IPv6 support in veeam v9

[deevie]

Will veeam v9 be fully IPv6 compatible? In version 8, a backup proxy must still be able to connect to a vmware 6.0 host over IPv4 for NFC to work properly. In recent version of vmware VDDK (6.0) NFC over IPv6 should be possible.

[Gostev]

No, v9 does not add full IPv6 compatibility. By the way, NFC API is not a part of VDDK. Thanks!

[haslund]

Are any of the current components IPv6 compatible?
If yes, which?
Are you working on making it all IPv6 compatible?

[dellock6]

I have another question for you instead of an answer: how many environments are using ONLY IPv6 and have removed IPv4 completely?

[dkvello]

Why do You not have IPV6 on your roadmap again ?

[PTide]

Hi,

Do you need IPv6 to accomplish something specific? If so please provide us some more background.

Thank you.

[dkvello]

All 2015/2016 Datacenters we build are IPV6 only. Of course, since Veeam has no support for IPV6 i've had to do a Frankenstein and hack in IPV4.
This means that since we use IPV6 ONLY in our management and high-security networks (where we have all PC's/Clients that access the vSphere, backup and storage management) I have no use of the nice new remote Backup Console in Veeam9 - sinceit doesn't support IPV6 and we're in no way going to add IPV4 in those networks.

There is of course one more company that gives us a bit of unintended IPV6 pain - VMware. Since they for some reason need IPV4 to have vVol's working (Some VASA 2.x limit) we've had to classify vVol implementations as "Not ready for Production" until they get their act together.

[homerjnick]

At Cisco HQ they don't even use IP6 only...on a recent Cisco Training course the tutor told me "who would?"...

[dellock6]

All 2015/2016 Datacenters we build are IPV6 only.

And how do you communicate with the rest of the world?

[dkvello]

Well, almost every device here in Norway, mobile, Broadband etc. uses IPV6 (alongside IPV4) and 95% + of the Internet has IPV6 exposure. That's how we reach the outside world.
For those very few domains that are not reachable via IPV6 we use a NAT64/DNS64 gateway.

I don't really feel that we're ahead of the times. IPV6 has been live for, what?, 15-20 years ?
It certainly has been available as a default IP stack since 2006 (even Window Vista had it enabled by default).

I can't see any reason whatsovere for an enterprise product, especially something lice CloudConnect, to not support IPV6 in 2015/2016. That is just sloppy and dissapointing.

[dkvello]

At Cisco HQ they don't even use IP6 only...on a recent Cisco Training course the tutor told me "who would?"...

But Cisco is soooo last century. They still sell 10/100/1000 Switches at the price of ridiculous. If anything, Cisco has been dragging its feet for to long and hampered the virtualization of networks.

[Zeon]

It is true as of today you don't "need" IPv6. But the reality is we are all in the technology game. With IPv4 exhaustion the number of hacks we will need to implement going forward as exhaustion continues to make thing work is going to hurt us all. We all have a responsibility to move towards full IPv6 support in a dual stack, especially those who want to be leaders in their field. Is that what Veeam wants to be?

[Andreas Neufert]

I like Veeam products for two reason, they concentrate on things that are really usefull for a wide range of customers and as well listening to customers like you.

The question is would you like to scratch one or two of the major features of v9 just to release IPv6 support?
As I understand Veeams development process, the quality assurance process is the bootleneck for all new features. Testing everything over IPv4 and IPv6 would increase test time for releases significant and so it would reduce feature number per release.

On the other side we have customers like you who use IPv6 or at least some that make IPv6 compatibility mandatory for all new products.

As every company will have to deal with IPv4 ("only" or "nested on IPv6") for quite a while and IPv6 "only" will not be so common in the next time, it will take a while. But as our PM would say: "Keep pushing" the more people who send Veeam IPv6 only requests with a good background story why you need this, the more priority IPv6 get on the feature list.

[dkvello]

IPV6 should have been there since version 1. It's not a feature of the product (VEAM B&R) itself, it's a major building block of the Internet/LAN/WAN/OS.
It's as silly as asking if You wan't to drop a feauture in V9 to support hostnames in ADDITION to IP adresses. We really don't need hostnames as IPV4 adresses will do just fine.
I mean, even NOTEPAD supports IPV6 when opening and saving files to fileservers with IPV6 only.

[marco.horstmann]

Hi Dag,

IPv6 is a building block of the internet, ok, but you have still to implement IPv6 in Dialogs, Checks, etc.Notepad is only a application which uses system default file save/open/etc dialog. If we would only save from local application to a fileshare it's easy to implement via Windows API, but this doesn't work for a backup application. We have our own services which needs to speak IPv6 with vCenter, ESX, WAN Accelerator,Tape Server, Backup Proxy, Backup Repository, etc. For all of this you need to integrate IPv6 into the dialogs and after all of this you need to test everything.

Regards
Marco

[Gostev]

Even if we don't consider what Marco list because it's all "under the hood"... a quick quiz on something every Veeam user should know very well: who can say how many dialogs are there in Veeam UI where a user is supposed to enter an IP address?

[dkvello]

Even if we don't consider what Marco list because it's all "under the hood"... a quick quiz on something every Veeam user should know very well: who can say how many dialogs are there in Veeam UI where a user is supposed to enter an IP address?

I don't know, that's why I use hostnames Problem is, Veeam just pukes if that hostname has an IPV6 adress.

[Gostev]

I am talking about many dialogs where you HAVE to enter IP address (host names are simply not accepted there), for example: network traffic throttling settings, helper appliance settings, virtual lab settings, etc.

[Andreas Neufert]

@Dag, don't get me wrong. I am one of the guys fighting for IPv6 within Veeam as I lose some deals simply because customers make IPv6 support mandatory (even if customer do not use IPv6). But there is a right time for everything. As Marco and @Gostev said before there are so many different communication protocolls involved that all dev teams are affected and it nearly doubles QC time. The priority is to add new features that are really helpful for majority of our customers. The more people implementing IPv6 in main datacenters the more chance this feature request will get. Thats the way Veeam work and Veeam is very successful with this focus.

Can you please tell me what was the main reason to go with IPv6 only. Is your environment that big?

[dkvello]

Ah, the main reason being that we're moving away (since 2014) from IPV4 in our core (and internet-facing) infrastructures. But, we still need backup. IPV6 is not a"nice to have" option in my parts of the world, it's IPV6 first and then maybe IPV4 if strictrly needed.
I will, of course, avoid all solutions not IPV6 compatible in 2016 because it creates too many hassles. Sooo, what to do ? Switch datacenter backup solution ? or endure the pains of mixed IPV4/IPV6?

Our environment is not gigantic in any way, we have two (+Softlayer soon) datacenters, but we also run/support a whole lot of on-premise solutions for our customers. All interconnected datacenters are using L2, wich makes choosing IPV6 so much simpler.

Not supporting IPV6 will also stop us from implementing Cloud Connect/DRaaS in V9 as we have IPV6 only customers and they're not going to add IPV4 because of this.

As I said, there is no excuse to look at IPV6 as an afterthought and a "problem" in 2015/2016.

[Andreas Neufert]

Thank you for this feedback.

[ruffe]

Here in Norway, the government has a requirement that all new solutions shall have IPv6 support (It does not have to be IPv6-only). Vmware may fail on some solutions for this, Veeam fails totally. For us it's a current solution, so we may not have to ditch you, but you fail in supporting tests for our dual-stack environment.

[Gostev]

Not supporting IPV6 will also stop us from implementing Cloud Connect/DRaaS in V9 as we have IPV6 only customers and they're not going to add IPV4 because of this.

I was waiting for someone to post this finally. Because Cloud Connect is literally THE ONLY place in the product where IPv6 support request actually makes sense at this point in time.

Strangely enough, all the people requesting IPv6 support previously - for a few years now - wanted it somewhere else in the product (where it does not make much sense at this point), thus all the comments from green names you are seeing

[dkvello]

Hehehe, Yes. I remember having the same uphill-battle discussions back in the 90's about moving from NETBIOS/NetBEUI/NBF/802.2 to TcpBEUI/NBT (NETBIOS over NBF vs NETBIOS over TCP/UDP)
Not to mention the looooong uphill battle of convincing all kinds of vendors to support their products on virtual platforms... wich for some reason still is a battle against all kinds of strange arguments (Oracle comes to mind). Can't believe i've been doing that since 2002 allready

Well, our IPV6 requirements are real and getting rid of IPV4 in our core and extranet communications are a requirement, as well as govenment requierments.

[Squeezer]

I back up VMs on a hyper-v host using DirectAccess Manage Out, and Veeam complains that it can't connect to the Admin share on the VMs for the guest filesystem indexing. So, it would be nice if IPv6 was added to fix the error.

[schenkewitz]

IPv6 support for Cloud Connect and all internet-facing services from Veeam should have been a must have for v9. In Germany we have seen the first customers getting IPv6 only internet connects and they will not be able to use Cloud Connect services.

Veeam should begin implementing IPv6 for all these parts and finish afterwards with IPv6 support for all parts of their products.


The first services should be:
Cloud Connect, WAN Accelerator, Enterprise Manager, REST API snd Cloud Portal

[poulpreben]

IPv6 support for Cloud Connect and all internet-facing services from Veeam should have been a must have for v9. In Germany we have seen the first customers getting IPv6 only internet connects and they will not be able to use Cloud Connect services.

Maybe I am missing something very fundemental, but how do these customers access the remaining 90-95% of the internet, which is not IPv6 enabled, if their internet connections are IPv6 only?

[yasuda]

The statistics from Google that you linked show IPv6 availability roughly doubling every year since 2011. So in a year, 20%, then 40% the next year if the trend holds that long. Given what has been said about the work required to add IPv6 support to Veeam, I hope you're getting started.

[Perceptum]

Without any help, if one is given only a IPv6 address, they will not be able to see IPv4 websites. This is also true if a person only has an IPv4 address and tries to visit a site that only has an IPv6 address. The solution is called "carrier-grade NAT". Quora has a good explanation: https://www.quora.com/If-I-have-an-IPv6 ... v4-address.

[MPlesnerJ]

Google just hit the 10% using IPv6 overall, with Belgium leading the pack with 44%
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html