Monsanto, which once argued that resistance would not become a major problem, now cautions against exaggerating its impact. “It’s a serious issue, but it’s manageable,”
If a server is advertised in the DNS as being accessible using both v4 and v6, Unix-like systems (including Mac OS X) will first try v6, and then fall back to v4. This is the case on all Unices, although in the case of Linux it can be worked around by editing/etc/gai.conf.
When v6 is broken, this only works well if v6 sends you an error message in a timely manner. If v6 fails silently, just eats your packets, then you will only find out about it after a timeout -- meaning that it will take ages to fall back to v4.
Most of the time, this is not an issue, since v6 is pretty good at sending good error reports in a timely manner. The one exception is 6to4, which has an unpleasant tendency to fail silently (thus causing a timeout) when there is a v4 connectivity issue (such as a firewall).
The fix is simple -- only prefer v6 to v4 when you have native v6; if you're using 6to4, prefer v4 to v6.
Windows does that right.
All Unices prefer 6to4 to v4, not just Mac OS X. At least Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris do.
The real bug, of course, is not that 6to4 is preferred, it is that 6to4 is unreliable. 6to4 does not monitor its tunnels -- it just assumes that a tunnel will work if there is a global IPv4 address. Which is obviously not necessarily the case in the presence of a v4 firewall.
Do yourself a favour -- disable the 6to4 functionality on your Mac and run Miredo, a Teredo implementation for Unices.
what happens when all the politician's move away because these wind turbines are an eyesore?
Have you every seen a wind farm? They're not particularly ugly, they look like fans far away at the horizon. The only issue is that they're noisy, so habitations need to be at least half a mile away.
(Initially there was additional concern that the turbines would kill birds, but that turns out not to be true -- birds are smart enough to avoid a large, noisy obstacle.)
The point being, of course that the submitter completely missed the point of the paper he links to.
It was already well known that BitTorrent offers no privacy. What the researchers have shown is that the process of identifying the peers scales really well. To quote from one of their abstracts:
This paper presents a set of exploits an adversary can
use to continuously spy on most BitTorrent users of the
Internet from a single machine and for a long period of
time. Using these exploits for a period of 103 days, we
collected 148 million IPs downloading 2 billion copies of
contents.
You then have to download the entire thing to find out if those blocks are part of IronMan2.avi are actually part of ironman2 movie or some dumb students project on feeding excessive iron to a man.
Not in BitTorrent.
A torrent is uniquely identified by its "info-hash", and the first thing you do when you connect to a peer is to agree on the info-hash. So with BitTorrent, you only need to download the file once, check that it is the right file, and then ask all of the peers you find whether they are distributing files with this particular info-hash.
interesting yet saddening to see someone actually admit that they only give a fuck about privacy because they don't want to get in trouble for all the shit they steal.
If you really don't care about privacy except where you are infringing, please publish your browsing history for the last two weeks, censoring only stuff that is illegal in your locale.
There's just one series of 802.11 (WiFi) standards.
However, different countries have different power limits and different sets of allowed channels. For example, in the 802.11b/g band, most of Europe allows channels 1 through 13 at 100mW max, while the USA only allow channels 1 through 11, but with higher power limits (1W, IIRC).
Because of those regulatory differences, WiFi hardware is sold with slightly different firmware in different countries, and it may be illegal for you to use foreign WiFi hardware.
Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
NAT64 so obvious, I find it shocking it's not taken into account more seriously.
It was actually a part of the initial design for IPv6 -- see Section 5 of RFC 1710, or all the stuff about "translation from IPv6 to IPv4" in RFC 1883. It just somehow fell out of the specifications during the standardisation process.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I grok?
Not quite.
If a server is advertised in the DNS as being accessible using both v4 and v6, Unix-like systems (including Mac OS X) will first try v6, and then fall back to v4. This is the case on all Unices, although in the case of Linux it can be worked around by editing /etc/gai.conf.
When v6 is broken, this only works well if v6 sends you an error message in a timely manner. If v6 fails silently, just eats your packets, then you will only find out about it after a timeout -- meaning that it will take ages to fall back to v4.
Most of the time, this is not an issue, since v6 is pretty good at sending good error reports in a timely manner. The one exception is 6to4, which has an unpleasant tendency to fail silently (thus causing a timeout) when there is a v4 connectivity issue (such as a firewall).
The fix is simple -- only prefer v6 to v4 when you have native v6; if you're using 6to4, prefer v4 to v6. Windows does that right.
Agreed, it's a reason to avoid IPv6 on the server. It is certainly not a reason to avoid IPv6 on the client altogether.
This presents a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely until it's fixed.
No. It's a reason to avoid (host-based) 6to4, which is too unreliable to be useful.
All Unices prefer 6to4 to v4, not just Mac OS X. At least Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris do.
The real bug, of course, is not that 6to4 is preferred, it is that 6to4 is unreliable. 6to4 does not monitor its tunnels -- it just assumes that a tunnel will work if there is a global IPv4 address. Which is obviously not necessarily the case in the presence of a v4 firewall.
Do yourself a favour -- disable the 6to4 functionality on your Mac and run Miredo, a Teredo implementation for Unices.
(Some more anecdotical evidence.)
Lacking a +1 Flamebait moderation, may I suggest that people mod the original message underrated?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyVtsJ3WMEU
Senator Kennedy didn't want to see the turbines in HIS view.
For those of us who are not intimate with American politics -- why is this moderated insightful, flamebait and troll? And which Kennedy would that be?
what happens when all the politician's move away because these wind turbines are an eyesore?
Have you every seen a wind farm? They're not particularly ugly, they look like fans far away at the horizon. The only issue is that they're noisy, so habitations need to be at least half a mile away. (Initially there was additional concern that the turbines would kill birds, but that turns out not to be true -- birds are smart enough to avoid a large, noisy obstacle.)
It was already well known that BitTorrent offers no privacy. What the researchers have shown is that the process of identifying the peers scales really well. To quote from one of their abstracts:
You then have to download the entire thing to find out if those blocks are part of IronMan2.avi are actually part of ironman2 movie or some dumb students project on feeding excessive iron to a man.
Not in BitTorrent.
A torrent is uniquely identified by its "info-hash", and the first thing you do when you connect to a peer is to agree on the info-hash. So with BitTorrent, you only need to download the file once, check that it is the right file, and then ask all of the peers you find whether they are distributing files with this particular info-hash.
interesting yet saddening to see someone actually admit that they only give a fuck about privacy because they don't want to get in trouble for all the shit they steal.
If you really don't care about privacy except where you are infringing, please publish your browsing history for the last two weeks, censoring only stuff that is illegal in your locale.
There's just one series of 802.11 (WiFi) standards.
However, different countries have different power limits and different sets of allowed channels. For example, in the 802.11b/g band, most of Europe allows channels 1 through 13 at 100mW max, while the USA only allow channels 1 through 11, but with higher power limits (1W, IIRC).
Because of those regulatory differences, WiFi hardware is sold with slightly different firmware in different countries, and it may be illegal for you to use foreign WiFi hardware.
In a battle between two vendors, one with a closed source, insecure framework and the other with a closed platform, which side do I root for?
Neither.
You stand back and wait for a lull in the kibbitzing, which is when you mention the existence of open standards and unrestricted mobile platforms.
Just because it is a, "classic," doesn't mean I have to like it.
No, but you're expected to understand why it's a classic. Not just say "it's got too many pages".
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3509b6e5a2de56fda41a06d793c86e3ec0cd680c&dn=CollateralMurder.mp4&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce
A little UV exposure is good for most of us, and a lot is bad for most of us. How much UV do these units transmit?
Probably very little, unless they went the extra trouble to use lenses and mirrors that transmit UV as well as visible light.
...for you Septics
In case anyone else is as puzzled as I am -- it turns out that's rhyming slang for yank. (Septic tank, got it?)
16/8 is HP's.
Er., actually the OP is right, they have both net 15 and 16.
They also have some /16's?
128.88.0.0/16, for one.
[NAT] is a crappy hack/workaround, but it works right now.
Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and all Internet communication is client-server.
Hearing they got allocated [to non-English speaking countries] is really good news, since I rarely go to [foreign] websites.
Until you try to visit an American website that is hosted by an Asian ISP (because it's cheaper that way).
among the software I use, the following don't support v6 at all
Please file bugs. Most Free Software projects take IPv6 very seriously indeed.
Why does Hewlett-Packard have not one but TWO /8 IPv4 address ranges?
Where do you see that? As far as I know, they have a single /8 and a bunch of /16s.
The answer, of course, is that they were assigned before subnetting (CIDR) was deployed.
NAT64 so obvious, I find it shocking it's not taken into account more seriously.
It was actually a part of the initial design for IPv6 -- see Section 5 of RFC 1710, or all the stuff about "translation from IPv6 to IPv4" in RFC 1883. It just somehow fell out of the specifications during the standardisation process.