Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf Keeps Blaming Himself For IPv4 Limit
netbuzz writes "Everyone knows that IPv4 addresses are nearly gone and the ongoing move to IPv6 is inevitable if not exactly welcomed by all. If you've ever wondered why the IT world finds itself in this situation, Vint Cerf, known far and wide as one of the fathers of the Internet, wants you to know that it's OK to blame him. He certainly does so himself. In fact, he does so time and time and time again."
Is this a backwards opportunity taken for asserting that he is one of the Fathers of the Internet?
Cool. Now that we've assigned blame, hopefully we can move forward with FIXING the problem.
Since there is already a fix available (IPv6), if/when this DOES become a problem, THAT problem should be assigned squarely on the shoulders of the people who failed to implement the FIX in a timely enough manner.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
... to quote that hilarious line from Idiocracy.
In Liberty, Rene
Vint Cerf should blame himself for the IPv6 mess instead.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
So, Vince, if it makes you feel better, we'll blame you. It's all your fault.
Now, has that got us more IP addresses? No? Why worry about blame then? Real engineers fix things.
It's a good thing IPv4's address space is 32-bit. Without that limitation we'd never move to IPv6 and get all of the other benefits that it offers.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
There isn't a true shortage with companies that are hording large blocks of IP addresses. Example HP has 2 class A address blocks among others which gives them over 32 million IP's. With all the mergers that have happened why isn't there a process to recover address blocks that can be reused properly.
Part of the problem is that no one thought of recovering address blocks when companies merge. You can't tell me that HP needs 32 million plus IP's?
There is also the fact that both companies and ISP's can use the Private blocks and NAT for internal and only use routable blocks for devices that need them.
It all boils down to miss management of the address system which could be changed to extend the life of IPV4 and make it more efficient.
After hearing this story and the '640k ought to be enough' story, the lesson learned is that whenever you are planning on building something technical, be sure to go wayyyy overboard on the size and scope of the projected requirements in order to future-proof the technology.
By the way, is Vint short for 'Vincent?' or 'Voila...Internet?"
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
In a speech around 2004, I remember Alan Cox said that the reason IPv6 wasn't advancing was that big software players were afraid to adopt it before it turns 20 in case there are submarine patents / patent ambush.
Anyone got links to confirm / disprove this theory?
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_ambush
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
The examples of him putting the blame on himself for IPV4 running out of address space is just a modest way of saying "Hey I invented the Internet" in a real way not in an Al Gore kind of way.
I can only wish that I would have such a failure in my career!
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Here's an interview where he says it:
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t576610-alan-cox-on-software-patents.html
"""Alan Cox: The same has happened with IP version 6. You notice that everyone
is saying IP version 6 is this, is that, and there's all this research
software up there. No one at Cisco is releasing big IPv6 routers.
Not because there's no market demand, but because they want 20
years to have elapsed from the publication of the standard before
the product comes out -- because they know that there will be
hundreds of people who've had guesses at where the standard
would go and filed patents around it. And it's easier to let things
lapse for 20 years than fight the system."""
(More info would be good - any other prominent techs saying this?)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
It was pre-home computer revolution and nobody thought computers would shrink to the size of everybody's pockets (cellphones). Nobody thought we'd be using machines will a billion bits (or more) or memory. Back than ~4000 was considered a lot (it was the hardcoded limit for the Atari console). Everything was smaller in scale, and Mr. Cerf is not to blame for not predicting the invention of the Web Browser (killer app) and how it would reach into every facet of our lives.
Only those with no imagination---
I can say with a great deal of confidence that plenty of us knew what was coming.
Now who do we blame for 32-bit time_t on 32-bit iron? There's a relatively new OS that lots of people use today that didn't have any ABI concerns when it was in its infancy, yet its creator didn't have the vision to see beyond doing pretty much what everyone else had done before him. (And I won't name him because then I'll just get modded a troll. But I bet you can guess who it is.)
Actually, since this problem is sure to boom in the coming months, I've started a wiki page for it:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IPv6
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
How many years is it from the start of alleged infringement to the rebuttable presumption that the patent holder has snoozed and lost?
At the time, XNS, the Xerox protocol for Ethernet networks, was in use. It had 24 bits for the network number, and 24 bits for the device ID. Thinking at the time was that each network would be a local LAN, and "internetworking" would interconnect LANs. Xerox was thinking of this as a business system, with multiple machines on each LAN. So XNS had a 48-bit address spade. That's what we call a "MAC address" today.
The telephony people were pushing X.25 and TP4, which used phone numbers for addressing. Back then, phone numbers were very hierarchical; the area code and exchange parts of the number determined the routing to the final switch. "Number portability", where all the players have huge tables, was a long way off.
The problem with a big address space is that memory was too expensive in those days to deal with huge address tables. A big issue was locative vs non-locative address spaces. In a locative address space, there's a hierarchy - you can take some part of the address and make a local decision about what direction to go, even if you don't have enough detailed information to get to the final destination. IP was originally organized like that - routers looked up class A, B, and C networks. A huge, flat address space implemented using multi-level caches was way beyond what you could do in a router back then. Routers used to be dinky machines, with less than one MIPS and maybe 256K of RAM.
There was a lot of worry about packet overhead. Each key press on a terminal sends 41 bytes over a TCP/IP network. That was a big deal when companies had long-haul links in the 9600 to 56Kb/s range. Adding another 24 bytes to each packet to allow for future expansion seemed grossly excessive. Especially since the X.25 people had far less overhead.
So there were good reasons not to overdesign the system. I don't blame Cerf for that.
The foot-dragging on IPv6 is excessive. The big deployment problem was getting it into everyone's Windows desktop. That's been done.
that map wasn't correct to begin with--the upper right-hand corner, 240-255, is "class E experimental" addresses and will never be given out.
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
>>>Only those with no imagination---
Were you even alive then - 1976? I was. Remember that was a time when being able to buy a video & watch it at home was an alien concept (pre-VCR). If you had said to someone, "Someday you'll be able to sit on a bus and watch a video from 10,000 miles away," they'd probably lock you in a loony bin. Or just say, "You're a nutty nerd - let's give you a wedgie."
Computers in 1976 were the size of small rooms, and they were just beginning to be shrunk to PC size, but they were hard-to-use (no keyboards or screens; they used esoteric switches). Nobody at the time thought common people (read: uneducated boobs) would have computers with self-assigned addresses. Nobody thought there'd be more than one computer per home, much less 2-3 per person. Most envisioned computers as being like Star Trerk - a single unit running the whole house. The number of homes was only 900 million, so having ~4000 million addresses was plenty.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
ABI nothing. That new OS needed to have software ported to it and a lot of Unix like software expects time_t and int to be interchangeable so changing it would involve fixing a lot of software.
I feel a bit guilty myself now, I got a block of 16 IPv4 addresses last week when I changed ISP. Although they also give me real honest non-tunnelled IPv6 too.
C'mon Slashdot, start supporting IPv6! - even Youtube's on there now!
Here's a question for the day: Why did they pick a class A network to place the local machine address (127.0.0.1) in? Why not 192.168.0.1?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Exactly, even in the late 90s I heard professors talk about it being important knowing how much space a short took as opposed to an int as opposed to a long long and what'd it'd do for CPUs and registers and whatnot. People in the 70s and early 80s at the dawn of the PC skimped bits and bytes everywhere taking the century off the year and many other things that in retrospect seem stupid. But that kind of cost cutting could save you millions of dollars in reduced requirements back then. I'd love to go back and start off with Unicode/UTF8 instead of the abomination this is code pages and local 8 bit encoding for example. And a common standard for "\n" or "\r\n". To have all PCs use the system clock in UTC (or well GMT back then). The list goes on...
They were building a box car and people that asked those kind of questions sounded like "um, yeah but what about when we break the sound barrier?" It's only in the last decade after the y2k debacle that the motto has become "use 64 bit". 64 bits time_t, 64 bit pointers, 64 bits limits on files and sizes and now finally 64 bit sector counts on HDDs as we hit 3TB+ HDDs and maybe someday 2x64 bit IPv6 addresses, just the first 64 really do the trick the rest will be used for MACs. It's cheaper to spend another few bytes than run into another limit like that.
Everything would be so much simpler if you could look into a crystal ball and learn what the world is like 50 years from now. Also, I'd spend that power making myself ridiculously rich not change the IPv4 address size ;)
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Choosing 32 bits for IPV4 was reasonable at the time when 56kbps was considered a fast link.
The real problem is that when IPV6 was designed it did not allow IPV4 to be included as a subspace.
so you cannot have an IPV4 address that is a valid IPV6 address.
That means that there is no soft migration path from IPV4 to IPV6.
The people who designed IPV6 did not consider the problems of real world users;
they designed in a vacuum. A properly designed IPV6 would be in widespread use by
now, and the problem would be under control.
I'm going to this event in San Jose to hear him speak and perhaps give me some good advice around IPv6.
http://www.gogonetlive.com/
Next year will probably be the last year I run IPv4.
We'll think about it, Vint.
music lover since 1969
$ host -t AAAA slashdot.org
slashdot.org has no AAAA record
$
'nuff said. Our organisation (that's me) is already 96% dual-stack. We treat non-ipv6 connectivity as fatal. When are you gonna do it?
Uh, Linux inherits time_t from POSIX.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The number of addresses available in IPv4 is ACTUALLY NOT 2**32=~4 billion but 2**32 * 2**24 = ~48 trillion addresses.
Good luck NAT-ing four billion IP addresses behind one NAT box which has one IP address and 65536 ports.
...the ongoing move to IPv6 is impossible.
T,FTFReality.
There's zero economic incentive to stand up an IPv6 service, and won't be until a critical mass of clients have only IPv6 connectivity (no IPv4). There's no economic incentive for an ISP to provide IPv6 unless the customers demand it, and they don't care because there aren't any services or content exclusively on IPv6.
It's sad to us geeks, but the future is an internet of many-layered NAT where connections can only be routed from end-user to well-known servers, not from end-user to end-user.
0 1 - just my two bits
And a patent does not have to be enforced to be valid - latches and waivers do not apply to patents.
This is one difference between patents and trademarks, but Google patent laches produces this document describing how laches applies to claims of patent infringement. It cites A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 22 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Sir Arthur C Clarke saw it coming in 1964. “These things will make possible a world in which we can be in instant contact with each other, wherever we may be, where we can contact our friends, anywhere on earth, even if we don't know their actual, physical location.” He had little idea what the mechanism would be. But he had perfect insight into the scale.
I hear he's really fat.
jhw
>>>Only those with no imagination---
Were you even alive then - 1976?
Yes, actually I was alive then, and for quite a few years before that.
I was. Remember that was a time when being able to buy a video & watch it at home was an alien concept (pre-VCR).
Not true. I was shooting video on 1" cartridges in my HS film classes in 1976, and believe it or not, there was a movie sale and rental industry then. It was small, by mail order, and expensive, but it did exist.
If you had said to someone, "Someday you'll be able to sit on a bus and watch a video from 10,000 miles away," they'd probably lock you in a loony bin. Or just say, "You're a nutty nerd - let's give you a wedgie."
I think those reactions had more to do with the goofy grin, flood pants, and the bad haircut you had than anything else. :-P
Computers in 1976 were the size of small rooms,
I think you're a little confused about the whats and whens.
I lusted over SWTP 6809s and various Z/80 systems written up in Popular Electronics throughout the 70s -- too expensive for my paper route level of income. Apple 1s were around by '76, and the first Apple ][s shipped in 1977. Circa 1976 HP donated an old mini to the HS I went to -- it was the size of a four drawer filing cabinet. Apart from that, most of those were smaller than a Selectric typewriter.
Yeah, the Burroughs mainframe at my dad's office years earlier filled up the whole room, but actually, if you knew what you were looking at, you knew most of it was tape drives, line printers, and other stuff.
and they were just beginning to be shrunk to PC size, but they were hard-to-use (no keyboards or screens; they used esoteric switches).
Esoteric? Like the switch on the wall that you turn the light on with? Actually you could get a SWTP terminal with a full QUERTY keyboard and a 40×25 CRT to go with your 6809. Apples -- 1 and ][ -- had real keyboards.
Nobody at the time thought common people (read: uneducated boobs) would have computers with self-assigned addresses. Nobody thought there'd be more than one computer per home, much less 2-3 per person. Most envisioned computers as being like Star Trek - a single unit running the whole house. The number of homes was only 900 million, so having ~4000 million addresses was plenty.
The 1970 Census put the US population at 200M. By 1980 it was 226M. I don't know what the typical household was, say family of four. I think that'd make for a lot fewer homes, but really, what does that have to do with anything?
Again, there were people -- with imagination -- who were anticipating the computer revolution. Not unsurprisingly, they were right.
ABI nothing. That new OS needed to have software ported to it and a lot of Unix like software expects time_t and int to be interchangeable so changing it would involve fixing a lot of software.
If they expect time_t and int to be interchangeable -- even on 64-bit iron -- then there's still some fixing that's needed.
Good luck NAT-ing four billion IP addresses behind one NAT box which has one IP address and 65536 ports.
This is only a problem if you're Cisco. Sane NAT implementations track connections by the whole 5-tuple.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
That'll give us 3 more spaces we can use! ;-)
we are not hearing any apologies from Al Gore.
Uh, Linux inherits time_t from POSIX.
Got a citation? No? I didn't think so. Actually POSIX inherits from ISO C [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time] and---
ISO C (ISO/IEC 9899:TC2, Committee Draft dated May 6, 2005, [because that's the copy I happen to have as a PDF]) in section 7.23.1 Components of time, paragraph 3:
The types declared are size_t[,] clock_t[,] and time_t which are arithmetic types capable of representing times; ...
Nothing there about them having any particular bit-size, regardless of the native bit size of the underlying hardware.
That map has some errors.
The big green block in the top right (240-255) is unusable.
The 10 block is reserved for RFC 1918.
Aside from that, only the following blocks remain unallocated. everywhere else is white.
005
023
037
039
100
102
103
104
105
106
179
185
IANA has a report of what blocks are assigned/reserved, to whom and when they were given out.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
There has been a lot of even worse assumptions made that has been left in code simply because it happens to work on 32 bit systems. GCC now warns you about that sort of thing on 32 bit but programmers have a tendency to ignore the warnings.
You would be shocked at how much software will fail to compile with -Werror.
IPv6 addressing is wonderfully simple. Because it is hierarchical, in one byte units, there are at most 256 upstream, 256 parallel and 256 downstream router addresses for any given router. The lowest 48 bits are taken from the MAC addresses.
The only time you need to hold more addresses than 768 is if you are supporting Mobile IP or NEMO using transitory addresses (the original IPv6 mechanism), where re-routing is handled with temporary router entries that last 30 seconds or until the computer/network moves to a new network, whichever comes first.
Typical IPv4 router tables - especially for ISPs - are huge. You don't need 8 Mb router tables unless you plan on holding upwards of a million routes. I don't know if anyone sells corporate-grade routers that small any more.
Since there are no situations where you will ever want a more specific rule for a route (other than to support transitory addresses), you don't need to search for the most specific case of a routing rule. If you have found the first case, it will be the only case. Even in the transitory address case, you're comparing the whole IPv6 address, so there will be exactly one match for it, so the worst case is looking for two matches for strings. This means that searches are much, much faster. On large routers, you can use the three bytes as indexes into the table of hierarchical addresses and then use a tree to store the transitory addresses. You can search both in less time than it takes to search an IPv4 router table.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
When some says;
- I blame myself
- I take full responsibility
- I am the guilty one(eg when a father says this when he allowed his daughter to go out that night, and she was subsequently killed by a drunk driver)
What they invariably do no expect is a response in agreement, and enhancing the argument that they are in fact responsible.
Vint Cerf would never expect (or want) a flurry of media articles, Blogs, and peer discussion that say "Hang on?! He *is* responsible. We now question his competence. And we will take these damages as a consequence of his error and will need to seek recompence."
Just imagine that father being taken away in cuffs because he admitted to being responsible for a death.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Because, since all the hosts behind a NAT share a single routable address, that means to make inbound connections, you need to setup port forwarding. So, say I want to run Skype (which likes to have an inbound port), a game server, and a VoIP application, all of which need to be able to accept inbound connections. Well, to do that, on the NAT Gateway, I need to setup 3 ports to be forwarded to my computer. Only I can use those 3 ports, no one else can. Which means with 64k ports available on the NAT, you can probably only setup port forwarding service for maybe 10k-20k customers. You *might* be able to alleviate this a little bit by using multiple 'public' IPs - say one public IP for every 5000-10000 users on the ISP network.
There's also the issue of 'well known ports' - let's say I want to run a web server - well, almost all browsers expect a web server to respond to connections made to either port 80 or port 443 (for SSL encrypted connections). Likewise SSH, telnet, FTP, rdist, etc all typically use well-known ports. Games using iD Software engines usually accept inbound connections on a particular well-known port (27960). Only one computer per public IP may have port 80 or 443, or whatever, forwarded.
Also, perhaps even more importantly, every outbound connection also uses a port associate with the public IP address being used for NAT. Again, using one public IP for a few thousand users might give you enough ports to mostly work.
Basically, in a world where everyone is behind a NAT, no one can ever accept in-bound traffic from off the 'local' network (I put local in quotes, because in the case of Large Scale NAT, you could probably talk to all the other customers of your ISP directly, but not anyone who uses a different ISP), even when they *WANT* to. Some people like the 'comfort' of thinking that NAT somehow protects them better than a firewall, but I'd personally prefer routable addresses for all my devices, with a firewall that I control on my home router to block in-bound access. That way, I can simply open ports when I *want* inbound traffic, and leave all other closed - but when I do want to run services
Oops - accidentally hit submit too soon. The last sentence should finish:
. . .but when I do want to run services, I have the freedom to open the ports and allow the connections.
If there are any patents associated with IPv6, the Feds could claim Eminent Domain over them if I'm not mistaken.
Life is not for the lazy.
As I said, Linux inherits it from POSIX which inherits from ISO C. On Linux it's defined as __TIME_T_TYPE which in turn is __SLONGWORD_TYPE long int so on 32bit arch it's a signed 32bit integer and on a 64bit platform it's a signed 64 integer. There are oddball systems that define time_t as something other than a signed int, but the vast majority of systems define it that way. I guess the ultimate takeway is to use the standard libraries, never assume what an undefined datatype will be, and never write to disk a variable who's type is platform dependent =)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
In 1996, when IPv6 (back then called IPng) was declared the "fix", there were two proposals that could have extended the address space.
* Use TCP/UDP on top of IPX (RFC1791). This, IIRC was implemented in reality, for example, in Netware server 4.11.
* Use TCP/UDP on top of CLNS/CLNP (RFC1347).
Now think about it for a second. Both IPX and CLNP are closer to IPv4 than IPv6 will ever be. Both were already proven, well understood, and the implementations were solid...
In 1996 EVERY router on the planet had the algorithms necesary to route IPX AND CLNP (for different reasons, at the time IPX was VERY popular and CLNP was govt and Telco mandated) so the relevant patents and IP were already licensed. You also saved most of the training and implementation (meaning algorithm programming and testing) costs.
Same for the hosts. Most workstations (desktops) had an IPX client, from MS-DOS 5.0 onwards (but also in the *NIX and MAC worlds), while on servers it got better, you had your choice betwen IPX or CLNP (sometimes native, sometimes as an ad-on). So again you saved the training costs for your admins, the implementation (programming/testing) costs.
But nooooo, the guys of the IETF at the time had an acute case of NIH (or, as Eric Cartman would say, "Sand in Their Vaginas"), and came up with IPv6. Sure, it has al lot of advantages other than a larger address space, but was unproven, unimplemented, subjected to Intelectual property problems (the fact that intellectual property in its current form is flawed [I agree with that idea] is not relevant to this discussion), and had mistakes of it's own.
(my favorite pet peeve about IPv6, they removed the header checksum... come on!, I agree that recalculating the checksum in every router because of the TTL is stupid, but it was rather easy to keep the checksum, not include the hop count field in it, and make the Hop Count field a hamming code instead of a direct integer value!. And no, a half assed check on TCP of the Pseudoheader with a weaklish algorithm will not do. BTW, the guys doing realtime multimedia using UDP must also be jumping of joy that the checksum in UDP/IPv6 is mandatory now.. :-P I discussed this with my students last tuesday, but is not going to be in the exam).
At the time (1996), I was an undergrad student, in a backwater country, and had high hopes that ATM would solve everything (I did my thesis in ATM flow control)... Silly me... I did not speak...
Let's not blame Cerf, nor Khan of our current woes. Let's blame the people who gave us a crappy solution out of pride, and pitty those of us who have to implement it....
Salud!
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Just divide 20% of the total number of IPv6 Addresses (this is both to account for wasted addresses, as well as to point how silly the notion of running out of IPv6 Addresses is), and divide it by the number of Sq metes (or foots, as you preffer) of the surface of the earth (dry, humid, wet, or iced) and tell me how many devices for each tile of surface can have a unique address.
Pro Tip: Use a scientific calculator, a normal one, or the one on a cellphone will not do.
For the lazy: 1,33*1023 addresses per square meter, if my calculations are correct. This is more than the Avogadro #... just in case, check my calculation.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
(sigh)
Fine. Vint Cerf was an idiot for not being a visionary as you folks. He should have been able to predict in 1976 that Disco would die, records would be replaced with MP3s, and that everyone would be surfing his not-yet-built internet on their cellphones.
Let's hang the bastard. ----- I assume when YOU design products, you don't just give them a few gigabytes? You give them 10,000 gigabytes..... ya know, for future growth. (rolls eyes)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There is nothing anywhere that says __TIME_T_TYPE couldn't have been 'long long int' on 32-bit iron.
I don't know why you want to debate the inheritance of ISO C via POSIX, they have nothing to do with the original choice of a 32-bit type for time_t in the 32-bit Linux kernels. In fact, it's quite the opposite: the spec deliberately does not define a size, allowing kernel and libc implementers the choice to make them whatever size they wanted.
(This isn't theoretical -- I once spun a one-off FreeBSD that used 64-bit time_t on 32-bit iron. I could do it precisely because I didn't have thousands of existing binary apps to break. And I could compile correctly written third party apps without change.)
But you can't change it in Linux now, not without breaking the ABI.
Yes, that works if the addresses don't encode any geographic or routing information. If you can just lamely assign any old address to any old device no matter where it connects on, then yeah, you could spread over the whole earth like that.
But the real reason it needs to be much bigger than it would appear is that if it's big enough, you can let unfathomably huge blocks sit forever unused in order to allow the address itself to hint at the routing, so that you can have dumb routes that only have to look at part of the address to know where where to send it next.. you know.. every thing that starts with 3 goes left, 2 goes right, etc.
Simply assigning unique information to every thing on the network is necessary, but not sufficient.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Yeah, that might work for http where the domain name is embedded in the GET or POST request. How about other services which don't include the domain name in the protocol itself? What about encrypted connections where the payload is completely opaque? I'm sorry but your 'solution' is way too application-specific. Domain names where never meant to be used for routing - they were meant to be used to do a lookup of the IP address which *is* the main mechanism for routing.
As for 'isochronous delivery' - are you saying that there can be no QOS/Traffic Shaping with IPv6? I haven't specifically read up on that topic, but I find it almost impossible to believe that routers can't theoretically do traffic shaping on IPv6 packets?
Please tell me this is a glitch and that my slashdot viewing pleasure is still lurking behind this obscene layout that I can't find any way to change.
rd
P.S. Well, one thing didn't change. It still takes a lifetime to preview a comment.
On a machine with a recent Ubuntu desktop install do:
cat /etc/hosts
There should at least be 127.0.0.1 for localhost but you will often also see a 127.0.1.1 with (only) the machine's name. I think (agree?) the OP was just making a joke rather than a serious point though!
It's because of Vint Cerf that it's called "Web Cerfing".
I18N == Intergalacticization
You would be shocked at how much software will fail to compile with -Werror.
I've been developing software professionally for almost 30 years -- I'm not shocked at how much software fails to compile with -Werror, or even without -Werror sometimes.
And for extra thrills I occasionally compile the stuff I work on with Intel's compiler, just to see what it finds. And it's been a while since I last checked, I should see what the status is of C++ in CLANG these days.