!) IPv6 address in a shared /64 subnet.
Considering the fact, that IPv4 addresses are very rare on the one hand and the minimum of an IPv6 allocation is a /64 subnet and IPv6 addresses are fare numerous than sand at the beach on the other hand, I cannot understand this policy.

+1 for real IPv6 support.
Helpful (0)
A

Hello all,

We understand the inconveniences caused by this and we have raised this with the relevant department to review. Rest assured we will consider changing our IPv6 service on Public Cloud and VPS.

For now this is with the relevant department to continue exploring our options and how we can improve on providing better service to our customers.

Unfortunately, at the moment we do not have an ETA on this subject, but we do our best to speed things up.
Helpful (0)
H

Thanks for that response @AdamO, and I hope they also provide beter IPv6 support on the vRacks and dedicated servers in the same breath ;)
Helpful (0)
H

>12months later, any progress @AdamO ??
Helpful (0)
B

and 36 months later?
Helpful (0)
H

what makes this even more "urgent", is the new draft proposal with IETF that makes 127.1/16-127.255/16 public routable, leaving only 127.0/16 as "localhost/loopback" - watch several "fun" problems inside ISPs that used the 127/8 "loopbacks" as identifiers for their routers

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
Helpful (0)
J

Would be great to see this finally picked-up asap. The standard ( https://www.1editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.5.1editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.5.1 ) should always be to assign a /64 for a server. For a DSL or FttH connection it is even /56. @AdamO or @OVHSupport, can you please provide an update on this? This can cause neighboring VPS's that misbehave to get your /128 being on a blocklist such as Spamhaus that will only look at /64 blocks which should be the case for all.

Looking forward to seeing a positive reply.

Kind regards,

Joris.
Helpful (0)
H

And then: https://twitter.com/olesovhcom/status/1536734786236063744
Helpful (0)
M

Hi,

As ipv4 prices are officially increasing (fair enough), as VPS prices are also increasing (still fair enough), and as we are invited to use FREE IpV6, it's not acceptable nor manageable that we do not get the official /64 specs for IPv6, and still do not have an ETA.

Best
Helpful (0)
R

+1

A https://www.drjaneclinic.com/ /64 per customer/server is a must!
Helpful (0)
F

+1
We're 2023, and still /64 on VPS :frowning:
Helpful (0)
S

The Faceit system assigns the ELO ranking to each player depending on factors such as winning percentage, kill or death ratio, competitor’s ranking level, etc. which can be checked using faceitfinder.
https://faceitaccount.com/
Helpful (0)
L

To add another reason why this is an important issue, some service providers (like the docker.io container registry) do rate-limiting per /64 blocks, which means that being put into one subnet with other users will result in constant "429 rate limit exceeded" errors, which is extremely disruptive.
Helpful (1)

Join discussion