21–30 of 39 posts
Your cloud service does everything except for file backups, load balancing and can't handle huge file copies. And for reliability and responsiveness, requires a hybrid private-public cloud. Which begs the question as to what's the point of moving to the cloud in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet NAT solves more problems than it causes.
I disagree. What problem does NAT solve, other than allowing people to cut corners and not deploy IPv6?
Your cloud service does everything except for file backups, load balancing and can't handle huge file copies. And for reliability and responsiveness, requires a hybrid private-public cloud. Which begs the question as to what's the point of moving to the cloud in the first place.
Is this a troll or you are really blaming Amazon for a fault in a shitty router?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet NAT solves more problems than it causes.
I disagree. What problem does NAT solve, other than allowing people to cut corners and not deploy IPv6?
It by default ensures that machines inside a network are not reachable from the outside world. It gives you one address to the outside world which made IP blocks for abuse work quite well and enabled a lot of other users.
Sure, it's a bit of a pain for UDP communication but given the common NAT behaviours not completely terrible. If it was defined a bit clearer NAT would not have been that controversial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet NAT solves more problems than it causes.
The main problem it causes is that it breaks the internet: not all peers are routable. It's difficult to think of a greater benefit that offsets that.
For me that's a core feature of NAT, not something that breaks the internet.
Your cloud service does everything except for file backups, load balancing and can't handle huge file copies. And for reliability and responsiveness, requires a hybrid private-public cloud. Which begs the question as to what's the point of moving to the cloud in the first place.
Is this a troll or you are really blaming Amazon for a fault in a shitty router?
Your cloud service does everything except for file backups, load balancing and can't handle huge file copies. And for reliability and responsiveness, requires a hybrid private-public cloud. Which begs the question as to what's the point of moving to the cloud in the first place.
Is this a troll or you are really blaming Amazon for a fault in a shitty router?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it allowed us to keep growing the internet before we had IPv6, for one thing.
You might want to look at when IPv6 was designed. It's quite a bit older than you might think.
Way to put a spoiler right in the title. I'm happy to have read this before seeing the post here.
Way to put a spoiler right in the title. I'm happy to have read this before seeing the post here.
but the title of the HN post has the same content as the title of the post?
The post was originally submitted with the same title as the original post, "The mystery of the hanging S3 downloads". That was apparently judged to be clickbait, so the title was changed to something along the lines of "Hanging S3 downloads due to NAT router", and the story was also very heavily penalized at the same time. This title was indeed giving away most of the ending. But luckily it was a bit later edited again, to the current form of "Hanging S3 downloads".