- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 36,805
- Reaction score
- 12,465
M1 6Gbps offer (S$34.90 per month or S$35.90 per month with free Archer BE805) is way better than the offering from SIMBA.
IMHO I do not think it is worth considering SIMBA now.
1) New users --> worse support compared to M1
2) Power users --> CGNAT
3) Effective pricing --> M1 is cheaper
Anyway, this is just my personal opinion. You can come to your own conclusion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TP-Link Archer BE805 is worth about S$270 to S$300 BNIB in Carousell. Even if you just consider it at S$240, the effective price of M1 6Gbps is at S$35.90 - S$240/24 = S$25.90 per month.
M1 --> dynamic public IPv4, better routing (latency) to other local and internation websites, IPv6, free digital voice
SIMBA --> CGNAT without static IPv4 add-on (not possible to get public IPv4 address) worse latency, IPv6, no digital voice. 10Gbps and 6Gbps no real difference to 99% of the customers.
Problem with CGNAT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
Critics of carrier-grade NAT argue the following aspects:
- Like any form of NAT, it breaks the end-to-end principle.[6]
- It has significant security and reliability problems[clarification needed], by virtue of being stateful.
- It does not solve the IPv4 address exhaustion problem when a public IP address is needed, such as in Web hosting.
- It may create a performance bottleneck that limits scalability.
- Carrier-grade NAT usually prevents the ISP customers from using port forwarding, because the network address translation (NAT) is usually implemented by mapping ports of the NAT devices in the network to other ports in the external interface. This is done so the router will be able to map the responses to the correct device; in carrier-grade NAT networks, even though the router at the consumer end might be configured for port forwarding, the "master router" of the ISP, which runs the CGN, will block this port forwarding because the actual port would not be the port configured by the consumer.[7] In order to overcome the former disadvantage, the Port Control Protocol (PCP) has been standardized in the RFC 6887.
- In cases of banning traffic based on IP addresses, a system might block the traffic of a spamming user by banning the user's IP address. If that user happens to be behind carrier-grade NAT, other users sharing the same public address with the spammer will be inadvertently blocked.[7] This can create problems for forum and wiki administrators attempting to address disruptive actions of a single malicious user sharing an IP address with legitimate users.
- Streaming media services may see CG NAT activity as equivalent to Virtual Private Network or Account sharing traffic. Such services often block or ban VPN users for breaching terms of service under an assumption they are accessing content from a cheaper region in an attempt to pay less money for the service, and account sharing traffic being blocked for multiple distinct households or users accessing the content for the price of one login.
Last edited:
