11 ms·
Why No IPv6?
- Kelteseth 2y agoAt this point, we should make IPv6 a mandatory standard. Please EU, make it happen!
- AndyMcConachie 2y agoMy ISP Ziggo only supports IPv6 if I use their crummy CPE device. I want to use my own router, so no IPv6 for me. Does Ziggo support IPv6? This is one example, but there are many where we need to investigate more than just, "Does my ISP support IPv6?"
- exe34 2y agoCan you put it in modem mode?
- b112 2y agoThat would be an incredible overreach for the EU, beyond anything it's ever attempted before. It would also be directly interceding in engineering standards, without there even being an overall, enforceable standards body (RFCs aren't mandated standards). Really the dollar speaks here. If ipv6 is a real requirement, than companies not supporting it will be hurt fiscally. Taking a step back, one might consider how incredibly... unwanted and unwieldy ipv6 is. It's just a pain to deal with. Pundits will say "Oh, it's easy!". Great. Now explain why something touted as utterly simplistic and with supposedly zero issues rolling out, and is cited as having immense upside, has its adoption fought by companies which have top tier talent working for them. Sure. It's all that top tier talent that's wrong. They're confused. It's not ipv6.
- thedougd 2y agoI don't believe it's a talent/skill issue. It's a business issue. IPv6 is easy to deprioritize in the daily course of business because there remains a working alternative.
- rand_r 2y agoAmen, brother. Fact is, all critical limitations with IPv4 were hacked around by necessity, so the average user doesn’t care. The main failure case is that it’s a painful or possibly impossible to setup your own public internet server from home, but ISPs are probably happy about that and games have figured out a work-around. If IPv6 was a project at work, it would probably get killed as not a priority.
- 127 2y agoOnly regulated markets can be free markets. I don't really want to see more pathological cartels forming around internet access.
- difosfor 2y agoIs there really something wrong with IPv6? Isn't this just another case of resistance to change and the envisioned cost of it vs the benefits? I think it's just a matter of (even more) time.
- armada651 2y agoIt's because they do not reap the benefits of ipv6 nor do they bear the burden of continuing to use ipv4. Those sites are big enough that they can simply rely on the fact providers ensure their customers can reach those sites. They could be using the OSI protocol and providers would still find a way to tunnel their customers to those servers. The cost of ipv4 is ultimately being paid for by customers in the form of higher fees for their internet subscriptions. And this is exactly a case where the government can help the market operate more efficiently by demanding standardization.
- kaliszad 2y agoThe Czech government mandates IPv4 to be turned off by 6/6/2032 for the official institutions and it will probably involve state companies too. https://konecipv4.cz/en/ https://konecipv4.cz/en/ IPv4 hurts innovation by basically charging for numbers more than an administrative fee hindering newcomers to enter the market. Everybody suffers a little because of the networking effect. However, IPv4 seems to be a pain for the big companies too. Some, like e.g. Facebook are really pushing it. With the supposedly "top tier talent" why does e.g. Azure have such a bad IPv6 implementation? Why is Cloudflare or big parts of GitHub IPv4-only? Isn't that meant for developers? What about e.g. Twitter? The biggest problem is not the infrastructure. All the important programs like DNS servers, operating systems and hardware do support IPv6 more or less for the last 10-15 years well enough. The problem is developers that are stuck in IPv4 mentally, doing GUI windows, that only accept IPv4, only testing on IPv4, specifying database columns to hold only IPv4 etc.
- Etheryte 2y agoNot sure if this is an urban legend or not, but I recall reading somewhere that for many big companies, going IPv6 is simply not possible at this time. I can't remember if it was a leaked memo from AWS or another one of the giants, but their analysis was essentially that they would need to buy all the global stock for certain types of routers to do the migration from where they are right now.
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y agoGiven AWS charges extra for IPv4 these days and is IPv6 by default, either it's an old memo or not AWS.
- cynicalsecurity 2y agoAdding a Russian bank's domain name makes as much sense as adding a North Korean one.
- pif 2y agoAt this point, we should just accept we were wrong and bury IPv6 six feet under.
- __s 2y agoWhat's your alternative? https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ipv6 rollout is well in progress. AWS started charging extra for IPv4 ips. 32 bits is not enough. According to that site India is 70% ipv6 Websites should have the easier time providing ipv6. In the past they could keep it simpler because users weren't on ipv6, & often that was because ISPs have dragged their feet. That's changing
- georgyo 2y agoAnd then what? Invent a new standard that also won't be adopted? Make it so in the future a public IP is like owning a home? IPv6 is the only viable path forward. There are no redos here. Saying IPv6 can't work is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. IPv4 space has run out. Any solution that add more space requires full adoption from client on the planet. The thing is, IPv6 only clients can reach IPv4 only services. It's why these services don't advertise v6, they don't technically need to even if some clients would be better off. But an IPv6 only service _can not_ be accessed by an IPv4 only client. These limitations are true for any possible alternative to IPv6. We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future.
- izacus 2y agoYes, invent a new standard that's actually easy enough to implement so it will be adopted. If the USB consortium can do it, the network folks can as well.
- Pikamander2 2y agoRoughly 20-40% of the web supports IPv6, and the number grows every year. Implementing it fully is a technical process, but it's not an impossible barrier. The real reason for the slowness is that there's little to no profit incentive to ensuring its full compatibility, in part because IPv4 is guaranteed to be (mostly) backwards compatible for decades. It's a slow process, but it's happening. There's no need to invent yet another standard for something that's already working and will likely be good enough to last generations once it's finished being implemented.
- stonewall 2y agoIt's been what, over twenty years now? If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it. At some point we will have to admit we made a big mistake.
- blueflow 2y agoAt some point IPv4 address space will be all allocated. Its just that many people don't feel the pain yet nor have the foresight to do any preparation. I'm all IPv6 and i got my first network segments that are IPv6 only. I got nothing to fear. And no NAT.
- this_user 2y agoAlarmists have been telling us for at least 15 years that the IPv4 space is about to be exhausted and how disastrous that will be. So far, nothing has happened.
- blueflow 2y agoHetzner charges extra for IPv4 allocation.
- nasmorn 2y agoWhich is the opposite of a catastrophe. It is just a tiny inconvenience
- blueflow 2y agoYet. Lets talk again in 2034.
- steeleduncan 2y agoAs does AWS - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address-charge-public-ip-insights/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address...
- 2y ago
- pif 2y agoThe idiocy of this site is shocking! Why should companies care about anything not directly linked to their customers' satisfaction?
- jasonjayr 2y ago.... customers are increasingly demanding IPv6, so .... ? Perhaps it exists as a useful device to point to to articulate exactly why IPv6 should be implemented?
- pif 2y agoCustomers vote with their wallet. I trust those companies to know how to care about their earnings. IP version 4 or 6, is nothing more than a nerdy thing as far as revenue is concerned.
- ghusto 2y ago> customers are increasingly demanding IPv6 Who? Where?
- orangeboats 2y agoMe and all users on the same ISP as mine? :) Oversubscribed CGNATs are real. [0] Customers may not care which protocol you (as the ISP) are using, but they will definitely notice dialup-era internet speed! [0]: https://reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_way_to_force_ipv6_on_imgur/ https://reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_way_to...
- aphroz 2y agoThey should do like PHP and jump to IPv7
- themoonisachees 2y agoI mean, we very much did that with ipv5 already
- romanovcode 2y agoThe worst offenders IMO is PSN. If you have IPv6 it will just not allow you to connect to their services. Even on PS5.
- myself248 2y agoHow about ISPs? I cant get ipv6 from WideOpenWest, either residential or business-class.
- kaliszad 2y agoVote with your wallet if possible. A competent ISP must have IPv6. If they don't have IPv6, what else do they skip that is their job?
- myself248 2y ago> A competent ISP Oh, if only I had literally any of those to pick from. I'm American, sadly, and there is no competitive landscape.
- kaliszad 2y agoDepending on where you live, Starlink might be a better offering. They do have IPv6. If you just want to play with IPv6 but don't want to change providers, you can rent e.g. a Hetzner VM in the USA, setup wireguard/ IPsec tunnel to it with IPv4 underlay and use it to access the IPv6 internet. It has 20 TB/ month of traffic which should be enough for most testing/ learning.
- jmakov 2y agoApparently not useful enough to make it happen.
- throw0101c 2y agoTell that to T-Mobile US: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE Wells Fargo: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4 Microsoft: * https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-ipv6-only-single-stack-network/ https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo Google: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8 LinkedIn (pre-Microsoft): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ukwR86BClY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ukwR86BClY
- throwaway63467 2y agoI mean IPv4 addresses are “worth” around 50 USD a piece, so the whole address space is approaching a valuation of one trillion USD. This gets into conspiracy theory territory but I wonder if large organizations have a vested interest in keeping IPv6 adoption down, as they can rent out IPv4 addresses for a good price. I’m pretty sure it’s not a large factor overall but it seems that economically it doesn’t make much sense for most existing actors to switch to IPv6 anytime soon.
- tenebrisalietum 2y ago> They can rent out IPv4 addresses for a good price. Companies are already doing it. IPXO, for one.
- waezguy 2y agoIf you have IPv4 addresses, why should you be forced to give it up? Online protocols already support IPv4 and IPv6.
- red_trumpet 2y agoNo need to give it up. But what about forcing you to support IPv6 as well?
- gowthamgts12 2y agoi might be wrong, but i believe it's a big internal effort for these services to support ipv6 for little benefit. since most of the people are dual-stacked at the moment, they can get away with this.
- edent 2y agoWhy is IPv6 designed in such a way that it is hard to migrate to? I've no idea if my website is IPv6 compatible. When Let's Encrypt became a thing, I pushed a button on my webhost's console and I had HTTPS. It worked for the majority of devices without needing any reconfiguration. Where's the one-click solution for IPv6?
- izacus 2y agoBecause it's basically the technical standard equivalent of that junior engineer going "Let's not just increase our ID column to 64-bit, but let's REWRITE IT ALL TO BE AWSOMEST.". And then the rewrite stutters, stalls and everyone finds out that they really just wanted that 64-bit ID column.
- blueflow 2y agoThen explain how you are gonna increase the address field in IP packages without making the resulting protocol incompatible to IPv4. As to my current knowledge, this is not possible because any router not understanding these extensions would be unable to route packets with that extension correctly.
- izacus 2y agoNoone here is claiming that the new protocol would be compatible with IPv4 and I'd rather you don't beat a strawman. But there's still a gradient on how much the new protocol actually differs from the old in how networks are structured and how much work router, switch and client firmware needs to support it. The fact that I haven't seen a single non-buggy router firmware (and I've deployed quite a few IPv6 networks) tells by itself just how overbloated the standard is.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chippiewill 2y agoI don't think you could design it in such a way that it's easier to migrate to. It's a fundamental change at the IP protocol layer, there wasn't scope in that layer for backwards compatibility. There's loads of transition mechanisms that were introduced, but it's not as tractable of a problem. Assumptions around IPv4 have been baked in all over the place. Also there was more _reason_ to move to HTTPS. Virtually everything had already supported HTTPS for closing in on two decades at the point the mass rollout with LE happened. You could switch to HTTPS-only for your site without breaking it for your users because they already needed it for online banking etc. You can't just switch to exclusive IPv6 because half your users don't even have an IPv6 connection. And virtually everyone with IPv6 has an IPv4 connection anyway so the benefit in dual stacking is nil. Unlike supporting HTTPS where at least those that supported it got the benefit.
- 7thpower 2y agoIf IPv4 public addresses become scarce, they will become a feature that costs more than it does today and the problem will sort itself out. That being said, I prefer shame to regulation. But both are pretty far down the list of ideal solutions.
- tenebrisalietum 2y agoLikely. There are companies that are buying up IPv4 blocks and then renting them out, treating it like real-estate speculation.
- noirscape 2y agoThe main mistake hurting IPv6 adoption is and always will be that it's incompatible with IPv4 in both ways with no real solutions in sight. Numerous solutions could've been thought up (CGNAT the entirety of IPv6 as a source behind a part of the IPv4 space and allocate a part of the IPv6 region for "legacy" IPv4 addresses for example; that way you have 6->4 backwards compatibility), but none were tried. The result is a great technology in a vacuum, forever hampered in adoption rate because it's not compatible with old sites and there's no incentive for old site operators to switch. Shaming bad actors doesn't do anything because IPv4 vs IPv6 is largely nerd shit in terms of computer issues; your average internet user is behind CGNAT already for IPv4 so address exhaustion means nothing to them so they don't care about it.
- welterde 2y agoWhat do you mean it has never been tried? That's how a lot of mobile providers and home internet providers operate today. My provider in Germany was already using DS-Lite (native IPv6 and IPv4 is tunneled over IPv6 to CGNAT gateway) more than 8 years ago. Mobile phones often use 464XLAT where IPv4 is translated to a region of the address space within IPv6 (the backbone is IPv6-only). The problem is the inverse direction (IPv4 -> IPv6) since IPv4 is lacking any mechanism for forward-compatibility.
- ramzez 2y agoevery time I enable ipv6 on my pfsense, things go wrong, some sites don't open, some are very very slow to open like amazon prime or Disney plus have problems. Something is broken at router levels and until that's fixed, I keep it off
- daedalus_j 2y agoI had similar issues (also with pfSense) during my ISP's rollout of IPv6. It seems that it was all ISP related. I turned it off and came back a few months later and it's been pretty flawless ever since. The only times it causes problems is when the ISP's v6 stack goes out, leaving us with interrupted v6 service but working v4. Doesn't seem that apps handle that situation very gracefully. At another site I manage they have Starlink with v6 and CGNAT v4 and it's great, just plugged in the dish to the pfSense router, set up v6, and it's been ticking away happily ever since. The only problems we have are with the old devices (iot and such) that don't get V6 addresses, and have trouble with the CGNAT. (Seems like it doesn't reset long-running connections correctly perhaps, they just get stalled out. Killing the state on pfSense usually gets them working again.) So I suspect it's more a your-mileage-may-vary situation depending on ISP than an issue with v6 or pfSense.
- CAP_NET_ADMIN 2y agoNo one wants to deal with IPv6 except for the almost religious crowd that creates an endless blogspam on how YOU should migrate to IPv6 because it's awesome!. The only interaction I had with dedicated IPv6 users was when I blocked an entire /48 from our app due to high abuse rates and got very angry email from the owner that I'm stifling the global progress.
- guimplen 2y agoI thought the problem with the IPv6 is that it incorporates a lot of bloat compared to the IPv4.
- drpossum 2y agoI thought AWS was going to start charging for external ipv4 addresses on EC2 instances? Surely that has to count for something in the right direction.
- caymanjim 2y agoIPv6 is unwieldy. The addresses are impossible to remember and hard to type. Most people don't need to do either of those things, but the people who manage systems do. There's also little incentive for consumers and businesses to switch. The only way it'll happen is if it's imposed by large network providers. Where I see it being useful is for IoT devices, where you're never configuring them manually, and where they probably only need to speak to one endpoint. For anything that involves manual setup, you're going to have to force me to use IPv6, because I just don't care. Voluntary adoption is a pointless endeavor.
- daedalus_j 2y agoFWIW I really don't need to remember the IPv6 addresses of devices on my networks, DNS and my router handle that for me fairly automatically. I can even control how I connect to the device, either by using it's hostname on the LAN, it's WAN hostname, or it's VPN hostname. This has always been preferable to me over remembering IP addresses, even in the v4 realm. The only time v6 has ever caused me any difficulty is when dealing with services/tools that don't support it, but that's getting to be less and less of a problem even.
- mmh0000 2y ago> FWIW I really don't need to remember the IPv6 addresses of devices on my networks, DNS and my router handle that for me fairly automatically. That is true, but the OP said the people manage the network equipment. You do need to remember IPv6 addresses when your network is hosed when the DNS server becomes unresponsive or returns nonsense. IPv6 adds an annoying barrier to troubleshooting. Not that you can't work around it, but it does have more friction than troubleshooting IPv4 issues. I'm personally really torn about IPv6. On one hand, it technically is better, and for more reason than just the increased address space. On the other hand, it is more difficult to grok than IPv4. Especially because IPv6 does a bunch of magic that, if you're not on high-end networking gear, isn't logged anywhere.
- throw0101c 2y ago> You do need to remember IPv6 addresses when your network is hosed when the DNS server becomes unresponsive or returns nonsense. Who is going to remember the IP addresses of all their switches, routers, and firewalls even when they are IPv4-only? I have less than a handful of switches, and have no idea what the IPs are. Document the values (Netbox, MediaWiki, private company Github doc repo) and look them up if needed. Or put the values in the hosts(5) file of your management network bastion host(s).
- themoonisachees 2y agoHere is why this is relevant to anyone who's not a network admin, and why it is especially relevant to the HN crowd of tech-people: If a server has no AAAA record, machines only connected to IPV6 simply cannot contact that server. This is fine in theory (just buy an ipv4 lolz) but in practices this means additional costs that will only go up, as the ipv4 space becomes more and more crowded. As a non-network admin, I care that services I'm a business costumer of are available to my servers, the biggest offender being GitHub. GitHub still does not have an ipv6 despite "looking into the issue" for several years, and this means that I am unable to use their services or indeed any software that requires access to GitHub for, say, updates, pulling artifacts, container images or whatever else from their servers. It does sound like it's a bit presumptuous of me as a random IT person to demand an IPV6 out of them, but in the year of the Linux desktop, there's no reason for them not to have the infrastructure in place to simply flip a switch and be done with it, for basically free. Of course, the big players own swathes of IPV4 space that they are able to rent out at a premium, so they are heavily disincentivized from ever supporting ipv6, as that means obsoleting their investment with no replacement, but it's bullshit that they are able to do this in the first place.
- kaliszad 2y agoFor the big players, the Jevons paradox might be even stronger. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) Making their services more efficient financially might make them more accessible for things that previously wouldn't be interesting to run in the cloud. That could make them a lot more money eventually. IPv4 is not for free and it is a limited resource - that is a recipe for rising costs and missed opportunity.
- dhx 2y agoThanks to these technology laggards, a significant and growing number of Internet users are now participating in a sort of mix network [1] through their residential ISP or mobile carrier, who are using CGNAT/464XLAT at scale. As a result it is easier to scrape a public website because the website would need to block legitimate users at the residential ISP or on the same mobile network, and this consequence is likely worse for the website than having to accept scraping. It's much harder for a website to determine that 100 requests/second from a single IPv4 address is a single user scraping away, or 100 customers each on their own phone/computer just wanting to use the website. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mix_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mix_network
- tenebrisalietum 2y agoThere is at least one comment here that mentions CGNAT and how it enables IPv4 to continue to exist. CGNAT breaks the end-to-end principle of the Internet and 100% forces you to depend on centralized services, because you will absolutely not be able to receive unsolicited traffic on your IP without coordination/permission from your ISP or other various third parties. Yes, there are NAT bypass methods-but those methods all rely at least in some situations on an external server that relays connection requests. Many people really don't care if the Internet becomes the next cable TV along with business tunneling services and 2 or 3 social networks and would really be fine with that. If you don't want this to be the only choice in the future, you should start learning, using, and demanding IPv6 and really stop putting NAT on a pedestal and bitching about the long addresses. When I set up IPv6 on my home network, I took some time and learned how to get it working with DNS, and now I don't have to type long addresses any more. I have an actual separate IPv6 subnet for guest network. It's pretty cool.
- kaliszad 2y agoIPv4 is like legacy code that got extended and dependencies added. Everybody is using it, because everybody is kind of comfortable with it and it mostly works/ people know all the workarounds for its quirks. IPv6 is like the same code with a major refactor. One of the big unwieldy databases (NAT) was dropped because it turns out you don't need it if the system is smarter overall. Also, autoconfiguration works reasonably well now. For most usecases the subnetting also got much easier as you can just slap a /64 on any realistic network without hesitation. You just have to do a relatively small step to use it.
- sebazzz 2y agoNAT is more like the add-on that most network operators don’t decide to employ for IPv6-only networks anymore, but NAT by itself is not part of IPv4. You can NAT IPv6 networks perfectly fine - but for IPv4 it is often a necessary evil when private network ranges overlap or you need to represent a single IP to the outside world.
- pif 2y agoYou are describing the client point of view. But, from the server point of view, IPv6 is like a newer, better version... that cannot run alone! IPv6 can work side by side with IPv4 on the servers, but it cannot replace IPv4. Thus, don't act surprised when companies wonder "Why bother?"!
- kaliszad 2y agoYou can run "IPv6-mostly". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40039899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40039899
- throw0101c 2y ago> IPv6 can work side by side with IPv4 on the servers, but it cannot replace IPv4. Facebook is famously IPv6-only internally (and as of 2016, 60% of user traffic was IPv6-only): * https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-study-facebook-moving-to-an-ipv6-only-internal-network/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas... * https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-support-on-ipv6-only-infra/ https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU_24f6Wr7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU_24f6Wr7E Microsoft and Google are IPv6-only single-stack (or moving in that direction) on their internal corporate networks: * https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-ipv6-only-single-stack-network/ https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8 Also Wells Fargo: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4 The main 'advantage' IPv4 has is inertia.
- efilife 2y agoThis website fails to convince me > As we edge closer to exhausting the IPv4 address space, the immense address capacity of IPv6 becomes indispensable. No explanation why this is bad. It's harder for websites to track individual users and block them. What's not to like about this? > Beyond the scalability, IPv6 brings along robust security protocols and superior performance, making it the linchpin for modern, efficient, and secure internet communications. Show me one person that had performance problems with ipv4
- orangeboats 2y ago>It's harder for websites to track individual users and block them. What's not to like about this? It's a double edged sword. Other websites can't track you, simultaneously that also means other internet users can't reach you. The most obvious consequence is that to host a server, you must purchase a VPS or rent an public IP address from your ISP, and the price for a public IPv4 address is getting higher and higher. The less obvious consequence is that you're giving up control to the VPS providers (and other centralized services). It's rather ironic that people on HN, a website whose name literally includes the term "hackers", would support things like CGNAT which hurt hackers/hobbyists the most. >Show me one person that had performance problems with ipv4 Me. My ISP's CGNAT gateway was temporarily overloaded during one of the holidays earlier this year. I was thoroughly unimpressed by the dialup-like experience.
- efilife 2y agoFair points, especially the one about harming hackers. I am already behing a CGNAT and I got used to not being able to selfhost, I guess that's why I didn't think about this in the first place. It's true this is a huge issue
- ghusto 2y agoThe question answers itself: No IPv6 because apparently Amazon, Azure, Twitter, and all the others on the list are doing great without it. When I turn IPv6 off and everything starts working normally again on my home network, it's a safe bet I'm not going to troubleshoot what the real issue is. Sure, misconfiguration at my ISP probably, but if you think I care enough to go down that rabbit hole, you don't understand how people work.
- slotrans 2y agoConsumers don't care.