On 2022-11-25 09:29, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:31:14PM -0500, James Knott via talk wrote:
The question becomes how long do you expect the companies to maintain
obsolete plant. The world has been moving to fibre and IP for years.
I am OK with them wanting to upgrade to more reliable and better
equipment. The fact that they can have a monopoly on service in an area
and not be required to resell access to other ISPs I have a problem
with especially when they won't even offer the services some people want
(like static IPs and such).
It would be much better if the local infrastructure was a public utility
and then you bought service to run on it from the provider of your choice.
What I'd like to see is some companies, such as Bell, get off their
butts and provide IPv6. By sticking with IPv4, they are holding the
Internet back, through inadequate address space. Even on LTE, where
IPv6 is mandatory, Bell doesn't do it properly.
I'm on Rogers and have had full IPv6 for years, both Internet and cell
phone. On my home firewall, I get a /56 prefix, which provides 2^72
addresses, or 256 /64 prefixes. My cell phone also has full IPv6 and
can provide it to tethered devices in a /64 prefix. In fact, to access
IPv4 sites, my phone has to use 464XLAT to convert from IPv6 to IPv4.
---
Post to this mailing list [email protected]
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
