Whenever they do a deal with a government agency, or education authority, they insist on a Non Disclosure. That prevents the relevant Authority disclosing that they paid next to fuck all for Windows, but a shed-load for Orofice.
They buy batteries in. "Hey, Korean battery manufacturers, I want 125 million batteries, to this spec. 'How much?' - Nah, too expensive", "Hey Taiwanese battery manufacturers". some time passes. "Hey small Chinese province battery manufacturers"
"w00t, we got 125 million batteries for the same price as 62.5 million Big Macs"
Aaaah, Grasshopper, but here in the UK we now have the BBC iPlayer.
It is excellent to the extent that grandma is now watching TV on her PC, when she wants to, and consuming an order of magnitude more bandwidth than browsing & emailing the knitting circle.
This single example has started to affect ISPs greatly.
Not in the slightest, I just picked the Apple jobby as this is/.:-)
I signed up to an "unlimited" package 5 years ago, with Onetel, with an explicit no download limit. For the first 2 years it really was unlimited, now (Onetel was bought by TalkTalk) I am rate limited, for all but http traffic, between 11AM and 2AM. They unilaterally changed my T&C's to introduce this traffic shaping, but still call it "unlimited". Bah. Torrent speeds are particularly bad, it's taken over 3 days, & counting, to download the latest Knoppix DVD image:-(
I don't own, and never have, a single Apple device.
Whenever you see an ad claiming "unlimited" from an ISP you know limits in the small print, i.e. BT, Talk talk, Virgin, Tiscali etc. Send in a complaint.
Internally yes. Externally no. However my point was; everyone who stands up and says "Screw IPv4 let's move to IPv6" should be sat in front of a border router & told to get on with it.
Everyone can eat salami, precious few can make it.
Quite right, there's no reason whatsoever why 98% of users shouldn't be behind NAT gateways. I've seen stupid situations where bloody printers are assigned a public IP - so people can print to them over the internet - Whaaat??? Furthermore pretty much all VPN client software (excluding Microsoft shite, of course) is NAT-T aware.
One other point, not related to the above, TFA states they are using icmp to determine if a host is alive. Really? What is the margin for error here? Pretty much every device I configure with a public IP & connected to the net, will not respond to icmp (except from designated hosts/host blocks) Guess we can take their figures with a pinch of salt then.
Slashdot Mirror
Now do it again. Rinse, repeat, until there's nowhere left for them to host the "command and control" servers.
:-(
The sooner the better. My good:spam ratio is almost 5:95 at the moment
Whenever they do a deal with a government agency, or education authority, they insist on a Non Disclosure. That prevents the relevant Authority disclosing that they paid next to fuck all for Windows, but a shed-load for Orofice.
I must admit I don't recommend it anymore, however if it kills Windows systems it's just gone up in my estimation :-)
tw@
No angst for Sony from this quarter, stupid Chinese walls.
Without them they'd be one of the best firms on the planet.
1d10t.
They buy batteries in. "Hey, Korean battery manufacturers, I want 125 million batteries, to this spec. 'How much?' - Nah, too expensive", "Hey Taiwanese battery manufacturers". some time passes. "Hey small Chinese province battery manufacturers"
"w00t, we got 125 million batteries for the same price as 62.5 million Big Macs"
Quite right, the tossers are fighting for their very lives. They'll only stop when their wedge runs out.
Unlimited coke & whores is a mighty fine motivator.
Aaaah, Grasshopper, but here in the UK we now have the BBC iPlayer.
It is excellent to the extent that grandma is now watching TV on her PC, when she wants to, and consuming an order of magnitude more bandwidth than browsing & emailing the knitting circle.
This single example has started to affect ISPs greatly.
Not in the slightest, I just picked the Apple jobby as this is /. :-)
:-(
I signed up to an "unlimited" package 5 years ago, with Onetel, with an explicit no download limit. For the first 2 years it really was unlimited, now (Onetel was bought by TalkTalk) I am rate limited, for all but http traffic, between 11AM and 2AM. They unilaterally changed my T&C's to introduce this traffic shaping, but still call it "unlimited". Bah. Torrent speeds are particularly bad, it's taken over 3 days, & counting, to download the latest Knoppix DVD image
I don't own, and never have, a single Apple device.
Whenever you see an ad claiming "unlimited" from an ISP you know limits in the small print, i.e. BT, Talk talk, Virgin, Tiscali etc. Send in a complaint.
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
The UK Advertising Standards Authority are a bunch of complete tossers.
They'll stop an Apple ad claiming the iPhone can reach the whole internet, but they let these ISPs advertise unlimited when it is anything but.
Double Standards anyone?
Agree 100%, it was awesome. We played it endlessly on the network at work, back in the Netware days.
Was "PornDoom"
Yay
Umm, look up "Eric Laithwaite".
They aren't the people contributing. The guy is an 1d.10T
Question1: Do laser beams work underwater?
Question2: Assuming the affirmative to question one, how good is your average shark at aiming them?
That's not research, suggest you buy and read this: http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=158705115X
Here's an extract, because I'm not lending you my copy, to get you started: http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=174313&seqNum=4
Also, if you're configuring Cisco kit, as I do, consider adapting Rob's access-list, found here: http://www.cymru.com/Documents/icmp-messages.html
Now refund my cluepon please.
Try http://www.sickipedia.org/
Or not.
You really have no idea do you?
Suggest you go away and research, before lurking & waiting 2 days to add your two-pennyworth of un-informed tripe.
I mentioned neither firewall nor protection, the discussion was the usual /. "We're running out of IPv4 addys" :-(
Well, yes there is...... the limited number of IPv4 addresses :-)
Research done.
Everyone can eat salami.
Not everyone wants or can afford to.
Internally yes. Externally no. However my point was; everyone who stands up and says "Screw IPv4 let's move to IPv6" should be sat in front of a border router & told to get on with it.
Everyone can eat salami, precious few can make it.
Quite right, there's no reason whatsoever why 98% of users shouldn't be behind NAT gateways. I've seen stupid situations where bloody printers are assigned a public IP - so people can print to them over the internet - Whaaat??? Furthermore pretty much all VPN client software (excluding Microsoft shite, of course) is NAT-T aware.
One other point, not related to the above, TFA states they are using icmp to determine if a host is alive. Really? What is the margin for error here? Pretty much every device I configure with a public IP & connected to the net, will not respond to icmp (except from designated hosts/host blocks) Guess we can take their figures with a pinch of salt then.
Right....
So you've configured all of your network equipment to use IPv6 then.
Tell me: What is your IPv6 address, what's the address of your router/gateway and what's the size of block you are using?