ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services
-
is that because asymmetry is the norm due to these ISPs' practices or because people just don't upload things often as a common behavior?
i recall a lot of my peers hosting mail and web servers among other things when broadband started to become more common, before they started blocking common ports as "security" and "antivirus" measures designed to extract more money from you.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]For shared lines like cable and wireless it is often asymmetrical so that everyone gets better speeds, not so they can hold you back.
For wireless service providers for instance let's say you have 20 customers on a single access point. Like a walkie-talkie you can't both transmit and receive at the same time, and no two customers can be transmitting at the same time either.
So to get around this problem TDMA (time division multiple access) is used. Basically time is split into slices and each user is given a certain percentage of those slices.
Since the AP is transmitting to everyone it usually gets the bulk of the slices like 60+%. This is the shared download speed for everyone in the network.
Most users don't really upload much so giving the user radios equal slices to the AP would be a massive waste of air time, and since there are 20 customers on this theoretical AP every 1mbit cut off of each users upload speed is 20mbit added to the total download capability for anyone downloading on that AP.
So let's say we have APs/clients capable of 1000mbit. With 20 users and 1AP if we wanted symmetrical speeds we need 40 equal slots, 20 slots on the AP one for each user to download and 1 slot for each user to upload back. Every user gets 25mbit download and 25mbit upload.
Contrast that to asymmetrical. Let's say we do a 80/20 AP/client airtime split. We end up with 800mbit shared download amongst everyone and 10mbit upload per user.
In the worst case scenario every user is downloading at the same time meaning you get about 40mbit of that 800, still quite the improvement over 25mbit and if some of those people aren't home or aren't active at the time that means that much more for those who are active.
I think the size of the slices is a little more dynamic on more modern systems where AP adjusts the user radios slices on the fly so that idle clients don't have a bunch of dead air but they still need to have a little time allocated to them for when data does start to flow.
A quick Google seems to show that DOCSIS cable modems use TDMA as well so this all likely applies to cable users as well.
-
I’m jealous. Xmission is all around me but not in my area. Luckily I have another local ISP (and not Comcast) but they want $10 a month for a static IP.
I pay $89/mo total for symmetrical gigabit via UTOPIA, no monthly cap, and my static IP. I was paying Comcast a hair over $60/mo before this for 400/20 via cable w/1.2TB cap.
Absolutely worth it.
-
Pete Ashdown's a badass. Big up XMission.
Hell yeah. I don't normally simp for companies, but I will happily support locally owned alternatives to big, faceless corporations, even if it costs a bit more. Usually.
-
is that because asymmetry is the norm due to these ISPs' practices or because people just don't upload things often as a common behavior?
i recall a lot of my peers hosting mail and web servers among other things when broadband started to become more common, before they started blocking common ports as "security" and "antivirus" measures designed to extract more money from you.
I recall a lot of my peers hosting mail and web servers
I don't think that's representative of the global population. There's more people streaming movies than hosting private blogs.
-
Except I'm in rural Australia. Star link is objectively the best option.
It sucks that rural Australia’s part of the NBN got kneecapped down to Skymuster. I’ve played with Starlink quite a while ago and unless it’s really heavy rain it works really well up to the point of being able to stream games on GeForce NOW. Obviously a fast wired connection is preferable but as you say Starlink really is the only good option for a lot of people.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
I think you need to take the tin foil hat off mate.
IPv4 in many places has RAN OUT. No more, zilch.
Most people can get a fully functioning CGNAT address and surf the IPv4 web just fine.
Most VPS providers will give you IPv4 and IPv6 just fine.
So really the only issue is for the 10-20% of people who need to host an online service, security camera or online game system that doesn't have a server or rendezvous service.
-
use a cheap $5/mo VPS that exists purely as your gateway host
Now, why so expensive?
https://racknerdtracker.com/?sort=price
Disclaimer: I never used Racknerd (nor any other VPS).Thank you sir!
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
Vodafone gave me an IPv4 in Germany no problem. I asked and they gave it to me. They said it's not static, but it hasn't changed for me in years.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
It's a pain but also it's no surprise that DNS and ipv6 are premium when ipv4 and dynamic IP works so well for 99% of us. Even if you wanna host something publicly there are totally free services and software tools to cover most if not all caveats of not using ipv6 (for now).
I have selfhosted for years and only paid for a domain name recently.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
Most users have no use for a static adress space. Those are usually business or power-user needs.
This you are classified as that. A power-user. -
I basically do exactly this, but I am running the reverse proxy on my home computer: the VPS is literally just acting as a proxy, for which I use wireguard to tunnel the connection. So far it's worked great, though initial setup was a pain.
So you essentially have a DMZ between your VPS and home network that is divided by your reverse proxy?
-
use a cheap $5/mo VPS that exists purely as your gateway host
Now, why so expensive?
https://racknerdtracker.com/?sort=price
Disclaimer: I never used Racknerd (nor any other VPS).Didn't dig in too far into the options, but those prices are crazy low. Thanks for pointing us there.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
<<<< has ipv4 static ip to my house. I do pay a small premium though. Like $15 bucks.
-
Most users have no use for a static adress space. Those are usually business or power-user needs.
This you are classified as that. A power-user.The reason they have no use for a static address is because applications haven't evolved to work that way. Roll back the clock 30 years, do IPv6 seriously so that everyone has static assignments by the time the Y2k problem has come and gone, and you have a very different Internet.
In fact, many applications, like VoIP and game hosting, have to go through all sorts of hoops to work around NAT.
-
I think you need to take the tin foil hat off mate.
IPv4 in many places has RAN OUT. No more, zilch.
Most people can get a fully functioning CGNAT address and surf the IPv4 web just fine.
Most VPS providers will give you IPv4 and IPv6 just fine.
So really the only issue is for the 10-20% of people who need to host an online service, security camera or online game system that doesn't have a server or rendezvous service.
You can get IPv6 addresses. What you can't get, in many cases, is a static IPv6 prefix assignment.
CGNAT is not fine. Its problems are simply hidden from most people. ISPs have to have more equipment that's less reliable, increases latency, and is potentially a bandwidth bottleneck.
-
Is there a more detailed guide to this practice and the pros/cons?
This is @[email protected]‘s work, not mine - but it’s pretty similar to how I’d set things up:
https://wiki.gardiol.org/doku.php?id=networking%3Assh_tunnel
-
The reason they have no use for a static address is because applications haven't evolved to work that way. Roll back the clock 30 years, do IPv6 seriously so that everyone has static assignments by the time the Y2k problem has come and gone, and you have a very different Internet.
In fact, many applications, like VoIP and game hosting, have to go through all sorts of hoops to work around NAT.
There's pretty much no use for a normal person, just for business and power users like the person above you.
For your couple examples, nobody at home actually runs VOIP except a couple nerds just like nobody has home phones except a couple of old people. And quick game servers don't need statics, and if you are hosting something long term that would push you into the power use space.
-
Vodafone gave me an IPv4 in Germany no problem. I asked and they gave it to me. They said it's not static, but it hasn't changed for me in years.
Xfinity in the states is like that too. Technically I don't have a static but it's only changed twice in 4 years or so.
Once was during a really really bad storm which took power down in my state for days so I don't blame them, and the other one was when they did work on my local node but they sent out an email and a letter before hand lol
-
There's pretty much no use for a normal person, just for business and power users like the person above you.
For your couple examples, nobody at home actually runs VOIP except a couple nerds just like nobody has home phones except a couple of old people. And quick game servers don't need statics, and if you are hosting something long term that would push you into the power use space.
. . . nobody at home actually runs VOIP . . .
Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.
. . . quick game servers don’t need static . . .
But they do work better without NAT. That's somewhat separate from static addresses.
My old roommate and I had tons of problems back in the day when we tried to host an Internet game of C&C: Generals behind the same NAT. I couldn't connect to him. He couldn't connect to me. We could connect to each other but nobody outside could. It's a real problem that's only been "solved" because a lot of games have moved to publisher-hosted servers. Which has its own issues with longevity.
-
use a cheap $5/mo VPS that exists purely as your gateway host
Now, why so expensive?
https://racknerdtracker.com/?sort=price
Disclaimer: I never used Racknerd (nor any other VPS)."JUST $10.28/YEAR - WOW!!"
Laughed out loud at that, and I'll have to give this a look. Currently I just use nginx and duckdns to expose my home IP for my self hosted stuff.
