New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
fuck you're such a good boy
Ya he jumped the gun a bit announcing delisting but still I'm quite hopeful he's able to follow thru.
Will this be the 1st CC dingleberry in history to achieve ipv6? I confess I haven't tracked it very well since I tend to avoid them just due to locations (and lack of v6).
Well it's a reminder at least that some of us do require v6 for various reasons even if we're just wrong
No problem - as long as you don't try to put pressure on us who do not need it.
DId u run a benchmark on DEDIROCK?
I feel the same about gay people trying to turn straight men into femboys. I definitely don't try to do that @oloke can confirm it.
I get that you are unfamiliar or against people being vocal to achieve some progress in society but this is still very much part of democratic free market which fortunately works well for selling online compute power.
Customer chooses with its own wallet and customer clearly tells what product he would like to get. IPv6 list of shame simply helps customers to make better informed decision by summarizing the hosts which don't offer this key feature.
It's the big guys, corporations or datacenters that have the slowest implementation of a new tech. People in general are resistant to change and large companies doubly so. Small ISPs in my country got IPv6 working decade ago, the large ones are sloooowly coming towards it. One large cell phone carrier got it working, other provider has it working on some fixed connections (DSL) but on others not yet (fiber). The backend supports it, the modems/roters supports it but the config is not there yet. Just because they didn't move with the times. So you have to tunnel through CGNAT layers just to access your home computer(s), not very convenient is it?
The biggest upside is that with universal IPv6 support you don't need to pay for IPv4 rent which on low end plans makes up significant portion of the costs. Of course if you have dedicated server for $100 then you don't care much. But I'm sure you know this already.
ip6 only 1gb 3$.
The world needs IPv6. It is as simple as that. The hall of shame needs to exist, especially in a low-end environment where the cost of a simple IP address is of big importance.
I can't wait for IPv6 at DediRock to be implemented on my VPS. This is simply an awesome and necessary evolutionary step.
yup yup 2 weeks.
lol, let me check inventory......
lol could be fun, lead singer?
Dedirock gives a vibe of Dustinc 2.0. Wait who said that?
tough crowd......
how can i check if any of my 5 servers is on La1Kvm5 ??
No, I didn't (yet).
Think again, because you got it terribly wrong, and maybe you didn't even want to get what I said.
And please stop the cheap and dirty tricks. "putting pressure on", your words!, is not democratic. As for "free market": that's where you failed and what you preach but don't accept.
The "free market" was not convinced by IPv6. A few giant corporations aside, the free market, as in "the people" did not take it up, they rejected and/or ignored it. The facts are simple: the IPv6 zealots tried every trick in the book, from "democratizing the field" to "putting pressure on", and hell did you and still do - yet you failed over two decades.
BS!
Yes, the customer did choose - IP4. And yes, customer did clearly tell what he would like - and IPv6 usually was not on his wish list. And the "hall of shame", as both the name and the IPv6 zealot behind it clearly say that it's about not accepting customers will but about creating pressure.
In short: your quasi (pseudo) religious movement FAILED. For over two decades. So you are trying to bully us. My response: (a) fuck off!, and (b) what you really achieve is to make us dislike IPv6 even more.
Wow, what could be the reason for the very slow and hesitant uptake?
Because there certainly are reasons; after all large corporation tick and act stone-cold rational.
I'll tell you at least one major reason: one can't push large corporations around easily.
And thinking rationally IPv6 is not a technically and economically sound solution. So they said "thanks, no".
The solution to that problem - and I'll admit that it is a problem - is not IPv6, it rather is to not waste IP4 addresses, even large regions, and to trim down ridiculously oversized allocations, plus to improve CGNAT and other technologies.
Anyway, my point isn't about yet another discussion about IPv6 and whether it's sensible and attractive; that question is already answered by, to put it in your terminology, "the free market" which clearly said thanks, no. My point is your lies, contorted argumentation, and bullying attempts.
Kindly note that this is not an attack on you! In fact I think that you are not a bad guy and not intentionally and ill-willed act the way you do, I rather assume that you really believe the nonsense and BS you are spreading. I suggest that you think again and rationally this time and to recognize that IPv6 is neither a sensible and adequate solution nor is it accepted and taken up by the majority of market players, in particular those who can't be bullied and who actually do some research before jumping on a band wagon.
There can be a total of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (including the private ones). We are 8 billion people on the planet. If each person would get 1 IPv4 address on their mobile phones, it would not be enough (and I did not even include companies or servers). The solution for the future is IPv6, and whoever says otherwise, has got to be a complete idiot.
Well, thanks for calling me an idiot. What a brillant and convincing argument for IPv6!
As for what you wrote re. the topic:
Premise error, simple as that. Because the premise ca. 8 bln. people == (min) 8 bln IPs needed is wrong.
Fact is that only a relatively small part of the 8 bln. people actually need an IP for themselves at all. The vast majority of those who want - and can - go on the internet are perfectly happy just somehow getting connected by an ISP, and in fact, most of them do not even care how that's done.
And the vast majority of complaints and/or wishes is about speed, and and occasionally about cost.
Besides, your quasi (pseudo) religious belief is besides the point anyway. For instance "each and every person must have their own IP" never was a significant point in the first place, neither with IP4 (with as some argue not having enough IPs), nor with IPv6 (with easily more than 2^64 too many IPs). IF you were right what I call IPv5 with 64 bits wide IPs would have been the choice or even let's call it IP4b with 40 bits or 48 bits wide IPs. (kindly note that our planet couldn't feed even 2^40 people and it seems quite unlikely that we'll find and colonize another Earth-like planet anytime soon).
And I even didn't call you an idiot, although I wouldn't stand without arguments/reasons if I did.
So you believe patching the network with NAT over NAT, is the way to go. I stand by my argument with simple math.
The discussion was about IPv6, not about speed or bandwidth. Besides, IPv6 is cheaper and it was designed precisely to overcome the shortcomings of IPv4.
EDIT: Back on topic, thank you @DediRock for offering IPv6. With regards to the moon, I wonder on which side of the moon you will host servers.
Of bloody course you "misunderstood" what I said. So, I'll spell it out clearly for the zealots:
- I do not think that IP4 is perfect, let alone in the long run
- I do think that, hopefully rather sooner than later, we will develop and have a good solution.
- But I do not think that IPv6 is the solution, let alone a good one.
What I said was a correction to your heavily biased and plain wrong line of people being discontent with IP4 *based on its address space being "too small".
That statement just shows how clueless and biased you are. As if "IPv6 IPs are free" boiled down all re. costs. Hint: NO, it's NOT free because those 128-bit addresses need to be processed, the tables are much larger, etc.
Good luck trying to route anything smaller than /48 or /64 at best. And look, what a funny coincidence! That happens to coincide with what actually existing processors can reasonable handle as well as with a reasonable next gen IP version.
Maybe, just maybe that is a major reason for handing out giant address ranges to everybody and their dog? And such basically pushing the workload can down the road ...
Btw, nice to see that you found back to words as usually you mainly seem to communicate via idiot memes ...
¿ Who cares ?
We only route /48 in global scale and /64 in enterprise scale.
Within /64 it's bridged.
This was just weird anyway, you also don't typically route single /32 of ipv4. Who cares?
I for one don't want to further derail this thread with discussions about one single, and frankly insignificant, detail in the title.
Thank you for the reply. I shall stop here.
A fresh 💩 smells. It sits in the sun, it dries, but if someone steps on it, it smells again.
Well, then just do not step on IPv6.
Great rock song, is that one of your favorite bands?
noted!
Kevin
thank you! don't really drink wine, but coffee for sure!!