I agree. At my previous job, we lost internet once. Called up the ISP and they had no idea at first. Ten minutes later, they called and said there was road construction on the interstate about 50 miles south of us and someone cut the line.
In under 2 hours, they had us running again.
If they can fix a physical break in that amount of time, I should think they could block a bad BGP.
My company switched to Win7 several months ago. We only have XP on remote desktop virtual machines. All of our company apps are web based and finally work even on Chrome.
IE9 was built around new Vista/Win7 DirectX APIs. They would have to have two completely different versions of IE9 because you can't build code the same way in XP that you can in Vista/7 when using the new features.
It's a different API that needs different information.
Google has a lot of peering agreements because they own A LOT of their own infrastructure. They need lots of bandwidth between their own datacenters. This allow them to strike up deals and let other large Google customers to use Google's network to get cheaper internet and faster connections to others. Essentially, any customer that has a peering agreement with Google can use Google's network to talk to other Google peering customers for free. Peering customer would havee to be careful still since most peering agreements are based on strict upload/download ratios.
In a way, Google works like a pseudo-Teir1 just because of their size. Now, if Google really wants to get their foot in the door and not get disconnected, they need to start acting as a Teir1 and an ISP. They're already doing the ISP thing with the fiber testing, but if they start whole-sale selling internet access, they could really use that as a bargaining point.
Google is more of an end point than routing. If they started doing lots of routing, taking down Google would hurt the internet as they would become part of it.
Public keys are easy to break with quantum computers. What would have taken thousands of millennium will take hours. Once quantum computers become useful anyway.
You should really read into how packets are constructed and routed as your idea of "IPv4 Plus" is exactly what I said CAN'T work. There is NO way of making ANY protocol that is backwards compatible with IPv4 AND has a larger address range.
An IPv4 packet has a very specific layout. You cannot change this layout without breaking IPv4 completely. In order to add any extensions to the addressable range, you would have to change the packet layout.
Again, "Any "fix" to this would require changing how IPv4 anyway, which is WORSE than switching to IPv6."
Even the default Win7 won't let a non-local subnet have local service access. Even if I plugged directly into my cable modem with no hardware firewall, my machine would be secure with the default firewall settings.
Firewall vs NAT argument is pointless for home users.
Firewall vs NAT argument is pointless when you have a a network admin who knows how to setup a firewall.
I'm sure IPv6 + uPNP-firewall would give the same protection.
I'm sure your "99%" is a bit off. You're not thinking about all the software/router that use uPNP to port forward. There are many apps that need ports forwarded, but this is transparent via uPNP.
Put everyone on a carrier NAT and suddenly uPNP stops working and their apps cease to function.
As a network admin i ABSOLUTELY agree with the first article. IPv6 is going to down in all of history as the greatest disaster in IT. I can barely speak to another admin who isnt loosing hair over this.
Any patch/bandaid to IPv4 would be worse than switching to IPv6. There is no room left in IPv4 packets to expant the addressable range. Any "fix" to this would require changing how IPv4 anyway, which is WORSE than switching to IPv6.
Any IPv4 change would require changing all software/hardware world wide. The "new" IPv4 wouldn't even be IPv4 compatible, the only thing it would share is the name.
Sometimes it's easier to tear down the house and start over than work around a broken framework.
At the current rate of growth, how long till we need v8?
Well, if 1,000,000,000 new customers, who are given a/64 each, came online per second, it would take almost 600 years.
Since IPv6 is very large and it has room to accommodate the current population of the world, your rate for IP allocation will not exceed human population growth in the long run.
I will use human population growth as the limit. Current population growth is about 4 births per second, but about 1 person per second dies. Let just use a hugely large birth rate of 1000 per second because we plan to colonize another 250 earth like planets. IPv6 will last about 500,000,000 years.
I'm not sure how a black-market would work for IPs. An IP is useless unless it's able to be routed correctly. You can't transfer an IP, you can only release it. Once you release it, it's first-come-first-serve.
if the server is not running Ipv6, I should hope it doesn't have an IPv6 DNS entry.
I think what you mean if a hop between you and the server doesn't support IPv6, so your attempt to use it will fail.
All Teir1 back-bone providers are IPv6 ready, so the only time this should happen is a mis-configured router or the customer has a Teir2 provider that doesn't support IPv6 yet. If their provider doesn't support IPv6, then they shouldn't advertise an IPv6 address for DNS.
DNS server? I've been able to ping any device on my network by name for years without having DNS. There are other protocols for local network name resolution.
They already are and have been for the past at least 5 years. The earliest back-bone provider was IPv6 certified back in 2001 and everyone from Sprint to AT&T to Level3 have been 100% IPv6 ready on all of their back-bone links since 2004-2006.
I have already had several times where one of the fleeting pages that popped up while typing had useful keywords that I never thought about. I've also seen results pop-up for a split second that would have only shown in a partial query.
I type while looking at my screen and I can usually pull out keywords from the pages that pop-up, even for the 1/3rd of a second that they do.
I guess 16 years of playing video games had gotten my visual senses trained. I don't find it annoying, I find it VERY useful. What I don't find useful yet is that preview feature they added.
It's more like someone takes free over-the-air TV(paid via commercials), and where the original broadcaster normally has commercials, the re-broadcaster put their own commercials. In this way, the original broadcaster does not get paid for the commercials, but the person who is re-broadcasting the content is getting paid for their commercials.
Google is losing out on paid advertisement, while MS is getting paid for the results of Google's work.
ISPs should have to advertise their "dedicated" speed as their speed and the "up to" speeds ad burst
eg. 16/2 with no cap, but once you add in over subscription, it's more like 2/1 dedicated with up-to 16/2 burst
If an ISP has a data cap, that should have to calculate into the "dedicated" speed.
eg. 16/2 with 100GB cap would list as 160Kb/160Kb with up to 16/2 burst. I listed 160Kb for up and down because most caps include up and down, so it would be split evenly.
"ADSL is the best option for video, as long as you're close enough to your ADSL provider DSLAM that you can get fast enough speed. Cable is only better if you're far from the nearest ADSL DSLAM. DSLAM is the counterpart to the ADSL modem. Your ISP should be able to estimate your max link speed with your address and tell you when you're too far for your selected speed."
My mom has fiber to the house, she lives about 2 blocks from her ISP's wiring building, she gets a 40ms ping to her first hop which has a DNS name from her town, her town only has about 200 people. xDSL doesn't auto-magically make things better. Over subscription is an issue on every network. The question is, where's the bottle-neck?
"They might actually prefer you go elsewhere given the tight margins"
Recent article was talking about how High Speed Internet brings in several times more profit than TV. To bring this into perspective, I use Charter Comm. I paid $35 for extended cable. I was trying to cut corner for bills, so I was planning on dropping extended cable for just basic cable. They cut my bill by $15 AND added Showtime/HBO. I now pay $20/month for 100 digital channels plus Showtime/HBO. I still only watch the same 2 channels and only when I go to bed, but they're still making a profit on me.
If they're making a profit from $20/month plus ST/HBO, then how much profit were they making from $35 and just extended cable? I pay $46/month on top of that for internet. and they make several times that profit from HSI.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. At my previous job, we lost internet once. Called up the ISP and they had no idea at first. Ten minutes later, they called and said there was road construction on the interstate about 50 miles south of us and someone cut the line.
In under 2 hours, they had us running again.
If they can fix a physical break in that amount of time, I should think they could block a bad BGP.
You mean those computers that are 2-3x's the cost they should be? Or do you mean a MacBook? Those are nice.
My company switched to Win7 several months ago. We only have XP on remote desktop virtual machines. All of our company apps are web based and finally work even on Chrome.
IE9 was built around new Vista/Win7 DirectX APIs. They would have to have two completely different versions of IE9 because you can't build code the same way in XP that you can in Vista/7 when using the new features.
It's a different API that needs different information.
Google has a lot of peering agreements because they own A LOT of their own infrastructure. They need lots of bandwidth between their own datacenters. This allow them to strike up deals and let other large Google customers to use Google's network to get cheaper internet and faster connections to others. Essentially, any customer that has a peering agreement with Google can use Google's network to talk to other Google peering customers for free. Peering customer would havee to be careful still since most peering agreements are based on strict upload/download ratios.
In a way, Google works like a pseudo-Teir1 just because of their size. Now, if Google really wants to get their foot in the door and not get disconnected, they need to start acting as a Teir1 and an ISP. They're already doing the ISP thing with the fiber testing, but if they start whole-sale selling internet access, they could really use that as a bargaining point.
Google is more of an end point than routing. If they started doing lots of routing, taking down Google would hurt the internet as they would become part of it.
But Bing uses Google for results anyway, so Bing wouldn't show any MPAA/etc stuff either.
I keed :p
I'm going to remember that quote
So which terrorist won?
The one that said "they hate us for our freedoms"
Public keys are easy to break with quantum computers. What would have taken thousands of millennium will take hours. Once quantum computers become useful anyway.
You should really read into how packets are constructed and routed as your idea of "IPv4 Plus" is exactly what I said CAN'T work. There is NO way of making ANY protocol that is backwards compatible with IPv4 AND has a larger address range.
An IPv4 packet has a very specific layout. You cannot change this layout without breaking IPv4 completely. In order to add any extensions to the addressable range, you would have to change the packet layout.
Again, "Any "fix" to this would require changing how IPv4 anyway, which is WORSE than switching to IPv6."
Even the default Win7 won't let a non-local subnet have local service access. Even if I plugged directly into my cable modem with no hardware firewall, my machine would be secure with the default firewall settings.
Firewall vs NAT argument is pointless for home users.
Firewall vs NAT argument is pointless when you have a a network admin who knows how to setup a firewall.
I'm sure IPv6 + uPNP-firewall would give the same protection.
I'm sure your "99%" is a bit off. You're not thinking about all the software/router that use uPNP to port forward. There are many apps that need ports forwarded, but this is transparent via uPNP.
Put everyone on a carrier NAT and suddenly uPNP stops working and their apps cease to function.
Class action lawsuit?
As a network admin i ABSOLUTELY agree with the first article. IPv6 is going to down in all of history as the greatest disaster in IT. I can barely speak to another admin who isnt loosing hair over this.
Any patch/bandaid to IPv4 would be worse than switching to IPv6. There is no room left in IPv4 packets to expant the addressable range. Any "fix" to this would require changing how IPv4 anyway, which is WORSE than switching to IPv6.
Any IPv4 change would require changing all software/hardware world wide. The "new" IPv4 wouldn't even be IPv4 compatible, the only thing it would share is the name.
Sometimes it's easier to tear down the house and start over than work around a broken framework.
Try telling Blizzard that P2P is "only political" when trying to push a 4GB patch to 12mil users.
I don't care what kind of internet connection you have, P2P will easily rival anything a "content" server can push.
What we need is a locality aware P2P protocol that prioritizes fewer hops and/or less congested hops.
At the current rate of growth, how long till we need v8?
Well, if 1,000,000,000 new customers, who are given a /64 each, came online per second, it would take almost 600 years.
Since IPv6 is very large and it has room to accommodate the current population of the world, your rate for IP allocation will not exceed human population growth in the long run.
I will use human population growth as the limit. Current population growth is about 4 births per second, but about 1 person per second dies. Let just use a hugely large birth rate of 1000 per second because we plan to colonize another 250 earth like planets. IPv6 will last about 500,000,000 years.
I'm not sure how a black-market would work for IPs. An IP is useless unless it's able to be routed correctly. You can't transfer an IP, you can only release it. Once you release it, it's first-come-first-serve.
you're thinking about DNS.. :P
if the server is not running Ipv6, I should hope it doesn't have an IPv6 DNS entry.
I think what you mean if a hop between you and the server doesn't support IPv6, so your attempt to use it will fail.
All Teir1 back-bone providers are IPv6 ready, so the only time this should happen is a mis-configured router or the customer has a Teir2 provider that doesn't support IPv6 yet. If their provider doesn't support IPv6, then they shouldn't advertise an IPv6 address for DNS.
DNS server? I've been able to ping any device on my network by name for years without having DNS. There are other protocols for local network name resolution.
"Convert the backbones to IPv6"
They already are and have been for the past at least 5 years. The earliest back-bone provider was IPv6 certified back in 2001 and everyone from Sprint to AT&T to Level3 have been 100% IPv6 ready on all of their back-bone links since 2004-2006.
I love Google instant.
I have already had several times where one of the fleeting pages that popped up while typing had useful keywords that I never thought about. I've also seen results pop-up for a split second that would have only shown in a partial query.
I type while looking at my screen and I can usually pull out keywords from the pages that pop-up, even for the 1/3rd of a second that they do.
I guess 16 years of playing video games had gotten my visual senses trained. I don't find it annoying, I find it VERY useful. What I don't find useful yet is that preview feature they added.
It's more like someone takes free over-the-air TV(paid via commercials), and where the original broadcaster normally has commercials, the re-broadcaster put their own commercials. In this way, the original broadcaster does not get paid for the commercials, but the person who is re-broadcasting the content is getting paid for their commercials.
Google is losing out on paid advertisement, while MS is getting paid for the results of Google's work.
Both "Gamers" and "Accident Prone" are subsets of "Young Men". How much do these two subsets overlap?
Too much data can be filtered out by the end user, not enough data can not be re-created by the end user.
ISPs should have to advertise their "dedicated" speed as their speed and the "up to" speeds ad burst
eg. 16/2 with no cap, but once you add in over subscription, it's more like 2/1 dedicated with up-to 16/2 burst
If an ISP has a data cap, that should have to calculate into the "dedicated" speed.
eg. 16/2 with 100GB cap would list as 160Kb/160Kb with up to 16/2 burst. I listed 160Kb for up and down because most caps include up and down, so it would be split evenly.
"ADSL is the best option for video, as long as you're close enough to your ADSL provider DSLAM that you can get fast enough speed. Cable is only better if you're far from the nearest ADSL DSLAM. DSLAM is the counterpart to the ADSL modem. Your ISP should be able to estimate your max link speed with your address and tell you when you're too far for your selected speed."
My mom has fiber to the house, she lives about 2 blocks from her ISP's wiring building, she gets a 40ms ping to her first hop which has a DNS name from her town, her town only has about 200 people. xDSL doesn't auto-magically make things better. Over subscription is an issue on every network. The question is, where's the bottle-neck?
"They might actually prefer you go elsewhere given the tight margins"
Recent article was talking about how High Speed Internet brings in several times more profit than TV. To bring this into perspective, I use Charter Comm. I paid $35 for extended cable. I was trying to cut corner for bills, so I was planning on dropping extended cable for just basic cable. They cut my bill by $15 AND added Showtime/HBO. I now pay $20/month for 100 digital channels plus Showtime/HBO. I still only watch the same 2 channels and only when I go to bed, but they're still making a profit on me.
If they're making a profit from $20/month plus ST/HBO, then how much profit were they making from $35 and just extended cable? I pay $46/month on top of that for internet. and they make several times that profit from HSI.