I dunno about OP, but I am, and I have definitely prioritized tickets based on how interesting they sound.
User setup for a new hire that is already here and waiting? Meh.
Weird network problem with no apparent solution which will likely require days of investigation? Sounds good.
I find that when a user continually makes a stink to get their ticket dealt with first, I gently try to correct them, and when that inevitably doesn't sink in, and they call during a critical issue, I tell them quite firmly that things are down and nobody at x site can work, so your printer will have to wait. Log a ticket and I'll address it when I'm done Brenda.
.... They usually back off when you make it clear to them that they're not the most important thing you're dealing with at any given moment.
I'm pretty sure I've done most of these at some point or another.
It really depends whether I like you or not.
Liking my users is entirely dependent on how much work you make me do, and how difficult that work becomes because of your personality.
I've gotten tickets that were literally "$thing is broken", or "help! Call me!" With no information given, not even a callback number. I've also gotten a rambling voicemail, in which a user describes an issue with a piece of software and doesn't identify themselves, not provide any callback information. The CID on the voicemail wasn't available either, and since I work with several companies doing support, I couldn't even identify the client, nevermind the specific user.
There's also the needy users that create tickets for every prompt, dialog, message, delay.... Pretty much anything that could happen at all ever, whether it affects their ability to do their work or not.
There's also the unavailable users, they are not available ever, at any time, for any reason. I have literally gotten critical tickets which require me to access the users workstation to fix, while it is logged in as the user, and I could call less than 5 minutes after they create the ticket, and they're busy. Email them and they have an out of the office message, or reply with something about them being in a meeting (with no information about when they will be free), or simply don't reply at all. After a few weeks of trying to contact them to connect and resolve their very simple (but "critical") issue and getting nowhere, close the ticket, only to be met with a flurry of emails from them about how the problem isn't solved. Immediately call or reply and you get voicemail and silence.
Most of my users do fine, and it's usually a minority that are troublemakers, and I want to make that clear.... But the troublemakers are the driving force for me to find ways to fix pretty much every problem without ever opening their system though remote control. I can do all kinds of things from registry edits and hacks, to writing and scheduling PowerShell scripts to fix their shit every time they log in, and deploy that by a remote PowerShell command prompt, and nothing more.
Yeah William, you might be the c-whatever bullshit, but if the issue is sooo fucking critical, make five goddamned minutes for me to fix your shit or it's not getting fixed. I don't care if you own the goddamned planet, I can't fix your shit without access.
Can we call this out on terminal text editors too? Some just color lines based on their content, and frequently comments end up being blue on black and it's impossible to read.
This comment describes the options for the next parameter in this config file, but I have no idea what it says, so I guess I'm fucked?
At most, the difference between your experience and mine was that the support I recieved at least understood what IPv6 was, which is likely a function of most of my stories being from business support, rather than residential support.
Almost every time I call I get nowhere. Which is why I've given up. Obviously, someone high up in the technical teams is trying to implement IPv6 with very limited success. So I'm just trying to be patient, as they navigate the hellscape of corporate approvals and get things working.
This is less to do with the ISPs and more to do with the implementation of DHCP-PD renewals on various software/hardware devices. I'm not going to point any fingers, but it seems that some vendors don't play very nicely with other vendors.
DNS, by its very nature is redundant. So DNS shouldn't just fall over. If it does, you're doing something wrong.
If you absolutely need to go to IP addresses, they should be documented.
Unless DNS is outright wrong, there should not be an issue.
For scrolling: are you staring at active log files? Who isn't using a syslog aggregator? You can easily look up the IP of whatever device that is interesting and filter the log by that IP.
So, my argument here is.... Why the hell are you memorizing IP addresses?
Is your DNS so misconfigured that you're still punching in IPs by hand?
DNS is the solution. Going to "router.domain.local" or whatever your internal domain is, is easier to remember than.... Which subnet am I on again? Is this one 192.168.22.254? Or 192.168.21.1?
Stop punching in numbers like a cave man. Use DNS. You won't even notice if it's IPv6 after that
All I want to say about this is that the technology specialists, especially in networking, are usually not this opposed to change. Things change for networking and systems folks all the time. We're used to it. Most of the time the hard sell is with the management folks who Green light projects. They don't want to "waste" money on something that "nobody wants".
Legitimately, one company I asked about IPv6 said to me that customers had not requested it, so they haven't spent any time on implementing it.
The important bit is that almost every major web service is already running fully dual stacked. Azure, Amazon, Meta, CloudFlare, Google.... If it's a commonly known internet company, it's probably ready for IPv6.
There's still plenty that isn't ready, but most well known things have been ready for years at this point.