If you don't mind proxying your traffic, Cloudflare can be used as a reverse proxy in front of an IPv6 only address and they will create an IPv4 address for your site too.
This allows your own server to be IPv6 only, and still hosts websites to IPv4 customers.
This off course won't work for stuff like email...
I have used the Cloudflare service. I had an issue with their IPv4 -> IPv6 in their Dallas datacenter that got resolved after chatting with their CEO on Twitter. Since then I have always also added an IPv4 fall-back as well.
I can wholeheartedly recommend Cloudflare though :-)
I've tried it for a while, for me it was down about half of the time (error 501/502/522 on CloudFlare), At a certain point, I could access my site from my phone mobile connection, but not from my home connection.
I've opened a ticket and was told that there were some problems with the servers/route (can't remember exactly, sorry) but was not given any ETA.
It was a while ago, and I remember it was during the time CloudFlare was being ddossed, so maybe it's fixed now and it work just fine, but I haven't tried again.
I've posted this before, so I hope it doesn't come out as spam (not affiliated, just a fan). A similar project is http://lowendspirit.com/
Dirty, dirty cheap vps (3€/year) with only ipv6.
Actually, that's not exactly true. You get 20 ports of a shared ipv4, which is nice if you can't connect over ipv6. You can also ask for an haproxy entry, so that your vps will answer on port 80 when trying to access your site.
I hope we'll see similar discounts in the future, since ipv4 keep getting more expansive every day (right now provider can easily charge 1-5€/month for one).
Thanks for posting this again. I forgot to save this site the first time I came across it, and I couldn't find anything useful by searching for "ipv6 only VPS."
To Mythic Beasts and other smaller discount VPS providers: please, please provide an API.
I am building a service that uses the Digital Ocean API. Their prices are lower than large services like AWS, Google and even Linode so I can provide a good value by adding on to their virtual servers (I am building a service for deploying Docker containers).
If there was another somewhat smaller but still relatively discounted and reliable VPS provider with a good API then I could provide that as another option for my customers to deploy their Docker containers to.
What's your service? I'm very interested in deploying docker containers at the moment, and having a nice abstraction over deploying to multiple different providers would be fantastic.
Not ready to share the dev website yet because there are too many things left to do.
And to be honest the multiple VPS providers thing is a ways off and might not happen.
For now it has a command/API endpoint to deploy a VPS (Digital Ocean), another for registering a domain. The idea is that often when you want to deploy a container it is actually a web site/web application or part of one.
And then I have a run command/API endpoint that takes the server name, image or image alias name, and domain name. It will run the image and automatically create a DNS record and reverse nginx proxy (if the container exposes a port using HTTP).
I am also planning on adding a simple way to automatically run and link containers so that you can just add ENV RUNLINK elasticsearch,redis to your Dockerfile and then my run command will pull & run elasticsearch and redis and then run your container and link it. With the new feature in docker you can then access redis for example by specifying redis as the hostname (docker now adds an /etc/hosts line when you link). I will have some default image aliases which are basically a way to shorten an image name to leave out the username/repo and go with a default I have tested or an alias added by the user.
Right now I am thinking minimum of two weeks before I can start beta testing.
A /64 in IPv6 is 2^64 IP addresses (it is 128 bit). 256 IPv6 addresses is /120. The simple reason why they do not give smaller blocks is the VPS company themselves are assigned a minimum of /64 for network purposes. That means they have 4 billion blocks of 4 billion IPs so why be stingy :)
> The simple reason why they do not give smaller blocks is the VPS company themselves are assigned a minimum of /64 for network purposes. That means they have 4 billion blocks of 4 billion IPs so why be stingy :)
Well, you know, they might end up having half the population of the planet buying servers, and then they'll be sorry they didn't give out smaller alotments...
No, it's not really a "recommended minimum", it's the size of the allocation for a local network segment, and that is because stateless autoconfiguration uses the last 64 bits of the address, and thus doesn't work with smaller subnets - and making the allocation for a local network segment larger doesn't make sense, as autoconfig can't use it anyhow (and you certainly won't have more devices either).
The recommended minimum for "a network" in the sense of an allocation assigned to a different administrative entity is a /56, so that multiple network segments can be set up without any further administrative overhead and without incentivizing network idiocy like NAT that's been holding us back with IPv4 for far too long already. Unfortunately, many providers seem to not have gotten the memo, allocating all kinds of idiotically small networks, thus essentially breaking IPv6 before it even got adopted ...
edit: I guess I should mention that providers themselves tend to get a minimum allocation of a /32 from their NIC, so they can assign 16 million /56 without running out of addresses (at which point the income generated from 16 million customers presumably should be more than enough to pay for another /32). They are simply majorly wasting address space by not allocating it ...
This allows your own server to be IPv6 only, and still hosts websites to IPv4 customers.
This off course won't work for stuff like email...