• GTG3000@programming.dev
    0·
    5 months ago

    From what I understand about the providers, they really don’t like it when you’re generating outbound traffic. Sure it’s advertised to be symmetrical, but the actual hardware they place here can get bogged down if you start hosting a popular site (or seeding too much).

    And of course, if they can charge you for a static IP then defaulting to dynamic is imperative, isn’t it? Pretty sure they’d try that with IPv6 too just to keep the income stream.

    Regardless, the actual issue with IPv6 around here seems to be that the providers either don’t know how to or don’t care to implement it properly. Sure I can tick on “IPv6” in my router, but that doesn’t mean I have an unbroken chain or routing hardware that supports it connecting me to the great internet.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      0·
      5 months ago

      And of course, if they can charge you for a static IP then defaulting to dynamic is imperative, isn’t it? Pretty sure they’d try that with IPv6 too just to keep the income stream.

      I’ve mentioned it elsewhere. Some ISPs here in the UK have a dynamic IPv6 prefix. Want a static one? Sure, pay up.

      I suppose to an extent this kind of thing is akin to low cost airlines. Sure you can “technically” get a flight for €15. But once you’ve made it even remotely bearable you’ll be paying around the cost of a full service airline. But, it does make it very hard to have a website doing a proper price comparison.

      I suspect it’s the same here. I pay a bit more than most ISPs. But for that, I get decent in country support, fixed IPv6 prefix and static IP (I actually have a legacy IP block, but you don’t get those included in the base price any more). Whereas plenty of other providers charge less, but will charge you for anything beyond the most basic of connections. It means my ISP always appears at the expensive end of price comparisons.