I dismiss ISPs that don't support IPv6.
back
3 comments
> I dismiss ISPs that don't support IPv6.
Hey, how awesome you live in an area where you have a choice of ISPs and can dismiss one that doesn't meet your spec, rather than having to simply shut up and eat what you're served!
I should dismiss my ISP that's worked for something like 20 years, works now, and will in all likelyhood still be working in 20 years (baring M&A nonsense or the apocalypse)?
Sorry, IPv6 is absolutely not the hill I'm going to die on.
If it doesn't support IPv6 it doesn't work.
My experience, indeed reality, says different for all values of "work" that matter to me.
My point is it's your vote against billions of others. My guess is "but what about kjs3's ISP" isn't a bullet point on the rollout list.
I'm not "voting against" anything. I genuinely done care and don't need to. I don't need IPv6, never had a single thing I needed[1] not work being IPv4 only, and moving just so I can prove "I have satisfied camgunz edict that nothing other than IPv6 can possibly work" isn't grounded in reality.
Those billions can move right along doing what they're doing. They don't bother me; I don't bother them (other than you, it seems). Considering how "IPv6 exclusive" has worked for the last 25 years, I'm quite confident I'll be dead before I reach the point of caring about it (and even if I make it, I'm equally confident I'll be able to manage both stacks).
This sort of tiresome sophistry really gets old. "But what about camgunz nearly religious need to pretend IPv6 is the One True Way and all others are heretical" is not more relevant to the wider world than "but what about kjs3's ISP".
[1] Emphasis on "that I need". I'm a network engineer and architect. Passed tests even. I've done IPv6 in prod, and I can contrive all sorts of "that only works if you're IPv6 only" scenarios and have had to work around some of them. They aren't relevant to my ISP or me.
If you don't personally throw a Molotov cocktail at your ISP after spray painting "IPv6 MOTHERFUCKERS" on their door I will downvote everything you post on HN for 2 years. Some people talk a big game; I walk it.
I'm not signing up for a new contract with a different company to get the same speeds at higher price and IPv6 that is pretty much useless as many major websites don't even work with it. It will take at least another 15 years before I will consider using IPv6 at home.
Not only that, but not everyone will even have any other choices. The last apartment I was in literally only had one ISP option; I literally would check every six months or so with other ISPs that were in the area because of the fairly frequent outages, and every time they all said that they couldn't offer me service at my address. (This didn't stop them from filling my mailbox with spam all the time though of course). This was in New York (the city), so it's not like there weren't half a dozen other ISPs operating within a few blocks of me.
I can't take seriously the claim that someone would literally refuse to move into an apartment purely on the basis of not having IPv6 support. Bad internet in general? Sure, that's plausible; I work from home, and like I said, the outages were annoying, and if there were no decent speed options my (now) wife and I might have ruled it out? But literally just the lack of IPv6? That's an absurd reason to pick another place to live entirely.
any idea why no one else could service the building? Ive usually had option of verizon or optimum when ive rented, though my experience has been queens and long island
Optimum was the one option we had. This was in Brooklyn (Park Slope specifically, so pretty high density). My vague understanding is that Verizon wasn't hooked up to the building, but I have no idea why that would be. I only wish they managed to recognize that when sending out advertisements.
Ah okay, i wonder if the dilemma was on verizon side or building owner side
if verizon charges to connect the building and couldnt make an agreement with the owner. or maybe owner has non financial reasons (laziness & indifference) for denying them. or maybe some operational reason verzion wasnt confident in ability to install
If I'm reading correctly, it only prevented new agreements going forward rather than penalizing the old ones, and of course the fact that the FCC's party line split will tilt in favor of the current president at some point every turn means that this might not even be policy anymore (and that's before even taking into account that the current administration doesn't exactly follow precedents around administrative agencies).