Slashdot Mirror
The Impending IP Crisis
Factomatic writes "With the supply of IP addresses expected to run out by 2005 due to the popularity explosion of the Internet and the expectation that everything from your phone to your washing machine will soon have its own IP address, Alex Lightman, CEO of Charmed Technology and chairman of last month's North American IPv6 Global Summit tells the New York Times "we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being." IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman, director of product engineering for Verio, which offers IPv6 in San Francisco, Washington and elsewhere. The article is a good layman's backgrounder on the looming IP crisis."
Who needs a new word to describe the number of possible addresses? It's just 1/2.9387358770557187699218413430556e+61st of a google.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
To quote the article "Such sensors could allow people to operate devices from anywhere there is an Internet connection." and "Now that the address space is available, the next step is figuring out how to use it."
I've got an idea, a internet connected toilet. "Using a cellphone in Los Angeles", I could flush the toilet at my home remotely and have the toilet seat drop down automatically (you know, to keep domestic tranquility). I could even call the toilet to see if anyone is using it.
I better go patent it...
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
Sounds like a solution to me.
It's just going to be a pain in the ass to get every one switched over, though.
Yeah, but those 100 IP addresses can be behind a household NAT and share a single IP address. With the way people use the internet today, I'm not sure the crisis is so serious...
IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number,"
how about "thirty six trillion" ?
As with everything like this, the powers-that-be (i.e., the telcos and ISPs) will drag their heels until they are either forced to change, or they are convinced it will increase profits. Expect the changeover to go extremely slowly. Expect providers to try every trick in the book to milk their existing network for every last day they can possibly profit from it. The fact that the economy is in the toilet doesn't help either.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I'm sure I saw this exact same post on /. in 1998. Except then it said we'd run out of addresses by 2000.
Hello? There's this thing called NAT, you see, and in many ways it's preferable to not have every one of your 100 IP-enabled devices sitting there on the real internet just waiting to get hacked.
Cheers
-b
I wonder how long it will be before we have a washing machine buffer overflow...
Apartment dwellers below the afflicted system should take precautions now....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
unless a new prognostication that 'the end is nigh, in 2005' passes as news. everyone knows it's gonna happen. just as we all know that with NAT and proxies, most of it can be safely delayed by tech companies until they have an outside fiscal force to upgrade.
and i doubt my fridge will have an IP address anytime -before- ipv6 starts to be rolled out en masse.
as with all pure tech - it needs that killer app. something needs to come out that is so fantastically great that everyone has to have it - and it needs to require ipv6. until then - at best we'll be going dual-mode.
good luck finding that app, and educating users what it is, and what it does.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Isn't this a little overdramatic? Crisis? Having to switch to an updated protocol is a crisis?
Why does every human need 100 IP addresses? Home routers seem to solve a lot of the problems. A simple IP Masq fix...
As for the days of every appliance in our homes having an IP... I think that dream of the late 90s has been shelved for a while. It'll probably be decades, if ever, before our fridges are calling up to get food delivered...
The average home generally has a couple PCs / laptops...maybe an XBox or PS2 connected to net.
> "we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being."
We already have 65534 IP address for each human being. They are 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255.
Use NAT. Problem solved.
Enjoy the IPs. You can thank me later.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
While IPv6 fixes many problems in IPv4, the developed world will not embrace IPv6 until many shortcomings in the protocol are addressed.
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Many of cisco's routers use the router's CPU to process IPv6 packets instead of the fast-path. The reasons for this are explained in the next few points. While Juniper's routers are substantially better at IPv6 than cisco's, IT managers are often restrained by insane corporate policy that dictactes the use of cisco.
2. There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address
Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
3. IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size - 64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.
4. The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people, each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before.
While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.
Sure, IPv6 allows for nice hacks, but is it really ready for prime time?
...simple info on IPv6: http:// www.internet2.edu/resources/infosheetIPv6.pdf
Do not read this sig.
...that IANA decided to hold onto 80 or so class A's. I doubt they could even allocate all that space by 2005.
Dont believe me? get it straight from the horses mouth
Perhaps if the organizations bemoaning the lack of IP space stopped hogging so much of it there wouldn't be such a shortage.
The number of IP addresses IP6 will allow is truely astronomical, 6.65x10^23 addresses for every square meter of the Earth's surface. More than enough for everyone to have an internet controlled Etch-A-Sketch
Free cell phone tracking
I want to see IP as more of a general resource like electricity or water. You just plug anything into your wires/pipes, and it gets full access to the resource. Want more things getting water such as a washing machine? Then just run another pipe to it and it's got access. The current hacks of NAT are equivalent to only being allowed to install one tap in your house, and "proxying" the rest with buckets. Why cant it be like a water or electricity supply?
Those saying 'we have plenty of space left' obviously dont realise that the reason for this is that the current allocation policies for IPv4 make it impossible to get space for arbitrary devices. Yes, if you only allocate one IP address per gateway, of course you wont run out for a while. But that then mandates the use of ugly hacks such as NAT. A single tap per house/organisation.
To make full use of the potential of the net, one must be able to freely allocate IP addresses to any devices that want them, no matter how trivial it may seem today. Back when IP was invented, it was never in anyones wildest dreams that there would be an address shortage. There were barely a hundred hosts yet 32 bits of space. Look at what's happened in 20-odd years!
Lets not make the same mistake today.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
These articles remind me of FOX news... total sensationalism to drive advertising & page views.
Whether you "approve" of NAT or not, the truth is that it is a very effective band-aid that has hindered the progress of IPv6 because it works so well. We'll be on IPv4 for at least another ten years.
One of the major contributing factors to problems such as spammers and crackers is that it's so darn easy to scan subnets in IPv4 for open hosts. It can take under a minute to scan a complete /24 for hosts with open ports.
Now with IPv6 this situation is different. Each subnet has 64 bits of address space. That is, 18446744073709551616 IP addresses per subnet. Now, if someone could portscan at the rate of 100 addresses per second (pretty impressive), then each subnet would take 5.8 billion years[0] to scan for hosts. For one subnet! And to put this in a wider context, each site in ipv6 has 65,000 subnets. Effectively making network scans a thing of the past, and massively increasing security of the 'net.
Of course, one can still scan known hosts (eg from web server logs), but doing that is a heck of a lot harder - you'd need to get them in the first place.
[0] Said with appropriate finger quotes.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
IPv6 is bad because Cisco routers suck. No, wait, "Many of Cisco's routers" suck. You can' be serious! Once IPv6 gets off the ground, IPv6 will become fast path and eventually IPv4 will be dropped to legacy mode.
... most of the internet protocols are very wasteful. On the other hand, they are easily debuggable with relatively simple tools. This is a trade-off, obviously, and IPv6's choice is not per se good or bad, it's just different. We will see whether it will have a significant overhead. I say getting rid of spam is a better way to reduce bandwidth requirements on the internet than talking about header sizes.
About your point 2: IPv6 does not actually give out all those 2^128 IPs. The first half is for the network part, the second 64 bits are for the host part. This is necessary because autoconfiguration (which is really great, by the way!) uses a 64-bit part. The IPv6 autoconfiguration is stateless, by the way, which means it will also work without a DHCP server and it won't need reboot if the routers were down when the autoconfiguration process started.
The point about having this many addresses is that you never ever want to have to come into the remote possibility to have to switch to IPv8 because IPv6 is too small. And when you rant about the IPv6 header being 20 bytes larger than the IPv4 header, consider that the overhead of the TCP header (20+ bytes), the HTTP header (300 bytes), the Email header (500 bytes?),
IPv6 is ready for prime time. People are using it (I, for example). You can buy access to IPv6-native backbones. All the major OSses support it. There is really no excuse not to be already using it.
As a networking engineer, I am very concerned about the impending doom of IPv4 addresses running out.
But I am even more-so concerened about the sun burning out, because that would mean catastrophe for the human race! (not to mention it would mess up our nift wi-fi stuff!)
Seriously- with stop-gaps like NAT and ISP's recycling IPs from a pool for all users, its not gonna kill us.
Let cell phones work out this ipv6 thing, then tunnel, then upgrade piece by piece.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Because your other devices will want to keep their identity even when not at home. Imagine having an IP-based telephone as a (slightly contrived) example. You want to be able to route to it no matter what network it resides on at the moment.
I use my laptop in a number of places; home and at the department is the most common places but also others. Moving from place to place is a bit of a pain, though - I need to get a new IP address, change the SMTP server and so on, and setting up other stuff so I am allowed to access it no matter where I am is painful and error prone. If my laptop could keep its identity irrepsectively of where it is physically located on the net it would simplify life a whole lot for me.
NAT works pretty well for the stuff we do today, but it precludes a lot of interesting uses, and is actually quite painful compared to the possible alternative.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
It's probably been mentioned, but what about companies that have a single or multiple CLass "A"s that could just NAT? I was at a Ford dealership recently and noticed that they had a printer on a public address. Now it was probably NAT'd behind a router, but 5h1t! NAT an RFC 1918 address, not a public one!
.sig
No, we should withdraw all the A-class networks that are unnecessarily allocated to US companies.
OTH - I'd rather move to IPv6.
it's in my head
Which is: 340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion, 463 sextillion, 463 quintillion, 374 quadrillion, 607 trillion, 431 billion, 768 million, 211 thousand, 456.
A far cry from "35 trillion". To give you an order to this magnitude, some Australian scientists recently announced that there are 70 sextillion stars (give or take) in the known universe.
It may be pedantic, but someone who is so blinded by their work that they make hysterical claims that there's no word for the number they're pushing doesn't make me want to buy into their idea so quickly.
I don't see this as being much of a crisis. I've worked for several companies that employ ~10,000 people, most of which have systems connected to the network.
I remember in 1995, every Windows box had it's own public facing IP. Then over the years, everyone who could use NAT was moved over to private IP space.
The 'crisis' is really another example of media fear-inducing hype. Worst case senario, your ISP will begin issuing private IPs for for customers with basic accounts.
Yes, some things will break. But there's not much out there that doesn't function in a NAT enviroment from a client standpoint.
It'd also save ISPs a lot of headache with customers running unauthorized services.
I can already see the call to tech support..
customer "My web server/P2P/Warez FTP/etc doesn't work now that you changed my account to use a private IP."
ISP "Well, sir. You can upgrade to a business class account and get a static, public IP address."
customer "DOH."
I don't know about restricting the usage of IPs in countries that the US has a political agenda against. That would seem to defeat the whole idea behind the Internet. At least, that idea that was lost when Ebay and Amazon started suing everyone under the sun. It would keeps us going for a while longer, but I can see the NAT thing happen before that.
Personally, I would like to see one of the educational networks grow to a decent size and allow commoners onto their network with the restriction of no commercial activity. How I miss visiting Usenet and content outnumbering SPAM.
Also, doesn't Mercedes and a bunch of other companies that don't need an excessive number of IPs still have their own Class A? I know when I worked at an ISP that gobbled up a bunch of other companies in the late 90's, they were forced to hand over tons and tons of IP addresses because they could not prove they were actually being used for anything useful. That's what I was told, mind you I could see something underhanded going on since public IPs are quite a commodity these days.
Is that right? Lessee:
2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6
A number which everyone knows should be verbally expressed in English as:
Three hundred forty undecillion two hundred eighty two decillion three hundred sixty six nonillion nine hundred twenty octillion nine hundred thirty eight septillion four hundred sixty three sextillion four hundred sixty three quintillion three hundred seventy four quadrillion six hundred seven trillion four hundred thirty one billion seven hundred sixy eight million two hundred eleven thousand four hundred fifty six.
That's in the American naming system, of course. In the British system, it would be:
Three hundred forty sexillion two hundred eight two thousand three hundred sixty six quintillion nine hundred twenty thousand nine hundred thirty eight quadrillion four hundred sixty three thousand four hundred sixty three trillion three hundred seventy four thousand six hundred seven billion four hundred thirty one thousand seven hundred sixty eight million two hundred eleven thousand four hundred fifty six.
(Interesting to note that the British version is nine characters shorter, plus has the capability to scale much higher without extension).
In the interest of brevity, I shall forgo the Spanish, Italian and French versions, and I regret to say that I can't count that high in any other languages, though I'm certain it's possible.
So, I think the number is *quite* adequately named, thank you. Now there's not a single word for it, but few numbers have single-word names, simply because there are too many numbers, too few phonemes and no real need. If you want a single-word approximation, "undecillion" should do nicely, or "340 undecillion", since Mr. Christman seems to find that form acceptable. The ideal expression is, of course, "two to the hundred twenty eighth", which is short, completely accurate and gives a strong hint as to the origin of the value (a string of 128 bits).
Yes, I *am* the guy everyone avoids at parties.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Some devices weren't meant to be remote-controlled. And by some, I mean most. And even if they need to be, they don't need separate global IP's. People seem to forget that each of these 4 billion ipv4's have 65535 TCP ports.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
Okay, that was a bit of a ramblin' rant, but this really pisses me off. I'm tired of hearing how we're running out of addresses when the simple solution is to stop friggin' using them!
Would the last person to leave the Internet please turn off the routers?
A physicist is an atom's way of thinking about atoms
I don't think IPv4 addresses will run out by 2005, especially as more and more people/organizations implement more NAT. I work for a statewide ISP, and we've found that the new IP addresses we just got from ARIN a year ago are being returned to us in large numbers (thousands) by customers who are now persuing NAT solutions and using smaller subnets of 16 addresses or less.
> Yes, some things will break. But there's not much out there that doesn't function in a NAT enviroment from a client standpoint.
> It'd also save ISPs a lot of headache with customers running unauthorized services.
*applause*
Port 25 filtering would finally make sense - no more luzers with open exploitable proxies spewing bilge from attbi.com, rr.com, pacbell.net, comcast.net, and so on.
Add to that the possibility of doing ingress filtering, and you've got something that wouldn't just be less expensive for tech support, but a little safer for Joe Luser, whose unpatched box would be on a private subnet.
If the skript kiddie can't talk to port 135, 137, 138, 139, 445, or 1900 of Joe's box, he's gonna have a harder time 0wning him.
Uh, this would break a lot of other stuff aswell.
IM file transfers : broke
Video Confrencing: broke
voice over IP: broke
host a game (on xbox live for example): broke
now, i dont know about you but most of the people do one of the above things regually. IM has latley became the killer app of the internet (for the younger people).
This would reduce the internet to one way communication - something that I dont want.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
I disagree. Using unique IP addresses whenever possible is the way the internet is supposed to work. This NAT stuff is just an awful, awful hideous hack. The correct solution is IPv6, not NAT ourselves forwards and backwards.
Of course we'll run out of IPv6 addresses.
... but surely something will be invented that calls for more addresses.
Not right away
For example, teleportation might require separate addressing for all possible energy states of all elementary particles in the teleported object.
Don't say it can't happen. Remember when 64k was all the memory anyone would ever need? and a megabyte hard drive was out of your price range?
-kgj
I can't believe how many people have commented that there is no need for IPV6 because of NAT. Are you really willing to put up with the limits of NAT when you could give every computer its own routable address?
NAT does a decent job of allowing you to surf the web using a non-routable IP address. For anything more advanced it starts working less and less well.
I, personally have had many troubles with NAT:. Games which don't work properly unless they have huge ranges of ports exposed to the net. Instant messenger apps which fail in subtle ways. Brain-dead DHCP servers which don't properly pass on DNS settings, etc. Add to that the fact that the DHCP/NAT combination in most consumer boxes (like Liksys routers) is awful. You can port-forward from the router to a fixed IP address, but if you're using DHCP, you never know what machine will get that IP address! Even when it does work, there are far too many programs that don't work right when something is on a non-standard port.
In fact, I don't just want each of my machines to have its own routable IP address, I want some machines to have multiple addresses. That way I can host multiple domains on a single machine and truly administer them differently. Right now HTTP sends a host neader so that you can have multiple domains on a single IP and things just work. On the other hand, HTTPS doesn't work like this, so you need a work-around if you want to use HTTPS. The simple truth is that today if you want to have multiple domains using anything other than straight HTTP on a single machine you really do need multiple IPs.
For many people, NAT is a comfort thing. They think they don't have to worry about patching their systems because they're behind a dinky broadband router. Hint: that's security through obscurity. The devices you're buying aren't meant as firewalls, they're meant to let joe-consumer connect two computers to the Internet easily.
The main reason I want IPV6 now is so that my damn Internet provider can't get away with charging extra for extra IP addresses. At the moment they can because they're relatively scarce, but I can't see them getting away with that with IPV6.
If you're content with your buggy whip, that's great. But I personally have a use for at least 20 IPs that NAT won't solve. So don't make a blanket statement that IPV6 isn't necessary. Maybe not for you, but some of us can't wait to have it.
I'm not an expert on IPv6 (nor IPv4 for that matter), but there is some practicality in question here.
Can you memorize 204.172.4.36? Maybe not at first glance, but after you type it in a few times, you probably will.
Can you memorize FEDC:BA98:7654:3210:FEDC:BA98:7654:3210? Definitely not at first glance, and very unlikely unless it is something which you must type every day.
Some people's jobs depend on entering IP addresses, and IPv6 addresses are just so unnecessarily long that typing them is a total drag.
---
Here's my RFC. 40-bit addresses. That gives you roughly a trillion addresses (a bit more actually), which is more than we should ever need. And you can write them in dotted-decimal format.
Can you memorize 430.168.957.249? Probably.
Fast forward 50 or 100 years... Everyone has Internet-enabled tools, chairs, glasses... whatever, because everything has a RFID inside, because the TPAA (Things producers Ass. of A.) wants to track everything, because some geeks have found a use to a connection between my pen and my fridge, because it is so easy and cheap...
1) BUT this tendency to Internet-enable everything will expand to any file on my computer. A CD has a RFID/IP to connect it to the desk, why not every of my MP3? Why a book and not on e-book ? A computer will needs millions of IP addresses.
2) Worse: we'll finish as virtual beings in the in virtual words (think Ultima Online in 2100). And we'll want everything in this world to have Internet addresses too. I'll ask my little desktop computer to create my own little Matrix, for me alone... and everything there has an address of the IPv6 space (to help me interconnect the real and the virtual world).
And if it's not enough:
3) Cyber beings (a few billions humans, much much much virtual intelligent creatures) find the world rather small for so many entities. Not enough computers on this small planet to compute all the worlds that each entity wants created for itself (and to run the compilation of the 10^15 lines of the brand new Linux 2.80.0). So the Metamegamatrix expands to Jupiter, Saturn and creates a Dyson sphere aroud the Sun, converting every joule of energy into computational power for the simulation.
And in 2203, Slashdot makes headlines on IPv9 with 2048 bits addresses.
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
I could even call the toilet to see if anyone is using it.
MIT got there first: http, finger.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
In a way, we're not talking about the Internet here. We're talking about a company's, or even an ISP's, private network which also has access to the Internet. Giving those machines puplic IPs is not only a waste of address space, but a security risk. Those that need to access the Internet don't need public IPs. Those that need the Internet to access them, do. Forcing the world into a MAJOR move to IP6 just because you consider NAT a "hack" is unreasonable. NAT works, and works well. There's nothing I can't do behind NAT that I can't do with a public IP (including VPN, that's just easier with a public). The correct solution is to not give Nancy-in-accounting's printer a public IP, or worse, have to force accounting to upgrade that printer because its hardware doesn't support IP6.
Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
I'm gonna subnet like it's 255.255.255.254.
I can already see the call to tech support..
customer "My web server/P2P/Warez FTP/etc doesn't work now that you changed my account to use a private IP."
Customer: "Why can't I play games online anymore?"
Consider an RTS game such as Starcraft. If you and your friend both have a private IP, you can't play. NAT is not a good solution.
What? "broken"?? My god, referring to the correct, as-designed intended use of the protocol as BROKEN!
I know, let's just forget about Host Requirements, and about a richly-interconnected fully-reachable peer-to-peer network. That old Internet stuff is just "broken". Let's build us a hierarchical circuit-switched network, and then appoint a monopoly to manage it!
That would be us here at MIT. And you can pry it out of our cold dead hands.
Sounds to me like one of many Mozilla standards zealot arguments.
A: Why doesn't Mozilla popup image ALT text as a tooltip?
B: Because it's not meant to do that, the standard says so.
A: But nearly every other browser does it!
B: But the standard doesn't say you should.
A: But many websites use this functionality anyway!
B: But the standard doesn't say you should.
A: These sites are *already using* this functionality! Why are you building a browser that doesn't work properly with a large number of websites, and when implementing this functionality wouldn't hurt anyone, and may even help accessibility??
B: Because the standard doesn't say you should.
ad infinitum...
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
NAT works okay when I'm controlling the box doing it. I can hack in special stuff to handle esoteric protocols which expect a public IP.
If my ISP runs the box doing NAT, there's suddenly a bunch of things I won't be able to do anymore, and I'll promptly switch ISPs to one which will let me use the Internet as it's intended.
The number, 2^128, or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6, can be read as:
Three hundred forty undecillion,
two hundred eighty-two decillion,
three hundred sixty-six nonillion,
nine hundred twenty octillion,
nine hundred thirty-eight septillion,
four hundred sixty-three sextillion,
four hundred sixty-three quintillion,
three hundred seventy-four quadrillion,
six hundred seven trillion,
four hundred thirty-one billion,
seven hundred sixty-eight million,
two hundred eleven thousand,
four hundred fifty-six.
That's a lot of IP addresses.
I like the idea of lots of IPv6 addresses, enough to provide for ISPs to provide each subscriber with a static IP address.
Open relay? Source of spam?
Guess what? When re-connect you get that exact same address that is going to be at the receiving end of irate spam recipients!
No more evading consequences through the magic of DHCP.
And, for one-time lusers that change ISPs after each offense, the responsible ISP that has clear identifying information (I had to show a driver's license to get my account) about said spammer can post `em to a blacklist. Irresponsible ISPs can simply have themselves blacklisted wholescale.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Abuse! Abuse!
I mean, this could go on forever:
Poster1(p1): "The word 'theory', in practice, has more meanings than in theory."
Poster2(p2): "Yes but theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice."
p1: "I don't want to read your theory about practice; practise your theories!"
p2: "Bah! Your theory and practice only hold together in theory, not practice."
p1: "What?! Shove this practice into your theory!"
p2: "Oh yeah, theory this!"
p1: "You short, mustachioed, german, national-socialist pig!"
p2: "Godwin's law! Godwin's law!"
etc, etc, etc.
<yawn>
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.