4 ms·

I think the closest they have to a competitor is oneweb, which hasn't completed the roll out for their first constellation yet. They are surprisingly close thou

I think the closest they have to a competitor is oneweb, which hasn't completed the roll out for their first constellation yet. They are surprisingly close though, and could've been able to actually have an operational internet service if it wasn't for a scrapped launch related to the Russian invasion. I remember thinking they were basically dead, but they have recovered surprisingly well. Though their satellites are more likely to remain in space since they don't deorbit as easily as starlink. Otherwise the "traditional" satellite internet providers don't really even count as actual competitors. Also, I thought starlink didn't provide customers with IP addresses and that the whole thing was going through a CGNAT and the sats themselves used private internal addresses. Even starlink business users don't get a static IP, just a publically addressable one through DHCP that could in theory change at any time more or less. That means that the premium is most probably due to the added complexity that comes with making some of their network publically addressable rather than having anything to do with IPv4 costs. From what I'm reading they also seem to be working on ipv6 support (soon™), which is hopefully going to make IPv4 pricing matter a lot less for users. Until then they are probably limited by their CGNAT architecture. I'll look it up since it could've been just some launch date speculation.

charcircuit 4y ago
IPv6 is not a solution when there still is a lot of people whose networks don't support it. Making the network publicly routable shouldn't be any more complex than any other ISP which seem to do this just fine.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Wait, I don't know tons about networking but my impression was rhat CGNAT basically does not allow your users to be publically addressable? Have I misunderstood what CGNAT does, or it just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place?
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    CGNAT has multiple users share a single IP address which means that there needs to be some logic to know which user an incoming packet should go to which is why they are normally not publicly addressable. Not all ISPs use CGNAT though. >just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place? I would be okay if there was a way to get assigned a dedicated, though not necessarily a static one, IP address that was not at a massive margin.
- ben_w 4y ago
  IPv6 is 24.5 years old. When there's enough time for you to conceive a new child, send them through school, then university, then most of a PhD program… If your network equipment supplier doesn't support the tech, demand better of them rather than blaming the ISP that's specifically intended for people who weren't being properly served until now anyway.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >IPv6 is 24.5 years old. And Chinese is hundreds of years old and I still don't know it. People don't invest into supporting things the instant they release. >If your network equipment supplier... In this hypothetical my network supplier would, but someone who is trying to connect isn't. IPv6 isn't even at 50% support in the US. That means if you want your friend group to all connect to your server there is a very good chance that some of them will not be able to. What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP?
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > People don't invest into supporting things the instant they release. Virtually every other aspect of the tech world, including networking, has managed to update multiple times in the intervening years. We don't (mostly) use dialup; we switched from 2G to 3G to 4G and now to 5G mobile telephony since then; HTTP has been mostly deprecated for HTTPS and the cryptography standards for the latter have changed; etc. > What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP? Yes. I mean, what, is their ISP also using Windows 98 on a 486 chip running at 75 MHz with 8 meg of RAM and a 500 meg hard drive, and software patches being passed around on floppy disks? Because that's what the tech world looked like when we should've started refusing to buy products and services that were IPv4-only. Today? Today, this kind of nonsense has gone on far too long. It was obvious even during my degree ~20 years ago that IPv4-to-6 transition should have already been finished by the time I even learned about it. As there are now far more devices on the internet than IPv4 addresses, I would go further and say that normal ISPs should be banned by law from using IPv4 — if we're going to do that for which type of USB connector personal electronics use, why not this?
genewitch 4y ago
I lost where someone mentioned ipv6, but I get a 2605: ipv6 address on starlink, so it already exists and works fine.

charcircuit 4y ago

IPv6 is not a solution when there still is a lot of people whose networks don't support it. Making the network publicly routable shouldn't be any more complex than any other ISP which seem to do this just fine.

mardifoufs 4y ago
Wait, I don't know tons about networking but my impression was rhat CGNAT basically does not allow your users to be publically addressable? Have I misunderstood what CGNAT does, or it just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place?
- charcircuit 4y ago
  CGNAT has multiple users share a single IP address which means that there needs to be some logic to know which user an incoming packet should go to which is why they are normally not publicly addressable. Not all ISPs use CGNAT though. >just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place? I would be okay if there was a way to get assigned a dedicated, though not necessarily a static one, IP address that was not at a massive margin.
ben_w 4y ago
IPv6 is 24.5 years old. When there's enough time for you to conceive a new child, send them through school, then university, then most of a PhD program… If your network equipment supplier doesn't support the tech, demand better of them rather than blaming the ISP that's specifically intended for people who weren't being properly served until now anyway.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >IPv6 is 24.5 years old. And Chinese is hundreds of years old and I still don't know it. People don't invest into supporting things the instant they release. >If your network equipment supplier... In this hypothetical my network supplier would, but someone who is trying to connect isn't. IPv6 isn't even at 50% support in the US. That means if you want your friend group to all connect to your server there is a very good chance that some of them will not be able to. What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP?
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > People don't invest into supporting things the instant they release. Virtually every other aspect of the tech world, including networking, has managed to update multiple times in the intervening years. We don't (mostly) use dialup; we switched from 2G to 3G to 4G and now to 5G mobile telephony since then; HTTP has been mostly deprecated for HTTPS and the cryptography standards for the latter have changed; etc. > What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP? Yes. I mean, what, is their ISP also using Windows 98 on a 486 chip running at 75 MHz with 8 meg of RAM and a 500 meg hard drive, and software patches being passed around on floppy disks? Because that's what the tech world looked like when we should've started refusing to buy products and services that were IPv4-only. Today? Today, this kind of nonsense has gone on far too long. It was obvious even during my degree ~20 years ago that IPv4-to-6 transition should have already been finished by the time I even learned about it. As there are now far more devices on the internet than IPv4 addresses, I would go further and say that normal ISPs should be banned by law from using IPv4 — if we're going to do that for which type of USB connector personal electronics use, why not this?

genewitch 4y ago

I lost where someone mentioned ipv6, but I get a 2605: ipv6 address on starlink, so it already exists and works fine.