4 ms·

I've never heard of CGNAT before this thread but add that to ISPs downgrading upload speeds, and refusal to allocate residential v6 space... Our whole industry

I've never heard of CGNAT before this thread but add that to ISPs downgrading upload speeds, and refusal to allocate residential v6 space... Our whole industry is out to kill technical independence.

gruez 5y ago
>Our whole industry is out to kill technical independence. Get a grip. The reasons you listed either don't really impede self-hosting, or have more benign explanations than "they're out to kill technical independence". >CGNAT Because ipv6 rollout is hard, and even if you do have ipv6 rolled out in your network, you'll still need ivp4 for vast portions of the internet >ISPs downgrading upload speeds Because spectrum on the wire is limited, and most consumers download. It's not really logical to allocate the spectrum evenly across upload/download just so a few people self-hosting can benefit to the detriment of everyone else. >refusal to allocate residential v6 space I'm presuming you're talking about ISPs that only allocate a /128? It's not really clear how this impedes self-hosting. You just have to set up port-forwarding, which presumably you have tho skills to do if you're the type of person to self-host.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > Because ipv6 rollout is hard, and even if you do have ipv6 rolled out in your network, you'll still need ivp4 for vast portions of the internet The experience of the ISP Free in France: After having had a succinct presentation of the 6rd idea, a major French Internet service provider (ISP), Free of the Iliad group (hereafter Free), did all of the following in an impressively short delay of only five weeks (November 7th to December 11th 2007): 1. obtained from its regional Internet Registry (RIR) an IPv6 prefix, the length of which was that allocated without a justification and a delay to examine it, namely /32; 2. added 6rd support to the software of its Freebox home-gateway (upgrading for this an available 6to4 code); 3. provisioned PC-compatible platform with a 6to4 gateway software; 4. modified it to support 6rd; 5. tested IPv6 operation with several operating systems and applications; 6. finished operational deployment, by means of new version of the downloadable software of their Freeboxes; 7. announced IPv6 Internet connectivity, at no extra charge, for all its customers wishing to activate it. More than 1,500,000 residential customers thus became able to use IPv6 if they wished, with all the look and feel of native IPv6 addresses routed in IPv6. The only condition was an activation of IPv6 in their Freeboxes, and of course in their IPv6-capable hosts. * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5569 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5569 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment This was ten years ago, so the Internet was less integral to people's lives (relatively speaking). Some more testing may be needed nowadays for IP end-nodes, but I'm not sure if things in the network infrastructure would be any more challenging.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >but I'm not sure if things in the network infrastructure would be any more challenging. 1. this assumes your network is properly set up and doesn't have legacy cruft that prevents ivp6 from getting deployed 2. empirical evidence speaks for itself: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html. If it was as simple as what was described, ivp6 deployment wouldn't be moving at such a glacial pace.
- dvdkon 5y ago
  Re limited upload: This is true with technologies that have a shared medium for many users (*DSL, DOCSIS), but many ISPs use technologies that are full duplex and/or point-to-point and at that point limiting upload becomes arbitrary. It's also pretty stupid, why should I care about FTTH if local Vodafone will only give me 1000/60, same as DOCSIS?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > Get a grip. The reasons you listed either don't really impede self-hosting, or have more benign explanations than "they're out to kill technical independence". I don't understand the snark when we're talking about companies that quite literally forbid running your own services in their terms of service.

I've never heard of CGNAT before this thread but add that to ISPs downgrading upload speeds, and refusal to allocate residential v6 space... Our whole industry is out to kill technical independence.

gruez 5y ago

>Our whole industry is out to kill technical independence. Get a grip. The reasons you listed either don't really impede self-hosting, or have more benign explanations than "they're out to kill technical independence". >CGNAT Because ipv6 rollout is hard, and even if you do have ipv6 rolled out in your network, you'll still need ivp4 for vast portions of the internet >ISPs downgrading upload speeds Because spectrum on the wire is limited, and most consumers download. It's not really logical to allocate the spectrum evenly across upload/download just so a few people self-hosting can benefit to the detriment of everyone else. >refusal to allocate residential v6 space I'm presuming you're talking about ISPs that only allocate a /128? It's not really clear how this impedes self-hosting. You just have to set up port-forwarding, which presumably you have tho skills to do if you're the type of person to self-host.

throw0101a 5y ago
> Because ipv6 rollout is hard, and even if you do have ipv6 rolled out in your network, you'll still need ivp4 for vast portions of the internet The experience of the ISP Free in France: After having had a succinct presentation of the 6rd idea, a major French Internet service provider (ISP), Free of the Iliad group (hereafter Free), did all of the following in an impressively short delay of only five weeks (November 7th to December 11th 2007): 1. obtained from its regional Internet Registry (RIR) an IPv6 prefix, the length of which was that allocated without a justification and a delay to examine it, namely /32; 2. added 6rd support to the software of its Freebox home-gateway (upgrading for this an available 6to4 code); 3. provisioned PC-compatible platform with a 6to4 gateway software; 4. modified it to support 6rd; 5. tested IPv6 operation with several operating systems and applications; 6. finished operational deployment, by means of new version of the downloadable software of their Freeboxes; 7. announced IPv6 Internet connectivity, at no extra charge, for all its customers wishing to activate it. More than 1,500,000 residential customers thus became able to use IPv6 if they wished, with all the look and feel of native IPv6 addresses routed in IPv6. The only condition was an activation of IPv6 in their Freeboxes, and of course in their IPv6-capable hosts. * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5569 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5569 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment This was ten years ago, so the Internet was less integral to people's lives (relatively speaking). Some more testing may be needed nowadays for IP end-nodes, but I'm not sure if things in the network infrastructure would be any more challenging.
- gruez 5y ago
  >but I'm not sure if things in the network infrastructure would be any more challenging. 1. this assumes your network is properly set up and doesn't have legacy cruft that prevents ivp6 from getting deployed 2. empirical evidence speaks for itself: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html. If it was as simple as what was described, ivp6 deployment wouldn't be moving at such a glacial pace.
dvdkon 5y ago
Re limited upload: This is true with technologies that have a shared medium for many users (*DSL, DOCSIS), but many ISPs use technologies that are full duplex and/or point-to-point and at that point limiting upload becomes arbitrary. It's also pretty stupid, why should I care about FTTH if local Vodafone will only give me 1000/60, same as DOCSIS?
pessimizer 5y ago
> Get a grip. The reasons you listed either don't really impede self-hosting, or have more benign explanations than "they're out to kill technical independence". I don't understand the snark when we're talking about companies that quite literally forbid running your own services in their terms of service.