Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | zrail's commentslogin

It's baffling, to be honest. I'm at a fintech that is currently pushing very hard at this, but in the same breath talking about how we're not a pure software play. I just don't understand where they're coming from.

irrational exuberance

Looks pretty interesting!

Tiny note: there's a typo in your repo description.


nooo! lol but thanks, I'll go hunt it down.

It's a Show HN. That's the point.

Yes.


Suffering from success.


(Citation needed)


One could make the argument that the modern Republican Party has in fact largely been shaped by this pushback.


Except that's not really true, because the work expands to fill the time allotted. Now we can build more boring applications with fewer people.


Yes, it is true that companies are always hungry for more. But once again, those same companies never cared about beautiful code. They wanted us to build something that works as quickly as possible. In my experience, the beauty of programming was often enjoyed outside of work for this very reason, and we can still enjoy it outside of work for it's own sake.


Maybe for some. I've worked from home for 15 years and a huge thing that I've learned is that I have to have a hard physical boundary. My work laptop stays at my desk unless I'm on call and actively fighting a fire. When I want to use my desk for non-work things the work laptop gets put away.


It might be more fair to say that most American residential ISPs don't have to do that because they have access to giant legacy IPv4 allocations. Comcast alone has 65 million IPv4 addresses, for example (including a /8, /9, and /10 and several /11s).


I think they could make more money using CGNAT and leasing those IPs out to data centers. Also another comment in this thread mentions that their cellular plan sold as a residential internet connection doesn't use CGNAT, but their phone plan from the same company does..


Maybe! CGNAT isn't free, of course, you need pretty beefy machines to handle ISP numbers of clients. So, is the capex for the machines, engineering time to set them up, and opex for keeping them running more or less than they'd make back from leasing their net blocks? Hard to say.


Out of curiosity how did you discover this?


Went to double check what my static IP address was, and noticed the router was displaying it as 198.51.100.48/28 (not my real IP).

I don't think the router used to show subnets like that, but it recently got a major firmware update... Or maybe I just never noticed, I've had that static IP allocation for over 5 years. My ISP gave it to me for free after I complained about their CGNAT being broken for like the 3th time.

Guess they decided it was cheaper to just gave me a free static IPv4 address rather than actually looking at the Wireshark logs I had proving their CGNAT was doing weird things again.

Not sure if they gave me a full /28 by mistake, or as some kind of apology. Guess they have plenty of IPs now thanks to CGNAT.


More like even if they looked at the logs they aren't about to replace an expensive box on the critical path when it's working well enough for 99% of their customers.

I once had my ISP respond to a technical problem on their end by sending out a tech. The service rep wasn't capable of diagnosing and refused to escalate to a network person. The tech that came out blamed the on premise equipment (without bothering to diagnose) and started blindly swapping it out. Only after that didn't fix the issue did he finally look into the network side of things. The entire thing was fairly absurd but I guess it must work out for them on average.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: