221–230 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you only allow each user 100 connections. That's 1200 bytes of ram per customer paying 100$ a month. And you can charge them an extra $10 per month for 'pro' internet and let them have 1000 connections for 'all the family'.
How do you ensure each user is capped at 100 connections without that check incurring additional resources?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you only allow each user 100 connections. That's 1200 bytes of ram per customer paying 100$ a month. And you can charge them an extra $10 per month for 'pro' internet and let them have 1000 connections for 'all the family'.
That's a laughable low limit. Even the "pro" plan would be marginal for a single person without running into limits from time to time. And nevermind power users that might do something with p2p or have a couple more devices connected to the network. But that's besides the point. Your home router can easily have millions of connections open (if they didn't skimp on the ram anyway), but if you have CGNAT boxes that do…
I bet across even an ISP network of a million users, 80% of the traffic at any point in time is within 10,000 connections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sooner or later, you will have to support IPv6. May as well slowly start testing bits and pieces, and avoid doing it in a rush later on.
I'm not sure I will have to. So far, nobody said IPv4 will be turned off. Maybe it will work for another 1000 years? Railroads have been around for over 2000 years and are still going strong. Despite cars and planes. Postal service has been going on for 4000 years. Since the times of the pharaohs! And It's still going strong, too. Despite phone, email and WhatsApp.
Rail is vastly superior to both planes and cars in many circumstances, if done right.
> Postal service has been going on for 4000 years. Since the times of the pharaohs! And It's still going strong, too.
With significant upgrades to both the transport and addressing layers :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you ensure each user is capped at 100 connections without that check incurring additional resources?
You have a per user counter. So instead of 1200 bytes it's 1201 bytes per user.
You’ve basically proposed an absolutely horrible solution, for both the end-user and the ISP. Something tells me you haven’t actually done any actual low level network engineering, and just brush all this off as “how hard can it be”.
Anyone go out of their way to disable IPV6 on all their systems, even at the hardware level, like on routers etc? What's a good reason to avoid IPV6?
I remember a coworker telling me about a TV that would request and accept a DHCPv6 address and then fail hard getting to the internet. Wifi router firmware likewise messes things up, etc...
It frankly just wasn't worth the hassle. Mobile networks that can control and enforce the full stack have been able to make it work. My guess is home/wifi environments will be IPv4/NAT until the end of time, frankly.
Anyone go out of their way to disable IPV6 on all their systems, even at the hardware level, like on routers etc? What's a good reason to avoid IPV6?
Ubiquity has several gateway products that have no hardware acceleration for IPv6. It's not a _good_ reason, Ubiquity should've included IPv6 support from the start with the price they're asking, but it's a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s really too bad that ipv6 is only… checks notes… 26 years old now. I realize that may be an unreliable metric, so it’s roughly equivalent to 2.88 react.js lifetimes, or 3.25 vue.js lifetimes. When the ipv6 spec was released, the latest python release did not yet support list comprehensions. In other words, there is no reason to not support ipv6 out of the box in 2022.
> there is no reason to not support ipv6 out of the box in 2022 Use the age of a service as the metric, not the absolute year we're in. It's probably reasonable to say that there is little reason not to support IPv6 for an ISP with X years of operation. Starlink is young still. An analogy is worldwide sales for a new laptop company. You can say that in the age of globalism, there is no reason not to ship to every con…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a laughable low limit. Even the "pro" plan would be marginal for a single person without running into limits from time to time. And nevermind power users that might do something with p2p or have a couple more devices connected to the network. But that's besides the point. Your home router can easily have millions of connections open (if they didn't skimp on the ram anyway), but if you have CGNAT boxes that do…
You can still do hardware NAT for the few thousand connections with the most packets and software NAT for everything else. I bet across even an ISP network of a million users, 80% of the traffic at any point in time is within 10,000 connections.
So you propose constantly swapping in and out connections from “hardware NAT” to “software NAT”? What heuristic will you use to decide which connections go where?
Such a heuristic will probably look a lot like QoS, which is even more (much more!) resource hungry than NAT.
At which point will the obvious conclusion be, “maybe the carriers who actually deal with these problems have a point, NAT is indeed a significant amount of complexity, and let’s be happy IPv6 starts to make actual economic sense?”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With IPv6 each device getting a unique IP is not a bug but a feature -- what will probably happen is that your ISP will lend out a /64 range to you, which your devices will use to assign a unique IP to themselves. This completely removes the need for NAT (also, keep in mind that a NAT is not a firewall or a security feature). BTW, dynamic IP rotation was never a guarantee and is only used because the pool of IPs were…
oh perfect for device tracking!! hope you dont have any tweets that offend your goverment lol
NAT is not a privacy or security feature. You can treat it like it is, but only at your own risk.