I suggest you ...

Give users IPv6 /64 blocks when you roll out IPv6

As you guys are testing IPv6 in the Singapore region, I highly recommend you give users a /64 each when IPv6 rolls out. This is proper practice, and gives users more flexibility in terms of address selection.

355 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    D. StroutD. Strout shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • Luis MuñozLuis Muñoz commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Assigning less than a /64 to each host (Droplet from my perspective) introduces additional difficulty for a number of tasks and in my case, blocks most use cases involving SMTP email.

        Lack of IPv6-capable SMTP driven my use case back to Amazon EC2. I hope you can consider allowing at least /64 allocations and unblocking SMTP over IPv6.

      • Ryan KaiserRyan Kaiser commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Increase the size of routed IPv6 prefix to /64. If that is too big on a per-droplet basis, consider doing it on a per-account basis; or limit to one routed /64 block per data center. The current /124 block is essentially useless to me.

      • Thomas HabetsThomas Habets commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        /64? What? No, /48 to /56 is the standard. Just check wikipedia for one, and check every ISP.

        I get many /64 subnets for my stupid BT home broadband.

      • Paul WilliamsPaul Williams commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Echoing the other comments.../64 per droplet and /48 or /56 per account please. The current setup breaks the spec and makes it difficult to utilize IPv6 on DO for a number of scenarios (Docker, OpenVPN, etc.).

      • ThomasThomas commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Also I would love to just get a /48 per account, it makes Firewall and IPsec rules so much simpler than having ~100 firewall rules for each droplet, which would bring it down to one firewall rule.

      • Troy KellyTroy Kelly commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        After many, many years as a Digital Ocean customer - we too are closing our account.
        Ignoring RFC and best practice because you (Moisey) have unilaterally decided that you know best is embarrassing.

      • Christian KratzerChristian Kratzer commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        As there as been no response on this for over 6 months I am cancelling all my DO accounts today. Port blocks and no dedicated /64 are a show stopper for me.

      • Chris WeylChris Weyl commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Being so restrictive with ipv6 addresses doesn't make sense to me. For one, it's so unusual that I'm sure there's a ton of work going on behind the scenes to enforce this -- labor that wouldn't be necessary if DO just gave out /64's properly.

        Also, according to ARIN[1], it's likely the *minimum* allocation they'd give DO is a /32. That means DO would have 2^32 /64's to assign -- that is:

        DO has, at a minimum, over 4 billion /64 networks.

        ...and could easily get more, if, you know, about 75% (still over 3 billion) were allocated.

        If each droplet were given their own /64, that's still a *heck* of a lot of droplets.

        If each customer were given a /56 and allowed to carve it up as they chose, DO would have almost 17 million /56's to hand out.

        IPv6 addresses are *not* constrained by any measure.

        ...except artificially.

        Oh well, guess I'll be checking out AWS' recently announced support for ipv6 in certain regions of EC2... :(

        [1] https://www.arin.net/resources/request.html

      • Jeremy TribbyJeremy Tribby commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Unbelievable. /64 is RFC. This isn't a political decision. DigitalOcean is intentionally going against spec for no reason.

      • Craig McQueenCraig McQueen commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I'm surprised this is still in the "gathering feedback" state. It seems the common consensus is:

        * Droplets should be allocated at minimum a /64, since that is the intent of IPv6 design.
        * Some want an account allocated a /56, which can have /64 allocated per droplet.
        * Some want to be able to pay for additional blocks to be routed to droplets (such as myself, for OpenVPN for example).

        It seems crazy for IPv6 to be so limited for a VPS, when my home ISP is allocating a static /56 per residential DSL customer!

      • Holger SchinzelHolger Schinzel commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Same story here: Found out today that SMTP traffic via IPv6 is blocked due to users sharing the same /64 block. It was suggested to me that i should disable IPv6 lookups via /etc/gai.conf-file - which is basically like saying "Please disable IPv6".

        I suggested that assigning /128 or /80 subnets to droplets is against IPv6 design best practice and was referred to the developer forum (here!) [1] just to find out that this request is pending since > 2 years without ANY feedback from DO on timeline and priorities.

        Sorry DO, your IPv6 support is a shill. Get yourself sorted out and finally do it right. [2]

        [1] "As we're experiencing extreme growth, our engineering team is working as quickly as possible on a variety of known issues as well as feature requests. We are excited to hear feedback from you on how we can improve our service. To submit feature requests and suggestions, please visit our developer's forum where you can add, discuss, and vote on features:"

        [2] http://etherealmind.com/allocating-64-wasteful-ipv6-not

      • AviAvi commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I'll quote Justin's comment: "It is against the IPv6 standard to allocate anything smaller than a /64 per subnet. Doing so breaks a lot of the fundamental assumptions that IPv6 relies on to operate properly."

        You got this so wrong DO. See http://etherealmind.com/allocating-64-wasteful-ipv6-not
        It's a brain dead idea to offer 16 hosts, and frankly the first time I've questioned the quality of your service.

      • Adrien JarthonAdrien Jarthon commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I just hit the IPv6 filtering recently and was pretty surprised. In my case (updown.io) I don't even send email over IPv6, but I monitor other's servers, and if someones configure a simple TCP check on port 25 (to check if his SMTP server is up) I can't do this from DO. I never realized this before but this is pretty bad for me as this means I can't provide a good IPv6 support if it only works on some ports.

        I'm wiling to pay 1€ / month for a /64 IPv6 range if availability is an issue for you and you don't want to give /64s to everyone.

        Of course it would need to be unfiltered then.

      • Christian KratzerChristian Kratzer commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Yes please implement at least a routed per Droplet /64 network.

        The current setup is useless for me.

        I do not want to run anything in a shared /64 network. Google is already blocking connects from the respective networks and you are blocking mail related ports....

      • Christian KratzerChristian Kratzer commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The current ipv6 networking setup with a /124 network per droplet is rather crippled and forces lots of customers into a shared /64.

        Please implement at least an optional /64 IPv6 per droplet.

        Having per customer ipv6 addresse space for free use between Droplets would be even greater but dedicated /64 per Droplets would help a lot.

        This would also permit you to lift your mail related port blocks for the dedicated /64.

        The current shared /64 with /124 setup and the associted filters are a show stopper for my current project of moving my company's mail infrastructure from dedicated KVM hosts on our own hardware to DO.

      • Zachary DuBoisZachary DuBois commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        It seems like it would be fairly easy for DO to implement this. All it would take is a migration for users with the current setup and then a simple script to update the network interfaces (just like the one they did for old droplets with no floating IPs).

      ← Previous 1 3

      Feedback and Knowledge Base