2fastpost

5 ms·

1.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
As stated in the other thread suggesting the same, what’s in it for Google?
2.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
Yes, from one NAT IP using the same protocol to a single public IP using a particular port. Change any of those and you can do 2^16 concurrent connections more per change. In other words, NAT works on the five-tuple of: protocol, source IP,
3.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
This view I could endorse.
4.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
Between search, gmail, YouTube, maps, Chrome and Android I don’t think Google needs help tracking anybody on the planet. Even so, IPv6 privacy extensions more or less bring things up to par with NAT in terms of trackability. I guess there c
5.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
> What did we read right here on HN recently about IP blocks changing hands for about $40 per address? IPv6 addresses are approximately 100% cheaper than that. This is just silly. If you are an ISP then you already have an IPv4 allocatio
6.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
IPv6 support is such a low bar. Now try IPv6 support and feature complete without bugs and get back to me. I’ll wait.
7.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
Don’t think IPv4 is optional for any of them either.
8.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
Most likely fake. Posted from a throwaway account with no posting history before or since. ISP not named, no details given, no proof.
9.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
You are likely to be unable to source the missing IPv4 traffic over IPv6. I’m not familiar with JIO’s setup, but that’s an interesting question. If their IPv6 was down, would their network still be able to deliver? Would they run out of CGN
10.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
Like I said, you can only avoid CGNAT costs if you accept the failure modes inherent if/when your IPv6 fails. Thus in a properly designed network these are not optional costs.
11.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
> IPv6 either works, or doesn't Oh, you sweet summer child! :) IPv6 “just works” only if you completely control the routing stack end-to-end. Once end user equipment and hosts are introduced into the network all bets are off. In a m
12.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
You assume new entrants or smaller entities would have a fighting chance in this scenario. They would not. The incumbents would become king makers. They would decide which services would be allowed on the IPv4 Internet, which would be the o
13.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
Hard pass. Nobody wants more government involvement. Not to mention the unspeakable amount of waste and chaos this would entail.
14.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
I am unaware of any router forwarding IPv4 packets slower than IPv6 packets. Can you back up this claim with any sources? Route aggregation or selection does not impact forwarding performance on a router.
15.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
None of those are arguments for why IPv4 or CGNAT costs are optional; you cannot run an ISP without IPv4 or CGNAT, therefore the IPv4 or CGNAT costs are not optional. You will incur them regardless of if you deploy IPv6 or not. If you deplo
16.
by 2fastpost 5y ago
Https prevents ad injection.