The IETF doesn't run the world either and despite them trying, nobody is gonna upgrade to IPv6.
And dont get pedantic about NAT/Packet Filtering/Firewall with me. The point is you are still gonna have to punch holes though your "filter thingy" and all filters have the same problems. You have to first trust them and second tell them to punch holes in their firewalls for you.
And by the way, I'm not saying we throw everything away. Not at all. Unless "google.com" "myspace.com" and "billg@microsoft.com" work, an idea is worthless. What I'm saying is *how* we access those services will probably change and evolve from IPv4 and for long periods of time interoperable with it.
The problem with IPv6 is it didn't ask for evolution, it expected everybody to switch over to something that kinda-sorta looks like IPv6 (ala flag days). They'd have been better to somehow "wrap" and "improve" IPv4 to keep backwards compatible.
I hate linking to videos, but this one by Van Jacobson might change the way you think about the problem space. Really, we need to start thinking out of the box here. We are in a TCP/IP rut.
I'll get over it, dont worry. But I still dont trust firewalls.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think we'll see an IPv7 or somesuch that provides strict backwards-compatibility with IPv4 while expending the address space.
Doesn't pain me. I fully expect it.
A change in internet protocol won't help one damn bit with the problems you mention.
Nope. What I expect is will layer another heap of goo on top of TCP/IP and talk over that instead. Future versions of web traffic or bit torrent fragements will be "routed" in some abstract way that makes then care less if they hop across a boundary like IPv4 or IPv6 (or SMS or anything). In other words, in the future our protocol stack will transcend TCP/IP and everybody would have their own little private IPv4 universe or LANWorks (HVAC's network protocol) or anything. The bit torrent traffic will just route on the top of it all.
I believe it is a work in progress and from what I understand the idea of an AS isn't really part of the IPv6 deal unless you are "big" and qualify to get one. This is partly technical because our modern routing protocols just cannot scale to giving everybody an AS.
Thus... anybody smaller then "big" will continue to use NAT to avoid getting locked into a proprietary address space.
To me, another sign that we've outgrown what the TCP/IP abstraction provides.
Yup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bottom half of the IP address will be your mac address. Unless you are smart and know better, all "the man" has to do is pull your ethernet card out and get your mac address and *BAM* you are screwed. NAT gives you a couple outs "gee... you mean I have to secure my wireless router? or "gee... I had a lan party that day and had 30 people using my network... talk to them!"
All of that is true, but you are gonna have to do a hell of a marketing job to convince most people. NAT just feels right on an emotional "human" level. Firewalls dont.
Worse then that, you have to convince me to switch from something that works well enough. Honestly? As far as I can see, IPv6 offers nothing over IPv4 but more address space. That might sell to the network admins, but it will not sell to the rest of the internet world (i.e. the guys paying the network admins).
What *will* sell, I predict, is a new protocol that fixes the address space and solves problems felt by internet users. Imagine if somebody cooked up a way to handle authentication that made it easy to hunt down spammers? Imagine if you could post to slashdot truly anonymously? Imagine if the internet protocols had a way to ensure you don't create a bunch of sock puppet accounts because it knows who you are? Imagine if you could be 100% certain you are visiting bankofamerica.com? *Those* are the *real* pain we all feel. I am 90% sure the next protocol we do a mass migration to will solve at least some of those problems because people will gladly pay for them. IPv6 does *nothing* to solve them, all it does is solve some esoteric problem with addressing.
Question. How does a firewall make anything easier for my home network? Digsby, uTorrent and SageTV will all still need to talk to the firewall (probably UPnP) and tell it to punch a hole in it for them. Or are you suggesting that we should expect everybody to log into their firewalls to make exceptions everytime one of our useful software packages need to talk to the world?
In other words, from an end user perspective, how is a firewall any different than a NAT?
I agree and I dont buy the "firewall" arguments either. Firewalls still have the same problems on a home network as NAT'ing does (after all, your IM program has to tell your firewall to punch a hole for it via UPnP). Firewalls have the additional problem that if firewall is somehow comprimised and turned into an open router, your entire network is exposed. I dunno about anybody else, but my home network is wide the hell open with C:\'s shared and everything. You can call me stupid, but on a private block of IP's, you'd either have to compromise the 802.11g bridge or somehow route from public to private address space (or break into busybox on the DSL modem). I feel pretty damn cozy and safe behind my actiontec DSL router and the hell am I going to trust a Public/Firewall/Public setup.
IPv6 is seriously a solution in search of a problem. It isn't being adopted because nobody wants it!
You gonna use your ISP's proprietary block of IP addresses to number your corporate lan? You want every computer in your office to rely on your ISP not switching their IP addresses, not going bankrupt, etc? No thanks. On IPv4 and IPv6, the only way to ensure you dont have to renumber your intranet because of the whims of your ISP is to use private IP addresses.
you are actually onto something there. The trick to all this isn't going to be found in dull things like TCP/IP but in DNS, LDAP or some new directory service. It is really the "finding shit" space that needs a significant tune up. Make "finding shit" work, and it wont matter what flavor of IP you are using.
I still dont buy it. Sorry. It just feels so natural to place my network on private, publiclly unprofitable address that I feel it is insane not to. It is so damn intuitive to me, and probably alot of other people--it feels like a violation of our core being when we let our personal computers sit out on the big bad internet.
The "NAT is evil" argument just doesn't sit right. Sure it causes some pain, but only in stupid protocols that don't know how to use UPnP or do stupid things like active FTP.
If you create a modern protocol that doesn't account for NAT, you created a protocol that will fail in the marketplace because people will blame your product, not their cute little netgear router.
But honestly, when you boil it down we are both right and we are both wrong and are basically talking past eachother. The "fear" of mine about privacy and security is valid, and your concerns about being NAT being a pain in the ass is also valid. The true cuplrit here is we are asking more from our network stack (IPv4/6) then it can give us. Hence the point of my original post... the time of TCP/IP is coming to an end and we need to find better network protocols that make my security/privacy concerns go away and make thins less of a pain in the ass for you.
Another flaw in IPv6. Binding to the mac address. Now when I download britanny spears on IPv6 BitTorrent and I'm not clued into MAC addresses, the courts just need to look at my ethernet card to identify my computer (and thus me) as the guilty party.
Another win for NAT. Sorry your honor, I have friends who use my network and since it is all private address space that doesn't get logged, while you can prove it was my network, you cannot prove it was me.
And hell, I used to run ip_masq on my hand-me-down machine to get out on the interweb.
You know what? You have no rights to my private network. NAT keeps you out of my affairs. It causes me some troubles, yes, but those troubles are far less costly then letting you snoop around my network.
Firewalls that filter my data without going through a "portal" like a public/private address space are too insecure for me to trust. I feel much beter knowing you cannot, realistically, route into my network. A network that was [public-ip] [firewall] [public-ip] means once an attacker gets through the firewall, it is much easier to route packets in and out.
I'm not even going to get into the reason the "big boys" use nat. They do it because private address space is portable and doesn't bind you to a provider. Since not everybody can be multihomed both on IPv4 or IPv6, it is a significant risk to invest your IT infrastructure in what is basically a proprietary IP address block.
Remember when if you switched cell phones, you'd loose your cell phone number? Same thing at work here.
Nope. In the internet, we'll just build a new planet. That planet will either be IPv6, IPv4. My money says it doesn't matter because we'll find new, innovate ways to send our data so it doesn't matter if we are on the martian IPv6 network, or on the Hawian IPX/SPX network.
No matter what the future holds, we will always be able to use our laptops to connect to slashdot.org or google. I would bet my entire life savings on that fact. The internet will never go away. It will just morph in to something new and better.
I just think the days of it being 100% TCP/IP will hold true anymore. The internet will route around TCP/IP and all such protocols and encompass them all.
He basically states the case that we are where circuit switching was at it's "end times". Gray beards from old telcos used to think the packet switching nerds with their new fangled TCP/IP were nuts. Jacobson claims we are now at the state where the level of abstraction we operate at calls for something different where it doesn't matter if the data comes from TCP/IP, NetBEUI, the toster or as a signal modulated in my cats meows. He is right. We should stop worrying about *how* our services connect and start worrying about the data they are sending gets to us.
So what you're saying is that you have no real reason to be anti-IPv6?
No, I'm not anti-IPv6 any more than I'm anti IPX/SPX. At an application level (i.e. writing this comment on slashdot), I could care less how this web page got here as long as I know I'm posting to slashdot and slashdot knows I'm "coryking". IPv6 will not get widespread adoption because it is boring, old technology that doesn't solve any new problems. It just puts a quick bandaid on old ones like "IP addresses".
I certainly wouldn't bank my stock portfolio on IPv6 companies though.
What I would bank on is when IPv4 becomes too costly to run because of address scarcity, we'll see a lot of new proprietary protocols that fix all the pain caused by the old TCP/IP mindset. Pain like identity management (and anonymous). Pain like not loosing my SSH session hopping around between WiFi access points. Pain like NAT (NAT is pain, but it is also the best hack we have right now for privacy.. IPv6 alone doesn't solve the privacy part). Pain like having some kind of "address" that I "own" (like my cell phone number... that thing goes with me independent of the provider I use... not so with IPv6/4).
No. IPv6 offers nothing new and no compelling story to get people to spend their money on it. What is clear is the end times are probably near for IPv4 and companies, governments and consumers will all be looking for ways to solve their pain. I just dont think IPv6 is what most will spend their money on. I think it will be something completely different.
Very simple. I have zero interest in granting public IP's to my private home network. Not even for security reasons. My home devices and my address scheme are really just nobodies business.
Another reason people NAT is for address portability. There is *still* no way for small fish to get a IP that isn't bound to their provider.
The "Anti-NAT" crowd are just like the "never use tables" or "semantic web" or "console forever" crowd. They are all religious zealots with far to much time on their hands.
They'll route around everything just like they are routing around the RIAA, throttling or anything else.
In fact, I think it will be the P2P guys that get us out of the old-school way of thinking about networking. IPv6 will not take off because we've outgrown the abstractions offered TCP/IP. We will abuse IPv6 the same way we abuse IPv4--they are square pegs trying to work in modern round holes.
After all, if you allow for private addresses, then our Utopian world of every device connecting to every other device will be gone.
Reminds me of the dogma from Tim Berners Lee & Crew about the semantic web business.
Who cares if something like NAT makes sense. Who cares if the "semantic web" is unworkable in the real world? Being practice makes life easy and doesn't have pain. Being unworkable just gives you something to strive for.
And like any good region or liberal cause, if we aren't feeling pain, we should be guilty.
IPv6 will fail and be replaced with a very different network stack where things like TCP/IP are abstracted away.
Why do I say this?
1) The world is document centric, not IP address centric. I want to access a collection of named documents and services from "slashdot.org". I dont care if these come to me by IPv4, NetBUI, IPX/SPX, Token Ring or Carrier Pigeon. I want to get "slashdot.org" and I want to make sure "slashdot.org" really is "slashdot.org" and not "somephishingsite.com"
2) "End 2 End" isn't a selling point. I dont want my home network to be publicly visible.
3) Protocols that route around my desire for #2 succeed. All good P2P clients support UPnP.
3.1) Protocols that do not work with my desire for #2 fail. See Active FTP and the failed or failing IM networks and IM software that do not transfer files over NAT.
4) Those P2P clients are proof that how documents get to me are independent of the underlying link. I have no doubt that BitTorrent could be easily adapted to operate as a wire protocol on 802.11g or on top of IPX/SPX.
5) If (and a big one) IPv6 got any traction, smart entrepenuers will began creating new services or modify existing ones like BitTorrent to operate and bridge IPv4 and IPv6. Really smart ones will most likely realize that once they abstract TCP/IP out of their design, they can do other "fun" things like implement their file sharing network directly over WiFI or some other mesh type network.
Conclusion?
IPv6 might take off,but I doubt it. Once IPv4 addresses get scarce and there is a real cost to staying "IPv4", some young buck will have invented a whole new way of networking and we'll migrate to that instead.
And to add, in Seattle, it is not uncommon to see people blatantly smoking joints a mere hundred yards from cops. They do it knowing full well the smell will carry over to the cops and yet do it anyway. Why? Nobody cares.
Like any growing city, Seattle has it's problems, but arcane drug laws aren't one of them.
That is the best park in the whole city because it doesn't pretend to be some bullshit suburban 'escape from the city' design. Fuck the tourists who trickle out of pike place market (who clog that place up and make snarky comments about organic food). They get scared because they have to interact with non-tourists and don't visit, which is fine with me.
You sit in that park, and you are an equal with everybody else in it. No better, no worse.
Plus lots of musicians play crap there. Did I mention it has a good view and doesn't have as much viaduct noise as elsewhere?
Slashdot Mirror
The IETF doesn't run the world either and despite them trying, nobody is gonna upgrade to IPv6.
And dont get pedantic about NAT/Packet Filtering/Firewall with me. The point is you are still gonna have to punch holes though your "filter thingy" and all filters have the same problems. You have to first trust them and second tell them to punch holes in their firewalls for you.
And by the way, I'm not saying we throw everything away. Not at all. Unless "google.com" "myspace.com" and "billg@microsoft.com" work, an idea is worthless. What I'm saying is *how* we access those services will probably change and evolve from IPv4 and for long periods of time interoperable with it.
The problem with IPv6 is it didn't ask for evolution, it expected everybody to switch over to something that kinda-sorta looks like IPv6 (ala flag days). They'd have been better to somehow "wrap" and "improve" IPv4 to keep backwards compatible.
I hate linking to videos, but this one by Van Jacobson might change the way you think about the problem space. Really, we need to start thinking out of the box here. We are in a TCP/IP rut.
That's too bad.
I'll get over it, dont worry. But I still dont trust firewalls.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think we'll see an IPv7 or somesuch that provides strict backwards-compatibility with IPv4 while expending the address space.
Doesn't pain me. I fully expect it.
A change in internet protocol won't help one damn bit with the problems you mention.
Nope. What I expect is will layer another heap of goo on top of TCP/IP and talk over that instead. Future versions of web traffic or bit torrent fragements will be "routed" in some abstract way that makes then care less if they hop across a boundary like IPv4 or IPv6 (or SMS or anything). In other words, in the future our protocol stack will transcend TCP/IP and everybody would have their own little private IPv4 universe or LANWorks (HVAC's network protocol) or anything. The bit torrent traffic will just route on the top of it all.
And before you call me nuts, I'm not alone in thinking this way. Old school internet guys like Van Jacobson agree with me.
I believe it is a work in progress and from what I understand the idea of an AS isn't really part of the IPv6 deal unless you are "big" and qualify to get one. This is partly technical because our modern routing protocols just cannot scale to giving everybody an AS.
Thus... anybody smaller then "big" will continue to use NAT to avoid getting locked into a proprietary address space.
To me, another sign that we've outgrown what the TCP/IP abstraction provides.
Yup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bottom half of the IP address will be your mac address. Unless you are smart and know better, all "the man" has to do is pull your ethernet card out and get your mac address and *BAM* you are screwed. NAT gives you a couple outs "gee... you mean I have to secure my wireless router? or "gee... I had a lan party that day and had 30 people using my network... talk to them!"
All of that is true, but you are gonna have to do a hell of a marketing job to convince most people. NAT just feels right on an emotional "human" level. Firewalls dont.
Worse then that, you have to convince me to switch from something that works well enough. Honestly? As far as I can see, IPv6 offers nothing over IPv4 but more address space. That might sell to the network admins, but it will not sell to the rest of the internet world (i.e. the guys paying the network admins).
What *will* sell, I predict, is a new protocol that fixes the address space and solves problems felt by internet users. Imagine if somebody cooked up a way to handle authentication that made it easy to hunt down spammers? Imagine if you could post to slashdot truly anonymously? Imagine if the internet protocols had a way to ensure you don't create a bunch of sock puppet accounts because it knows who you are? Imagine if you could be 100% certain you are visiting bankofamerica.com? *Those* are the *real* pain we all feel. I am 90% sure the next protocol we do a mass migration to will solve at least some of those problems because people will gladly pay for them. IPv6 does *nothing* to solve them, all it does is solve some esoteric problem with addressing.
Question. How does a firewall make anything easier for my home network? Digsby, uTorrent and SageTV will all still need to talk to the firewall (probably UPnP) and tell it to punch a hole in it for them. Or are you suggesting that we should expect everybody to log into their firewalls to make exceptions everytime one of our useful software packages need to talk to the world?
In other words, from an end user perspective, how is a firewall any different than a NAT?
I agree and I dont buy the "firewall" arguments either. Firewalls still have the same problems on a home network as NAT'ing does (after all, your IM program has to tell your firewall to punch a hole for it via UPnP). Firewalls have the additional problem that if firewall is somehow comprimised and turned into an open router, your entire network is exposed. I dunno about anybody else, but my home network is wide the hell open with C:\'s shared and everything. You can call me stupid, but on a private block of IP's, you'd either have to compromise the 802.11g bridge or somehow route from public to private address space (or break into busybox on the DSL modem). I feel pretty damn cozy and safe behind my actiontec DSL router and the hell am I going to trust a Public/Firewall/Public setup.
IPv6 is seriously a solution in search of a problem. It isn't being adopted because nobody wants it!
You gonna use your ISP's proprietary block of IP addresses to number your corporate lan? You want every computer in your office to rely on your ISP not switching their IP addresses, not going bankrupt, etc? No thanks. On IPv4 and IPv6, the only way to ensure you dont have to renumber your intranet because of the whims of your ISP is to use private IP addresses.
you are actually onto something there. The trick to all this isn't going to be found in dull things like TCP/IP but in DNS, LDAP or some new directory service. It is really the "finding shit" space that needs a significant tune up. Make "finding shit" work, and it wont matter what flavor of IP you are using.
I still dont buy it. Sorry. It just feels so natural to place my network on private, publiclly unprofitable address that I feel it is insane not to. It is so damn intuitive to me, and probably alot of other people--it feels like a violation of our core being when we let our personal computers sit out on the big bad internet.
The "NAT is evil" argument just doesn't sit right. Sure it causes some pain, but only in stupid protocols that don't know how to use UPnP or do stupid things like active FTP.
If you create a modern protocol that doesn't account for NAT, you created a protocol that will fail in the marketplace because people will blame your product, not their cute little netgear router.
But honestly, when you boil it down we are both right and we are both wrong and are basically talking past eachother. The "fear" of mine about privacy and security is valid, and your concerns about being NAT being a pain in the ass is also valid. The true cuplrit here is we are asking more from our network stack (IPv4/6) then it can give us. Hence the point of my original post... the time of TCP/IP is coming to an end and we need to find better network protocols that make my security/privacy concerns go away and make thins less of a pain in the ass for you.
Another flaw in IPv6. Binding to the mac address. Now when I download britanny spears on IPv6 BitTorrent and I'm not clued into MAC addresses, the courts just need to look at my ethernet card to identify my computer (and thus me) as the guilty party.
Another win for NAT. Sorry your honor, I have friends who use my network and since it is all private address space that doesn't get logged, while you can prove it was my network, you cannot prove it was me.
Better, it works regardless of the network underlying network implementation.
it isn't a hack, far from it, gotomypc is an example of the future.
That said, Fog Creek's co-pilot is better, though it requires you to install a teeny tiny client-side program first.
If you take all the IPv6 addresses and stood them end to end, they'd wrap around the globe six times!
The internet routers will carry 128 bits of address space. That is enough addresses to fill two thousand Olympic sized swimming pools!
The IPv6 address space is so huge, it would fill the Beijing Birds Nest.
Oh yeah, your mom is so fat, she weights more then an entire IPv6 /8.
Your mom is so fat, she needed the government to build IPv8 to hold all her IP addresses.
And an offtopic one I just though of: Your mom's sex tape is so nasty, even Pirate Bay banned her from their network.
And hell, I used to run ip_masq on my hand-me-down machine to get out on the interweb.
You know what? You have no rights to my private network. NAT keeps you out of my affairs. It causes me some troubles, yes, but those troubles are far less costly then letting you snoop around my network.
Firewalls that filter my data without going through a "portal" like a public/private address space are too insecure for me to trust. I feel much beter knowing you cannot, realistically, route into my network. A network that was [public-ip] [firewall] [public-ip] means once an attacker gets through the firewall, it is much easier to route packets in and out.
I'm not even going to get into the reason the "big boys" use nat. They do it because private address space is portable and doesn't bind you to a provider. Since not everybody can be multihomed both on IPv4 or IPv6, it is a significant risk to invest your IT infrastructure in what is basically a proprietary IP address block.
Remember when if you switched cell phones, you'd loose your cell phone number? Same thing at work here.
Nope. In the internet, we'll just build a new planet. That planet will either be IPv6, IPv4. My money says it doesn't matter because we'll find new, innovate ways to send our data so it doesn't matter if we are on the martian IPv6 network, or on the Hawian IPX/SPX network.
No matter what the future holds, we will always be able to use our laptops to connect to slashdot.org or google. I would bet my entire life savings on that fact. The internet will never go away. It will just morph in to something new and better.
I just think the days of it being 100% TCP/IP will hold true anymore. The internet will route around TCP/IP and all such protocols and encompass them all.
He basically states the case that we are where circuit switching was at it's "end times". Gray beards from old telcos used to think the packet switching nerds with their new fangled TCP/IP were nuts. Jacobson claims we are now at the state where the level of abstraction we operate at calls for something different where it doesn't matter if the data comes from TCP/IP, NetBEUI, the toster or as a signal modulated in my cats meows. He is right. We should stop worrying about *how* our services connect and start worrying about the data they are sending gets to us.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840&hl=en
So what you're saying is that you have no real reason to be anti-IPv6?
No, I'm not anti-IPv6 any more than I'm anti IPX/SPX. At an application level (i.e. writing this comment on slashdot), I could care less how this web page got here as long as I know I'm posting to slashdot and slashdot knows I'm "coryking". IPv6 will not get widespread adoption because it is boring, old technology that doesn't solve any new problems. It just puts a quick bandaid on old ones like "IP addresses".
I certainly wouldn't bank my stock portfolio on IPv6 companies though.
What I would bank on is when IPv4 becomes too costly to run because of address scarcity, we'll see a lot of new proprietary protocols that fix all the pain caused by the old TCP/IP mindset. Pain like identity management (and anonymous). Pain like not loosing my SSH session hopping around between WiFi access points. Pain like NAT (NAT is pain, but it is also the best hack we have right now for privacy.. IPv6 alone doesn't solve the privacy part). Pain like having some kind of "address" that I "own" (like my cell phone number... that thing goes with me independent of the provider I use... not so with IPv6/4).
No. IPv6 offers nothing new and no compelling story to get people to spend their money on it. What is clear is the end times are probably near for IPv4 and companies, governments and consumers will all be looking for ways to solve their pain. I just dont think IPv6 is what most will spend their money on. I think it will be something completely different.
Very simple. I have zero interest in granting public IP's to my private home network. Not even for security reasons. My home devices and my address scheme are really just nobodies business.
Another reason people NAT is for address portability. There is *still* no way for small fish to get a IP that isn't bound to their provider.
The "Anti-NAT" crowd are just like the "never use tables" or "semantic web" or "console forever" crowd. They are all religious zealots with far to much time on their hands.
They'll route around everything just like they are routing around the RIAA, throttling or anything else.
In fact, I think it will be the P2P guys that get us out of the old-school way of thinking about networking. IPv6 will not take off because we've outgrown the abstractions offered TCP/IP. We will abuse IPv6 the same way we abuse IPv4--they are square pegs trying to work in modern round holes.
After all, if you allow for private addresses, then our Utopian world of every device connecting to every other device will be gone.
Reminds me of the dogma from Tim Berners Lee & Crew about the semantic web business.
Who cares if something like NAT makes sense. Who cares if the "semantic web" is unworkable in the real world? Being practice makes life easy and doesn't have pain. Being unworkable just gives you something to strive for.
And like any good region or liberal cause, if we aren't feeling pain, we should be guilty.
IPv6 will fail and be replaced with a very different network stack where things like TCP/IP are abstracted away.
Why do I say this?
1) The world is document centric, not IP address centric. I want to access a collection of named documents and services from "slashdot.org". I dont care if these come to me by IPv4, NetBUI, IPX/SPX, Token Ring or Carrier Pigeon. I want to get "slashdot.org" and I want to make sure "slashdot.org" really is "slashdot.org" and not "somephishingsite.com"
2) "End 2 End" isn't a selling point. I dont want my home network to be publicly visible.
3) Protocols that route around my desire for #2 succeed. All good P2P clients support UPnP.
3.1) Protocols that do not work with my desire for #2 fail. See Active FTP and the failed or failing IM networks and IM software that do not transfer files over NAT.
4) Those P2P clients are proof that how documents get to me are independent of the underlying link. I have no doubt that BitTorrent could be easily adapted to operate as a wire protocol on 802.11g or on top of IPX/SPX.
5) If (and a big one) IPv6 got any traction, smart entrepenuers will began creating new services or modify existing ones like BitTorrent to operate and bridge IPv4 and IPv6. Really smart ones will most likely realize that once they abstract TCP/IP out of their design, they can do other "fun" things like implement their file sharing network directly over WiFI or some other mesh type network.
Conclusion?
IPv6 might take off,but I doubt it. Once IPv4 addresses get scarce and there is a real cost to staying "IPv4", some young buck will have invented a whole new way of networking and we'll migrate to that instead.
And to add, in Seattle, it is not uncommon to see people blatantly smoking joints a mere hundred yards from cops. They do it knowing full well the smell will carry over to the cops and yet do it anyway. Why? Nobody cares.
Like any growing city, Seattle has it's problems, but arcane drug laws aren't one of them.
>Victor Steinbrueck Park
That is the best park in the whole city because it doesn't pretend to be some bullshit suburban 'escape from the city' design. Fuck the tourists who trickle out of pike place market (who clog that place up and make snarky comments about organic food). They get scared because they have to interact with non-tourists and don't visit, which is fine with me.
You sit in that park, and you are an equal with everybody else in it. No better, no worse.
Plus lots of musicians play crap there. Did I mention it has a good view and doesn't have as much viaduct noise as elsewhere?
No, that park is my favorite in the entire city.