The internet is DYING: sites collapse as 512k limit is breached - Polidicks

[QUOTE=rewkasu;45717395]Governments should support upgrades in ISP hardware to match current needs.[/QUOTE] We give them tax breaks specifically to upgrade it, and all they do is pocket it.

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;45718334]Why the fuck should the government give more money to already insanely profitable businesses so they can upgrade their infrastructure? They have the money to do that on their own. ISPs should just stop being lazy money hungry cunts and actually make significant investments in their business.[/QUOTE] In the case of American ISPs they should be finding a way to allow more competition into the market like we have here. One of the ways we've done it over here is through something called Local Loop Unbundling. Our costs over here for internet connection have fallen and our overall broadband speed has increased as a result.

I despise Bright House networks. Their internet is like feces. Google Fiber whennn

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;45717598]Trying to get ISPs to turn on IPv6 is a horror story in itself, I Googled my own ISP (Talktalk) about their IPv6 plans if any and basically the answer was "We've got enough v4 addresses for now, everything is fine, go away". The amount of sighing I did to that response was off the charts. I get the feeling they would wait for Carrier Grade NAT to collapse before they did anything.[/QUOTE] That's because TalkTalk don't own the lines they use, it's wholesale. Ask either BT or Virgin.

[QUOTE=rewkasu;45717395]Governments should support upgrades in ISP hardware to match current needs.[/QUOTE] No, they do that here want to know how it works out? 1.Government gives tax breaks to ISPs for them specifically to build more infrastructure and update existing. 2.ISPs charge customers more money for infrastructure updating. 3.ISPs don't do anything to upgrade of build more infrastructure. 4.ISPs double dip our money and do nothing in return.

[QUOTE=Silentfood;45719257]That's because TalkTalk don't own the lines they use, it's wholesale. Ask either BT or Virgin.[/QUOTE] TalkTalk, BT, Sky and Virgin (Cable) all use their own separate backhaul networks; TalkTalk, Sky and BT of which then wholesale the access out to other ISP's. Unless you mean the Copper lines, which which case it will be BT (Openreach) as Virgin don't wholesale their cable lines AFAIK. But the copper line would have nothing to do with IPv6 :v:

[QUOTE=Silentfood;45719257]That's because TalkTalk don't own the lines they use, it's wholesale. Ask either BT or Virgin.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Talktalk have their own backhaul, they don't piggy back off BTs own one. The backhaul needs to be enabled for IPv6 for it to work, the line is irrelevant.

The thing is, there's already industrial carrier grade hardware and software out there that supports running IPv6 and IPv4 simultanious. Hell, it's even part of the IPv6 RFC iirc, in which case it's just a matter of where to support IPv6. Do you only do it internal and between ISPs? All the way to the customer router systems? Or all the way to their clients (PCs)? The answer obviously is that it doesn't matter, because the systems themselves don't have to know about any of this. Systems that only support IPv4 can continue operating like IPv4 systems, send the data through the router, which then sends it to the ISP. The ISPs carrier grade hardware systems then parses the IPv4 packet, and injects it as a payload in an IPv6 packet, which then gets send along just fine. Not doing anything like these fuckers is just jerking it off. God damnit.

You know, the routing tables wouldn't have gotten to be this fucking ridiculous this quickly, if we'd migrated to IPv6 when we were supposed to. With IPv6, you'll only need a single entry in the table to handle an absolutely ridiculous amount of addresses, and if an ISP needs more addresses, they're currently sparsely allocating addresses, so they'd just be given a block right next to their current block, and the entry would just require a change as to where the block ends.

[QUOTE=nikomo;45720472]You know, the routing tables wouldn't have gotten to be this fucking ridiculous this quickly, if we'd migrated to IPv6 when we were supposed to. With IPv6, you'll only need a single entry in the table to handle an absolutely ridiculous amount of addresses, and if an ISP needs more addresses, they're currently sparsely allocating addresses, so they'd just be given a block right next to their current block, and the entry would just require a change as to where the block ends.[/QUOTE] The problem was that they picked the cheapest solution, and the reality is that a lot of the old Cisco equipment doesn't even get close to supporting IPv6, hence why we have all these issues these days. It's dumb as hell, but it is none the less what is happening. I mean granted, some of the carrier grade equipment isn't cheap (certain switches amount to around 90K USD in Denmark, or more, per switch), but it's still a time- and money-saver in the longer run. Good luck telling your investors that though.

Does Virgin Media use IPv6 or something? I've experienced absolutely no problems here, yet in my dad's (who uses BT), it's laggy as all hell.

I haven't noticed any adverse effects, maybe telstra has great routing...

[QUOTE=Brandy92;45721061]I haven't noticed any adverse effects, maybe telstra has great routing...[/QUOTE] Yeah, I have Comcast and I haven't noticed any change in speed recently.

Why update to IPv6 when you can charge for IPv4 addresses because of their scarcity? :v:

[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;45717209]Maybe this wouldn't be happening if ISPs actually upgraded their fucking equipment once in a while instead of raising rates without providing any real services.[/QUOTE] But... thats not how the "greed for dummies" book goes!

[img]https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1385/74/1385740031294.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=rewkasu;45717395]Governments should support upgrades in ISP hardware to match current needs.[/QUOTE] Governments should consider internet to be a utility and have the ability to standardize it as such

[QUOTE=Irockz;45720874]Does Virgin Media use IPv6 or something? I've experienced absolutely no problems here, yet in my dad's (who uses BT), it's laggy as all hell.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't cause lag, and the only reason people are talking about IPv6 is because it uses less memory in routers, and the hardware to support it should be newer and better designed. The biggest issue is how the ISP routes, if they have good hardware and connect to other providers with good hardware you probably wouldn't notice it. And even if your ISP does use IPv6, the vast majority of sites don't. Companies like Google and Facebook are pretty good at rolling out IPv6, but Microsoft on the other hand is barely using it (All their main sites and Windows Update are IPv4, but their download portal is IPv6, etc.) As cool as IPv6 is for the internet, at the point the only real benefit is (unfortunately) being able to see the "dancing kame" on [URL="http://www.kame.net/"]kame.net[/URL] Maybe someday we'll get multicast and stuff like mobile IPv6 (And better port mapping) though.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;45725848]As cool as IPv6 is for the internet, at the point the only real benefit is (unfortunately) being able to see the "dancing kame" on [URL="http://www.kame.net/"]kame.net[/URL] Maybe someday we'll get multicast and stuff like mobile IPv6 (And better port mapping) though.[/QUOTE] Not having to fuck with NAT and port forwarding, is all I really want from IPv6. Also, the memory that massive routers use for their routing tables, is expensive as hell, because of low demand, and impressive performance, so I'm not sure we can really yell at ISPs for rocking Cisco routers with not enough memory - there's a chance Cisco didn't even offer upgrades when ISPs were buying gear. I've never even touched that sort of gear, though, so I have no idea regarding prices, availability etc.

Not having to deal with a NAT is great, problem is that you've still got the firewall in place blocking connections, and the automatic port forwarding situation there sucks (If I want to open a port for IPv6 on my router I need to create a IP tables rule, not the easiest option) Eventually we'll all be using the "one true port mapping protocol™" (Called PCP, great name), but support for that is pretty much non-existent (It's designed for stuff like mapping a port inside a CGN, and situations like FTP downloads where it needs to open multiple ports for stuff) On the up side you've got guaranteed support for IPSec, which Microsoft wants to use for the Xbone (For all the crap it gets, it's got an awesome network stack due to Windows). I think I've configured my router for that, but there's no actual information I can find that clarifies exactly what it wants (Nor can I easily test it).

[QUOTE=nikomo;45726160]Not having to fuck with NAT and port forwarding, is all I really want from IPv6. Also, the memory that massive routers use for their routing tables, is expensive as hell, because of low demand, and impressive performance, so I'm not sure we can really yell at ISPs for rocking Cisco routers with not enough memory - there's a chance Cisco didn't even offer upgrades when ISPs were buying gear. I've never even touched that sort of gear, though, so I have no idea regarding prices, availability etc.[/QUOTE] The Cicsco systems were really old, and Cisco knew about this. They probably had the chance to make an offer, but didn't. They want to benefit vastly, because Cisco is a company run by old men, and old business models. That's the reality. However, it is nothing new that carrier grade hardware is some of the most expensive shit, not only because it's "carrier grade", but mostly because it is infinitely more powerful and customizable than consumer grade hardware. Internally, the systems have to be able to handle tens, if not more, of Gigabit fiber connections (that is, 10G+), which isn't exactly your typical D-Link home router.

haven't been affected by this. Something to do with me being on a business connection? dunno

[QUOTE=nikomo;45726160]Not having to fuck with NAT and port forwarding, is all I really want from IPv6.[/QUOTE] The fact that I got a temp ban from a game server because of NAT is enough for me to want the thing dead. I'm honestly excited for the fact that every device on an IPv6 network will have its own address.

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;45726405]The fact that I got a temp ban from a game server because of NAT is enough for me to want the thing dead. I'm honestly excited for the fact that [b]*[/b]every device on an IPv6 network will have its own address.[/QUOTE] *potentially

[QUOTE=mastersrp;45726830]*potentially[/QUOTE] Well OK NAT still exists in IPv6 but I don't think there really is a reason to use it, I've heard some people say that NAT is needed for security but its complete bullshit (Should be using a Firewall, tut tut).

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;45727354]Well OK NAT still exists in IPv6 but I don't think there really is a reason to use it, I've heard some people say that NAT is needed for security but its complete bullshit (Should be using a Firewall, tut tut).[/QUOTE] Anyone who uses NAT with IPv6 is doing it wrong :v: The security with NAT is not intentional and is a by product of NAT breaking true end to end connectivity. To be honest, even a lot of networking vendors are rather poor with their IPv6 support. I remember having problems with a Cisco Device that didn't support OSPFv3 inside a vrf which should be basic stuff! Not just Cisco to be fair, other vendors have been a bit poor with their IPv6 support.

I swear this world's weird as fuck sometimes. Whenever I let my dreams of money let loose, I hit on eBay and check on used equipment for cheaps. I swear you can literally get servers the specifications or better of my desktop for 1/10th the price. And now this, those companies who could afford to wrap the entire world in silicone are the ones who aren't doing anything. ?????

[QUOTE=Tools;45728098]I swear this world's weird as fuck sometimes. Whenever I let my dreams of money let loose, I hit on eBay and check on used equipment for cheaps. I swear you can literally get servers the specifications or better of my desktop for 1/10th the price. And now this, those companies who could afford to wrap the entire world in silicone are the ones who aren't doing anything. ?????[/QUOTE] Servers ain't got nowt to do with it. Actual carrier grade networking equipment is very expensive and aren't just 'big servers'; on top of the hardware cost, then you have the ongoing support contracts with the vendors (Normally the most expensive part), spare parts for hardware failures, power and cooling (They pull a lot of power and throw off a lot of heat). Not excusing them for using antiquated hardware, but carrier-grade kit is (for the most part) quite specialised hardware.

Why don't you just change ISPs? Oh wait.. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Rti7Fuq.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Tools;45728098]I swear this world's weird as fuck sometimes. Whenever I let my dreams of money let loose, I hit on eBay and check on used equipment for cheaps. I swear you can literally get servers the specifications or better of my desktop for 1/10th the price. And now this, those companies who could afford to wrap the entire world in silicone are the ones who aren't doing anything. ?????[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/7600-wireless-security-gateway/data_sheet_c78-532047.doc/_jcr_content/renditions/data_sheet_c78-532047-2.jpg[/IMG] Servers are only part of what they use. ISPs will often have banks and banks of switches and routers not unlike what I linked above. Their job exclusively is to route hundred of gbs of data a second between networks. That hardware is going more than you will possibly see in a year, per rack Granted these companies make oodles of money, but odds are , your not seeing the same equipment an ISP would use, unless it was at least a decade old.