151
AWS: IPv4 addresses cost too much, so you’re going to pay
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
151 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
103 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm going on professional year 24 of clients requiring that IPv6 be deactivated on every device in their network. Whee.
My current ISP still does not offer IPv6 🤦 🤦 🤦
Verizon, my ISP, offers IPv6 in my area but the implementation is broken and it ends up being an order of magnitude slower than simply using IPv4 and HE as an IPv6 tunnel broker.
AT&T is the same. And the last time I looked they don't give you enough address space to host your own subnet. You get a /64 instead of a /56. And it's slower than ipv4.
Every few months I try it out, complain and then switch it off.
Interesting. In NC here. Not sure if there's a difference regionally. I was seeing that kind of RTT on ipv4, but ipv6 was slower. I'll need to give it another try. The last time I did was at my last place where I had the BGW210. I have the BGW320 now and haven't tried on that. Maybe that, or changes in their routing since then will make a difference.
You'd think IPv4 would be the one that requires CGNAT not IPV6... Bizarre...