You don't need to know exact implementations to understand the basics. If you're good at analytical thinking, you can understand about anything. The fun thing about computer is you can learn about almost anything for home use in a short amount of time or even asking in forums.
NAT isn't a standard, just a bandaid. As such, there are many different implementations of it. They all follow the general idea, but there are different corner cases for different implementations. As long as it works for most cases, it doesn't get fixed.
A network admin will find IPv6+Firewall easier than NAT+Firewall.
Not all IPs are available in a block. You lose many IPs when you start breaking a given block into subnets for routing purposes.
Have 80 computer in a computer lab. Well, you need at least 80 IPs. So you need 2^7 bits. If you only have 2^6 bits, you can only address 62(64-2.0 and.255 are reserved) computers, so you need 7 bits. So now you have enough IPs for 126(128-2) computers, but you only have 80. You've wasted 46 IPs.
Not much you can do about that unless don't care about organizing your network.
" If your site has been down for more than a year, time to forfeit that IP."
You can't just randomly grab one IP and assign it somewhere else. You have to grab entire blocks. IP block fragmentation has caused the routing table to triple in size in the past 2-3 years, even though the amount of IPs routed has only grown ~50%.
The routing table routes based on blocks. The small the blocks, the more routes.. At the same time, the high and low IP of a given block are reserved. So If I have a/28 that holds 16 IPs, you have to subtract 2 IP right away because of this. So now you're down to 14 IPs. If I only have 8 machines on my network, 6 IPs are being wasted. No one else can take those 6 unless you break the block into something smaller. So now you break that/28 into a/29. Now you have two routes in the routing table instead of one, and you have two blocks that only have 8 IPs. But again, the high and low IPs are reserved, so only 6 per block are usable and 4 are wasted.
But wait, I have 8 devices. I still need both blocks because either block can only support 6 devices. Break those blocks smaller yet./30. Now you have 4 IPs per block, two of those IPs cannot be used because they're a high and low. Now you can use 4 blocks for your 8 devices, but 8 IPs are being wasted because of high and low.
So your 8 device network now has 4 routes adding extra load on the routing tables, and of that initial/28 you have 8 IPs in use and 8 IPs wasted on high/low reservations. You're even worse off now. Instead of 6 unused IPs, you now have 6 IPs that CAN'T be used and extra routing entries. We're all better off with the/28 and 6 unused IPs. At least the internet won't be slower from the extra routes.
Understand now?
It's a huge mess. IPv6 helps this by having "too many" IPs. We can waste all the IPs we want(with in reason) to make for better routing and organization of blocks.
You're thinking of a "dumb" switch. Most enterprises are thinking Layer3 managed "switches". In an enterprise infrastructure, the difference between a switch and a router is effectively where it's located. An edge router is a router, a router with 48 gig ports is a switch. Both can do Layer3 and both have route tables. One is designed to connect many computer and one is designed to route data to the internet/wan.
That's gotta be annoying. My IP changes almost exclusively after Network maintenance or my MAC address changes. The longest I've ever noticed having the same IP was over 4 months.
A few of my friends have switched their entire datacenters over to IPv6 and they claim it is so much easier to use and can't wait to drop IPv4. Almost any server/router in the past 5 years supports IPv6, or you're buying crap. "Hey, I'm gonna drop $10k on this router.. Hmm, this model is $100 cheaper and doesn't have IPv6" well, that's your own fault.
"Money that he would have enjoyed spending on all sorts of unnecessary stuff, but creating jobs in the process"
The money comes from some where. If he makes $2mil, that's $2mil other people don't have, which reduces jobs. Actually, what causes job loss is money NOT being spent. Who do you think is going to spend more and faster, 1 Person with $2mil or 400,000 people with $5 in their pocket?
People hording money is bad for the economy. Anyway, it's unethical to make that much money by restricting access to culture. Ethics dictates that he be fairly compensated for his work AND the public have access to their own culture. Copyright is NOT about making people money, but providing an incentive to create culture.
incentive != lots of money incentive = fair compensation
Except their charges rarely line up with when I get paid. If they attempt to charge the day before I get paid, the charge will not go through. You can't "know", unless the account has no cap.
Now if my ISP supported 4 week intervals instead of 30 day, we'd be good.
That comedian recently sold his video online for $5 and DRM free. Was all over torrent immediately. He made over $200k profit in 12 days, and still selling. I fail to see how copyright is required unless someone tries to re-sell his stuff or pass it off and theirs in some other way.
So you're saying more man hours went into creating Angry Bird than Grow/Harvesting/Transport coffee? Even an ideal situation of a fully automated system, you still need to expend many many many times more energy in transportation and cultivation for coffee than the power used to run an app distribution server.
With our current population of 6bil, we are consuming about 1.4 Earths of water/food/energy. We are quickly depleting what we have. I don't think doubling the population is such a good idea.
"You realize, right, that at max capacity, one extra person born means one dies."
It's worse than that. The deaths will be delayed, starvation will increase, making lots of people susceptible to disease. Eventually a breaking point will be reached and there will be a collapse and many more than just the "each extra" will die. You also have the problem that food production varies over time. What the Earth can support one year, may not be enough for the next. We don't even know the sustained long term of 100+ years would be.
Like a bridge that can support 1000 people. When you add an extra person, no one dies. So you add a few more. At some point the bridge breaks and/or weakens at a faster than expected rate, maybe at 1100 people, then 800 people die.
While I agree with the up-front logical argument of "We have too many people, we need to get rid of the excess", I do not agree with the social implications. One could further argue that strait out mass executions of excess poor people would help also, as it is for the greater good.
Who gets this power to kill? Who over sees them? What ramifications will this have on other humans in society? Will it cause civil wars and uprisings that will undermine the existence of society in the first place?
We need better education on over population, financial rewards for not producing, and some sort of punishment to stem offenders, preferably in the form of fines and taxes. One child policy?
Unfortunately ATI/AMD has not implemented the required DX11 methods in their drivers for multi-threading. The Civ5 devs had a screenshot of a nVidia card with proper drivers, and a 12 core AMD cpu running about 80% load on each core. My ATI/AMD drivers only use about 4 of my cores, yet alone 12 cores.
From what I've read, there really aren't many games that support DX11 threading(I think just those 2), so neither ATI nor nVidia had much of anything to test with until very recently. Even nVidia had a hard time working the Civ5 team to get threading to work.
Not to say there isn't room for some sort of cyber-insurance, but the whole issue with Sony was their lack of competent programmers and admins.
Of course they go the way of wanting insurance instead of fixing the root of the problem.
They go the route of 1lb of cure is better than 1oz of prevention, probably because it's easier to measure the effectiveness of a cure than prevention.
I can tell when my games drop below 60fps all the time. Fast movements get "choppy".
Try making fast movements. 1080p monitor has 1920 horizontal pixels. If an object moves across your screen in 3 seconds, that means it transverses 640 pixels per second. At even 60fps, that means the object is skipping ~11 pixels every frame. That is NOT smooth.
When you're playing an FPS games, objects can move across your screen MUCH faster than 3 seconds. When something takes 1 second to cross your screen, it's hard to aim when it's skipping 32 pixels at a time.
Back when I played Counter-Strike, I got to play on a 100hz monitor for a few hours. I actually found it easier to aim during *fast action* with the 100hz monitor than my 80hz monitor, because objects moved smoother across the screen. And yes, the video card was able to handle more than 100fps on average.
I've been stuck on a 60hz lcd for a long while and can't wait for 120hz to come down because I miss the smoothness of 80+hz
I would also like to point out "30fps is enough" is like the "24bit colors is enough" argument. Yes, it supports 16.8mil colors, but I see color banding any time there's a gradient, which is quite often. "but the human eye can't perceive that many colors". What ever. Obviously not measuring the same thing. The real world doesn't update in frames, it's fluid. The human eye may update an average of 30fps, but it's probably an analog update. Screen refreshes are a digital update (on or off)
I use to play software rendered Quake @ 320x200 8bit color and sub 20fps.
This is what it feels like to play on consoles, when coming from PC. Flat lighting, crappy models, poor special effects, and a FPS that makes it feel like I'm roller skating with a strobe light.
We're also capped right now because of too many single-threaded game engines. A given thread can only push so many objects to the GPU at a time. Civ5 and BF3, being the first games to make use of deferred shading and other DX11 multi-threading abilities, can have lots of objects on the screen with decent FPS.
The biggest issue I have with nearly all of my games is my ATI6950 is at 20%-60% load and only getting sub 60fps, while my CPU has one core pegged. My FPS isn't CPU limited, it's thread limited.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to know exact implementations to understand the basics. If you're good at analytical thinking, you can understand about anything. The fun thing about computer is you can learn about almost anything for home use in a short amount of time or even asking in forums.
NAT isn't a standard, just a bandaid. As such, there are many different implementations of it. They all follow the general idea, but there are different corner cases for different implementations. As long as it works for most cases, it doesn't get fixed.
A network admin will find IPv6+Firewall easier than NAT+Firewall.
Not all IPs are available in a block. You lose many IPs when you start breaking a given block into subnets for routing purposes.
Have 80 computer in a computer lab. Well, you need at least 80 IPs. So you need 2^7 bits. If you only have 2^6 bits, you can only address 62(64-2 .0 and .255 are reserved) computers, so you need 7 bits. So now you have enough IPs for 126(128-2) computers, but you only have 80. You've wasted 46 IPs.
Not much you can do about that unless don't care about organizing your network.
" If your site has been down for more than a year, time to forfeit that IP."
You can't just randomly grab one IP and assign it somewhere else. You have to grab entire blocks. IP block fragmentation has caused the routing table to triple in size in the past 2-3 years, even though the amount of IPs routed has only grown ~50%.
The routing table routes based on blocks. The small the blocks, the more routes.. At the same time, the high and low IP of a given block are reserved. So If I have a /28 that holds 16 IPs, you have to subtract 2 IP right away because of this. So now you're down to 14 IPs. If I only have 8 machines on my network, 6 IPs are being wasted. No one else can take those 6 unless you break the block into something smaller. So now you break that /28 into a /29. Now you have two routes in the routing table instead of one, and you have two blocks that only have 8 IPs. But again, the high and low IPs are reserved, so only 6 per block are usable and 4 are wasted.
But wait, I have 8 devices. I still need both blocks because either block can only support 6 devices. Break those blocks smaller yet. /30. Now you have 4 IPs per block, two of those IPs cannot be used because they're a high and low. Now you can use 4 blocks for your 8 devices, but 8 IPs are being wasted because of high and low.
So your 8 device network now has 4 routes adding extra load on the routing tables, and of that initial /28 you have 8 IPs in use and 8 IPs wasted on high/low reservations. You're even worse off now. Instead of 6 unused IPs, you now have 6 IPs that CAN'T be used and extra routing entries. We're all better off with the /28 and 6 unused IPs. At least the internet won't be slower from the extra routes.
Understand now?
It's a huge mess. IPv6 helps this by having "too many" IPs. We can waste all the IPs we want(with in reason) to make for better routing and organization of blocks.
You're thinking of a "dumb" switch. Most enterprises are thinking Layer3 managed "switches". In an enterprise infrastructure, the difference between a switch and a router is effectively where it's located. An edge router is a router, a router with 48 gig ports is a switch. Both can do Layer3 and both have route tables. One is designed to connect many computer and one is designed to route data to the internet/wan.
That's gotta be annoying. My IP changes almost exclusively after Network maintenance or my MAC address changes. The longest I've ever noticed having the same IP was over 4 months.
A few of my friends have switched their entire datacenters over to IPv6 and they claim it is so much easier to use and can't wait to drop IPv4. Almost any server/router in the past 5 years supports IPv6, or you're buying crap. "Hey, I'm gonna drop $10k on this router.. Hmm, this model is $100 cheaper and doesn't have IPv6" well, that's your own fault.
Their Real Life Karma gets downgraded to flamebait?
I wonder if people will use this as an excuse for in court cases and claim they didn't do something and blame it on someone "Hacking" their network.
"Money that he would have enjoyed spending on all sorts of unnecessary stuff, but creating jobs in the process"
The money comes from some where. If he makes $2mil, that's $2mil other people don't have, which reduces jobs. Actually, what causes job loss is money NOT being spent. Who do you think is going to spend more and faster, 1 Person with $2mil or 400,000 people with $5 in their pocket?
People hording money is bad for the economy. Anyway, it's unethical to make that much money by restricting access to culture. Ethics dictates that he be fairly compensated for his work AND the public have access to their own culture. Copyright is NOT about making people money, but providing an incentive to create culture.
incentive != lots of money
incentive = fair compensation
Except their charges rarely line up with when I get paid. If they attempt to charge the day before I get paid, the charge will not go through. You can't "know", unless the account has no cap.
Now if my ISP supported 4 week intervals instead of 30 day, we'd be good.
That comedian recently sold his video online for $5 and DRM free. Was all over torrent immediately. He made over $200k profit in 12 days, and still selling. I fail to see how copyright is required unless someone tries to re-sell his stuff or pass it off and theirs in some other way.
So you're saying more man hours went into creating Angry Bird than Grow/Harvesting/Transport coffee? Even an ideal situation of a fully automated system, you still need to expend many many many times more energy in transportation and cultivation for coffee than the power used to run an app distribution server.
Wifi on my Netgear didn't even work until I assigned my own password. It wouldn't even allow open Wifi until I created a secure wifi at least once.
With our current population of 6bil, we are consuming about 1.4 Earths of water/food/energy. We are quickly depleting what we have. I don't think doubling the population is such a good idea.
Can != Should
"You realize, right, that at max capacity, one extra person born means one dies."
It's worse than that. The deaths will be delayed, starvation will increase, making lots of people susceptible to disease. Eventually a breaking point will be reached and there will be a collapse and many more than just the "each extra" will die. You also have the problem that food production varies over time. What the Earth can support one year, may not be enough for the next. We don't even know the sustained long term of 100+ years would be.
Like a bridge that can support 1000 people. When you add an extra person, no one dies. So you add a few more. At some point the bridge breaks and/or weakens at a faster than expected rate, maybe at 1100 people, then 800 people die.
While I agree with the up-front logical argument of "We have too many people, we need to get rid of the excess", I do not agree with the social implications. One could further argue that strait out mass executions of excess poor people would help also, as it is for the greater good.
Who gets this power to kill? Who over sees them? What ramifications will this have on other humans in society? Will it cause civil wars and uprisings that will undermine the existence of society in the first place?
We need better education on over population, financial rewards for not producing, and some sort of punishment to stem offenders, preferably in the form of fines and taxes. One child policy?
Unfortunately ATI/AMD has not implemented the required DX11 methods in their drivers for multi-threading. The Civ5 devs had a screenshot of a nVidia card with proper drivers, and a 12 core AMD cpu running about 80% load on each core. My ATI/AMD drivers only use about 4 of my cores, yet alone 12 cores.
From what I've read, there really aren't many games that support DX11 threading(I think just those 2), so neither ATI nor nVidia had much of anything to test with until very recently. Even nVidia had a hard time working the Civ5 team to get threading to work.
Not to say there isn't room for some sort of cyber-insurance, but the whole issue with Sony was their lack of competent programmers and admins.
Of course they go the way of wanting insurance instead of fixing the root of the problem.
They go the route of 1lb of cure is better than 1oz of prevention, probably because it's easier to measure the effectiveness of a cure than prevention.
Houses and cars aren't anonymous. But I do agree with what you meant.
Your fantasy world amuses me, please continue.
I can tell when my games drop below 60fps all the time. Fast movements get "choppy".
Try making fast movements. 1080p monitor has 1920 horizontal pixels. If an object moves across your screen in 3 seconds, that means it transverses 640 pixels per second. At even 60fps, that means the object is skipping ~11 pixels every frame. That is NOT smooth.
When you're playing an FPS games, objects can move across your screen MUCH faster than 3 seconds. When something takes 1 second to cross your screen, it's hard to aim when it's skipping 32 pixels at a time.
Back when I played Counter-Strike, I got to play on a 100hz monitor for a few hours. I actually found it easier to aim during *fast action* with the 100hz monitor than my 80hz monitor, because objects moved smoother across the screen. And yes, the video card was able to handle more than 100fps on average.
I've been stuck on a 60hz lcd for a long while and can't wait for 120hz to come down because I miss the smoothness of 80+hz
I would also like to point out "30fps is enough" is like the "24bit colors is enough" argument. Yes, it supports 16.8mil colors, but I see color banding any time there's a gradient, which is quite often. "but the human eye can't perceive that many colors". What ever. Obviously not measuring the same thing. The real world doesn't update in frames, it's fluid. The human eye may update an average of 30fps, but it's probably an analog update. Screen refreshes are a digital update (on or off)
I use to play software rendered Quake @ 320x200 8bit color and sub 20fps.
This is what it feels like to play on consoles, when coming from PC. Flat lighting, crappy models, poor special effects, and a FPS that makes it feel like I'm roller skating with a strobe light.
Ray Tracing!!!
We're also capped right now because of too many single-threaded game engines. A given thread can only push so many objects to the GPU at a time. Civ5 and BF3, being the first games to make use of deferred shading and other DX11 multi-threading abilities, can have lots of objects on the screen with decent FPS.
The biggest issue I have with nearly all of my games is my ATI6950 is at 20%-60% load and only getting sub 60fps, while my CPU has one core pegged. My FPS isn't CPU limited, it's thread limited.
For now anyway. MS is looking at Double Precision becoming the standard for some future DirectX. That's probably still a few years off.