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
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2363580/need-to-move-to-ipv6-highlighted-as-microsoft-runs-out-of-us-address-space.html
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
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
> On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "rw...@ropeguru.com" wrote:
>
> Not impressed at all. DO customers have been asking for IPv6 for around two
> ye
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
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of
rw...@ropeguru.com
Sent: Tuesday, June
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. Ori
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:35:17AM -0400, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> 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 it
On Jun 17, 2014, at 11:26 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> 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-addr
On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote:
> 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 goi
On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:35 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> 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?
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 addresse
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
Wow. Harsh. I burn more than that just in my living room.
pgpz1lrzoN6TN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:25:37 -0400
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
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
se
> 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
On 6/17/14, 1:29 PM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:25:37 -0400
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
>>
>>> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
>>
>> Wow. Harsh. I burn more than that just in my living room.
>
> I don
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Alan Clegg wrote:
> On 6/17/14, 1:29 PM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:25:37 -0400
> > valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
> >>
> >>> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
> >>
> >>
On 6/17/2014 3:19 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Alan Clegg wrote:
On 6/17/14, 1:29 PM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:25:37 -0400
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
No, 8 individua
Robert,
On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:25:37 -0400
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
>>> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
>> Wow. Harsh. I burn more than that just in my living room.
On 2014-06-17 21:46, David Conrad wrote:
No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
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.
In the case of my 3 VPS's, I've r
On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> 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
Here's what the general public is hearing:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-running-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/
And yes, I checked the dateline this time. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
+1+1+1 re living room
On Jun 17, 2014 12:32 PM, "rw...@ropeguru.com" wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:25:37 -0400
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
>>
>> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
>>>
>>
>> Wow. Harsh. I burn more than th
On 2014-06-17 22:13, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
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 netmask, but not /64 for a custo
On 2014-06-17 22:36, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 2014-06-17 22:13, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka
>> wrote:
>>> There are still applications that break with subnet smaller than /64,
>>> so all VPS providers probably have to use /64 addressing.
>>
>> Wouldn
On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 2014-06-17 21:46, David Conrad wrote:
> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
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 t
On Jun 17, 2014, at 13:36 , Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 2014-06-17 22:13, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>>> There are still applications that break with subnet smaller than /64, so
>>> all VPS providers probably have to use /64 addressing.
>>
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> The router would route the /56 or /52 to the physical server. The hypervisor
> would have connected routes for the subordinate /64s and provide RAs to give
> default to the various VPSs.
Doing anything that ties networks to physical servers is a poor design
On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
>Here's what the general public is hearing:
But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
~$ dig arstechnica.com +short
~$
>
>
>http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-ru
>nning-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-i
On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
>
>> Here's what the general public is hearing:
>
> But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
> ~$ dig arstechnica.com +short
> ~$
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/information
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:26:47 -0500, Chris Adams said:
> Doing anything that ties networks to physical servers is a poor design
> for a VPS environment. That would mean that any VM migration requires
> customers to renumber (so no live migration allowed at all).
Why? Two hypervisors tossing a su
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2014-06-17 22:36, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> > On 2014-06-17 22:13, David Conrad wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka
> >> wrote:
> >>> There are still applications that break with subnet smaller than /64,
> >>> so
On 2014-06-17 23:48, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
[..]
>> Can't tech news sites *please* run dual stack while they're
>> spouting end-of-IPv4 stories?
>
>
>
> I would love to see a few more properties do IPv6 by default, such as
> ARS, Twitter and a few
On 2014-06-18 00:02, Matthew Petach wrote:
[..]
> I tried to configure my FreeBSD box at home to
> use a /120 subnet mask. It consistently crashed
> with a kernel panic.
Where is the bug report?
I am fairly confident that that really should not be an issue, with the
BSD stack being one of the ol
IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
users have access to IPv6 connectivity.
Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own
systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is
IPv4 *only*. Yes, Comcast is in the process
In article
you write:
>+1+1+1 re living room
My cable company assigns my home network a /50. I can figure out what
to do with two of the /64s (wired and wireless networks), but I'm
currently stumped on the other 16,382 of them.
R's,
John
>On Jun 17, 2014 12:32 PM, "rw...@ropeguru.com" wrot
announce them so folks can use the space as darknets…
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 17June2014Tuesday, at 15:39, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
>> +1+1+1 re living room
>
> My cable company assigns my home network a /50. I can figure out what
- Original Message -
> From: "Jared Mauch"
> It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
> others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish
> records with no adverse public impact.
"no" adverse impact?
Seems to me I've seen a few threads go by
In message <32832593.4076.1403046439981.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com>, Ja
y Ashworth writes:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jared Mauch"
>
> > It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
> > others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish AA
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2014-06-18 00:02, Matthew Petach wrote:
> [..]
> > I tried to configure my FreeBSD box at home to
> > use a /120 subnet mask. It consistently crashed
> > with a kernel panic.
>
> Where is the bug report?
>
> I am fairly confident that th
On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <32832593.4076.1403046439981.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com>,
> Ja
> y Ashworth writes:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Jared Mauch"
>>
>>> It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
>>>
On Jun 17, 2014, at 16:07 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jared Mauch"
>
>> It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
>> others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish
>> records with no adverse public impact.
>
> "
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> One could make a valid argument that this is no worse than systems with
> misconfigured IPv4 who cannot reach Google at all even if they don't publish
> records because their IPv4 is so badly misconfigured that it doesn't
> work either. I
These sites used to be dual-stacked:
www.cablelabs.com (over 180 days ago via ipv6.cablelabs.com)
www.att.net (over 44 days ago)
www.charter.com (over 151 days)
www.globalcrossing.com (over 802 days)
www.timewarnercable.com (over 593 days)
and www.t-online.de has been broken for over 33 days.
Fra
42 matches
Mail list logo
