4 ms·
This sounds like a great sob story but it's more like "people who aren't competent to run an ISP attempted to cut corners and encountered the inevitable consequ
by wmf 2y ago
This sounds like a great sob story but it's more like "people who aren't competent to run an ISP attempted to cut corners and encountered the inevitable consequences".
- RockRobotRock 2y agoWow, that's pretty extreme. Maybe we can land somewhere in the middle here? If you're trying to do an ISP on a budget, IPv4 makes things harder.
- throw0101a 2y ago> "people who aren't competent to run an ISP attempted Or it was people who weren't going to be served by commercial companies tried to help their community as best they could on a shoestring budget, with minimal funding, in a non-profit fashion.
- esseph 2y agoCan you please explain why you believe this?
- gruez 2y agoAny network engineer worth their salt knows that ivp6-only connectivity is going to be flaky, which is why basically nobody does ivp6-only. Even bottom-of-the-barrel VPS providers selling ipv6-only servers for $15/year provides CGNAT for ivp4. An ISP charging presumably an order of magnitude more should be expected to be more competent than that. The fact that they did try to go ipv6-only (ie. "cutting corners") shows that the people involved were blamed were incompetent.
- orangeboats 2y ago>ivp6-only connectivity is going to be flaky That explains why cellular ISP are progressively adopting 464XLAT, a IPv6-only technology. /s
- wmf 2y ago464XLAT isn't really IPv6-only; that's kind of the point. If you have IPv6 without 464 your fake ISP can't access the whole Internet.