Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:40:45 -0800 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Setting up a proper IPv6 subnet and unique gateway for each VM is probably insane, but, potentially less insane than some other alternatives. I second that! I give out a proper configured /64 to every customer regardless of he has one, two or more VMs in his network. The alternatives did not work for us, furthermore scaling the networks is reduced to drop in more VMs until the /64 runs out of addresses (read: never) OR the situation calls for other setups anyway. Receiving a /112 should make one at least thinking about the underlying network design for a minute. It just looks awkward! Cheers Dan
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
IIRC, EDIS, at least,will give you large blocks and delegate reverse DNS authority (+ assign your v6 block to your RIPE handle/info) if you ask. On 11/18/2012 5:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Dear NANOG@, I came across an interesting problem in trying to find an affordable KVM provider with IPv6 support. It seems like several rather major and reputable providers in the value sector do claim to have IPv6 support, but once you get your IPv6 addresses or subnets from them, you might be rather disappointed.
Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
Dear NANOG@, I came across an interesting problem in trying to find an affordable KVM provider with IPv6 support. It seems like several rather major and reputable providers in the value sector do claim to have IPv6 support, but once you get your IPv6 addresses or subnets from them, you might be rather disappointed. == Example of edis.at == edis.at gives you an IPv4 address of, for example, 158.255.21x.xxx, and the IPv6 /112 that you get is 2a03:f80:ed15:158:255:21x:xxx:0/112 (really a /48), with 2a03:0f80:ed15::1 as the gateway. I've tried contacting them in an effort to receive any kind of a proper IPv6 address without the plaintext IPv4 embedment, but they've given me all sorts of crazy and (IMHO) far-sketched excuses; from not wanting to maintain a separate database of IPv6 addresses/subnets, and from lack of software provisioning support; to supposedly RIPE and/or edis' upstream providers requiring public whois entries for any /64's that edis.at would allocate for their customers, and to not having control of the underlying routers/switches/firewalls in any but one of their 13+ datacentres that thus makes creating 2^16 separate routes problematic. ??? All I'm asking for, are sane and short addresses and/or a saner /112, don't really care if it's still a shared /48 underneath. == Example of buyvm.net == On the other hand, buyvm.net claims to give you 16 IPv6 addresses. This is the kind of addresses that they give out (some consecutive 4 out of the 16 provided addresses listed): 2607:f358:0001:fed5:0022:a124:fe56:, 2607:f358:0001:fed5:0022:f6a6:dffe:, 2607:f358:0001:fed5:0022:c6a3:7826:, 2607:f358:0001:fed5:0022:654f:964d:. This is the response I've got from buyvm.net when trying to ask for some reasonable (shorter) addresses or a whole subnet instead: We cannot offer that at this time as we have to store these IPs in MySQL which would slow down the database. WTF? Surely offering some 16 random addresses that are 128-bits long doesn't slow down MySQL, but offering one single, short and abbreviatable /64 or /112 subnet would. I'm puzzled! == == (HE's tunnelbroker.net, on the other hand, has no problem in giving out IPv6 addresses that, when abbreviated, can be represented by the same number of ASCII characters as an IPv4 address; for free, might I add.) == == Am _I_ supposed to have a MySQL database with the list of the IPv6 addresses that my virtual private servers have been assigned? Wouldn't it slow down MySQL, so to speak? :-) What's your take on this? Since IPv6 is still a very low priority for many of the hosting providers (edis.at cited a rather negligible amount of IPv6 traffic, so, they argue that, as a small shop, they simply can't justify spending much RD on further improving something that they consider already supported and not broken in the first place), would I be crazy to opt-out of such pathetic IPv6 support, and sign back up with a tunnelbroker from HE.net instead? (In fact, my preliminary tests show that IPv6 latency between Austria and Fremont, London and Moscow are either the same or slightly better when using the HE.net tunnelbroker in Prague, instead of edis.at native IPv6 support; bandwidth doesn't seem to be affected, either.) A little extra latency (only potentially) and MTU reduction by 20 bytes are the only negatives, right? Yet on the positive side, I'll get a proper and short /64 or /48 subnet, proper rDNS support, guaranteed proper intermediate hops with proper rDNS entries and no stupid hops impeding traceroute, potentially much better IPv6 routing/peering/latency, and short or custom ...:face:b00c::-style addresses to my liking; and, last but not least, a higher number of potential KVM providers to choose from, since I wouldn't require any native IPv6 support with such an arrangement. Comparing these options, seems like on the KVM hoster side, a blanket IPv6 support (with no /48 or /64 promises) is thus basically a useless concept anyways, and, at this time, should not even be sought? Any thoughts? Did I miss anything? In summary, I thought I have to have native IPv6 support in any new VPS that I buy, but looks like using a tunnelbroker might just be a much cleaner and better solution anyways. P.S. Does anyone other than me object to calling /48 subnets with allocations such as 2a03:f80:ed15:158:255:21x:xxx:0/112 as native IPv6 in this context of VPS hosting? How should such addresses/subnets/arrangements be called? Best regards, Constantine.
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
On 11/18/2012 02:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: All I'm asking for, are sane and short addresses and/or a saner /112, don't really care if it's still a shared /48 underneath. How do you define sane, and why do you care? Doug
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
Hi, I've tried contacting them in an effort to receive any kind of a proper IPv6 address without the plaintext IPv4 embedment, but they've given me all sorts of crazy and (IMHO) far-sketched excuses; from not wanting to maintain a separate database of IPv6 addresses/subnets, and from lack of software provisioning support; to supposedly RIPE and/or edis' upstream providers requiring public whois entries for any /64's that edis.at would allocate for their customers I can guarantee you that RIPE does *not* require public whois records for individual /64s (or even for separate /48s in PA space). - Sander
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: I came across an interesting problem in trying to find an affordable KVM provider with IPv6 support. Does affordable mean cheap?... I've tried contacting them in an effort to receive any kind of a proper IPv6 address without the plaintext IPv4 embedment, but they've given me all sorts of crazy and (IMHO) far-sketched excuses; So you've contacted cheapo providers and you are now surprised that they can't afford to hire people who know what they are talking about? (HE's tunnelbroker.net, on the other hand, has no problem in giving out IPv6 addresses that, when abbreviated, can be represented by the same number of ASCII characters as an IPv4 address; for free, might I add.) Clearly HE has people who know what they are doing when it comes to IPv6, probably because they have made a MAJOR investment in both people and infrastructure to do so. Explain again why you aren't using HE for your services? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
On 11/18/12 5:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: edis.at gives you an IPv4 address of, for example, 158.255.21x.xxx, and the IPv6 /112 that you get is 2a03:f80:ed15:158:255:21x:xxx:0/112 (really a /48), with 2a03:0f80:ed15::1 as the gateway. Vote with your dollars and find a provider with clue? It's the only way you'll get the service you want. And also, dear god a /112. It's giving me a flash back to a tier 2 carrier I consulted for about 2 years ago. Their guy (who was a CCNP :rolleyes:), threw out my plans as being wasteful of space (each site a /48 out of a /40 reservation, each network a /64, etc.). The entire thing was done out of a /112 at each site with /120's for subnets. Course this same guy asked why we needed oc-48's between locations, he wanted to get bonded gigE's of IP transport and do a VPN.. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Bryan Fields wrote: On 11/18/12 5:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: edis.at gives you an IPv4 address of, for example, 158.255.21x.xxx, and the IPv6 /112 that you get is 2a03:f80:ed15:158:255:21x:xxx:0/112 (really a /48), with 2a03:0f80:ed15::1 as the gateway. By KVM, I assume he's talking about cloud or VPS, i.e. a KVM based virtual machine. With cloud in particular, I've been trying to decide how to dole out IPv6 space. Because we're doing bridged networking for the VMs, we've been giving out IPv4 /32s to each VM and all VMs are in the same VLAN. It seems insane to try to setup a proper IPv6 subnet and unique gateway for each VM, so I've been thinking something similar to what the host being complained about here has done is the only way to go. Not down to the detail of making the IPv6 ip based on the IPv4 IP, but giving out very small v6 blocks, (i.e. maybe /120 or /124), out of a /48 with the prefix::1/48 IP as everyone's gateway. Sure, IPv6 is big enough that we could give out /64s from that /48 and not run out of numbers, but I'm concerned about what happens when an abusive customer turns up 2^64 addresses and overloads the neighbor discovery cache on our gear. What's anyone really going to do with more than a few IP addresses on a VPS anyway? Just as we do with additional v4 IPs, if someone really has a need for additional v6 subnets, those could be provided, likely for a fee. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
What's anyone really going to do with more than a few IP addresses on a VPS anyway? Give every web site its own IP address, rather than using virtual hosts, I expect. On the other hand, I suppose if someone has more than a a few dozen web sites on a single VPS, more likely than not something peculiar is going on. R's, John PS: For something peculiar, see http://wild.sp.am/ which broke the bingbot, and Google's been spidering for months, emptying out the queue they built up before I put in a robots.txt saying to go away.
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: It seems insane to try to setup a proper IPv6 subnet and unique gateway for each VM, so I've been thinking something similar to what the host being complained about here has done is the only way to go. Not down to the detail of making the IPv6 ip based on the IPv4 IP, but giving out very small v6 blocks, (i.e. maybe /120 or /124), out of a /48 with the prefix::1/48 IP as everyone's gateway. Sure, IPv6 is big enough that we could give out /64s from that /48 and not run out of numbers, but I'm concerned about what happens when an abusive customer turns up 2^64 addresses and overloads the neighbor discovery cache on our gear. What's anyone really going to do with more than a few IP addresses on a VPS anyway? Just as we do with additional v4 IPs, if someone really has a need for additional v6 subnets, those could be provided, likely for a fee. Hi Jon, Why not assign a single IPv6 address to each VM and then for those folks who need more, *route* a /64 to the original address? With Linux, I think you can then attach the whole /64 to a loopback alias (lo:1) and the host will understand that it has the entire /64 without creating neighbor table entries or any other chancy things. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Long and unabbreviatable IPv6 addresses with random overloaded bits, vs. tunnelbroker
On Nov 18, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Bryan Fields wrote: On 11/18/12 5:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: edis.at gives you an IPv4 address of, for example, 158.255.21x.xxx, and the IPv6 /112 that you get is 2a03:f80:ed15:158:255:21x:xxx:0/112 (really a /48), with 2a03:0f80:ed15::1 as the gateway. By KVM, I assume he's talking about cloud or VPS, i.e. a KVM based virtual machine. With cloud in particular, I've been trying to decide how to dole out IPv6 space. Because we're doing bridged networking for the VMs, we've been giving out IPv4 /32s to each VM and all VMs are in the same VLAN. It seems insane to try to setup a proper IPv6 subnet and unique gateway for each VM, so I've been thinking something similar to what the host being complained about here has done is the only way to go. Not down to the detail of making the IPv6 ip based on the IPv4 IP, but giving out very small v6 blocks, (i.e. maybe /120 or /124), out of a /48 with the prefix::1/48 IP as everyone's gateway. Sure, IPv6 is big enough that we could give out /64s from that /48 and not run out of numbers, but I'm concerned about what happens when an abusive customer turns up 2^64 addresses and overloads the neighbor discovery cache on our gear. What's anyone really going to do with more than a few IP addresses on a VPS anyway? Just as we do with additional v4 IPs, if someone really has a need for additional v6 subnets, those could be provided, likely for a fee. Setting up a proper IPv6 subnet and unique gateway for each VM is probably insane, but, potentially less insane than some other alternatives. Setting one up for each customer's collection of VMs, OTOH, might not be so insane. Remember, you can have multiple IPv6 subnets on the same link without much penalty. Since you probably want the ability to have VPS portable across physical servers, you probably don't want to set up a subnet per physical server with all the VPS on a given PS sharing that subnet which is the numerically simplest approach. I'd have to review your actual architecture (physical and overlaid virtual) to really know what would be best for your particular circumstance. Contact me off-list if you're interested in something like that. Owen
