3 ms·
The should is the problem. I've not looked into this in a couple years but I've read plenty of stories of people getting some weird stuff, down to just 1 ipv6
by wink 3y ago
The should is the problem. I've not looked into this in a couple years but I've read plenty of stories of people getting some weird stuff, down to just 1 ipv6
- yrro 3y agoIndeed, regulators need to take so-called ISPs to task and mandate provision of at least a /48 to each customer.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoIsn't router already a NAT? The profit is that it's a configurable NAT unlike draconian CGNAT.
- unethical_ban 3y agoNo. NAT should be non existent (or purely optional) in IPv6. In IPv6 the idea is your computer's local IP address is globally routeable.