He's missing that people will pay their increased taxes by using their new UBI. Your tax goes up by $1k/mo but your UBI gives you an extra $1k/mo, so you end up no better or worse off. Except actually you're a lot better off because you'll still have a $1k/mo income if/when you lose your job.
And on top of that is the part where administration costs of all our existing welfare programs go out of the window, which eliminates the part of your taxes which are currently being wasted on overhead, which translates to money you get to keep that you otherwise wouldn't have got.
We're already taking money from people. Social security, medicare etc are all paid for out of taxes. We've already reached the conclusion that this aspect of UBI is okay, so why are you bringing it up as if it's significant?
They're papercuts... it's just that there's so many of them, and they never seems to be getting any better, just different.
I install Debian Squeeze and X acceleration doesn't work. I upgrade to Wheezy, and my sound card has no volume control. Upgrading to Jessie fixes those, but now printing segfaults the drivers and network-manager automatically breaks all bridge interfaces I create. I understand that computers are hard, but just once I'd like to install a Linux desktop without having to wonder which major subsystem is going to be broken this time.
You can actually set ZFS to be case-insensitive, on a per-dataset basis, with the casesensitivity=sensitive|insensitive option. Support for that was added in 2007, so I guess it was pretty new at the time.
I didn't say anything about Windows; I just wanted to make the point that disabling v6 because you think it's less secure than v4 is dumb, not smart, because it isn't less secure. It's just as secure (or rather, just as insecure) as v4 is.
People who are aware of the technical differences between browsers do not swing the great "market share" % points up or down; they're the extreme minority
They are the minority, but they're also usually the free tech support guy for friends and family. In the past, I used to aggressively push Firefox to anybody I could, but I wouldn't do that for the current Firefox.
Given that Firefox doesn't have much else in the way of marketing, I wonder how big an impact the deliberate loss/disenfranchisement of their technical user base is having.
Ah, yes, "through NAT". That's why they aren't suitable for connecting to the internet: because the only way to get them to even sort-of work is with NAT.
NAT makes your network more complicated, and therefore more expensive (in either money or time) to deal with. The amount of money spent on implementing, testing and debugging NAT traversal in all the software that needs it (games, VoIP, etc) is silly and it doesn't even work all the time. And manually setting up port forwards is a pain and it only works if your ISP even gives you at least one public IP; the moment they put you behind CGNAT (as many ISPs in the US are doing, because they don't even have enough IPs to give one per subscriber) then you're totally screwed.
Let's not even touch on RFC1918 clashes with VPNs or when merging two company networks, or the routing table size (which is going to trend way upwards as v4 fragments further and further) or the spiralling costs of buying v4 blocks off of other people.
Tons of NAT everywhere is not viable, sensible or acceptable for the future of the internet. It's been great as a delaying tactic, yes, I'll grant you that, but continuing to cling to it is just stupid.
HE's tunnels aren't encrypted, so I'm not sure if you can really consider them "private".
Also, HE publish country info for tunnels in whois, so if Netflix can't work out where the tunnel user is then that's Netflix's fault for not using the whois data available to them.
...hah, what a fail. I of course meant this comment: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (although I doubt anybody will have much trouble finding it themselves).
They aren't, because there aren't enough v4 addresses to do that (did you somehow miss the memo on that?).
If your home network isn't connected to the internet, then fine, but most people want internet access and thus will need v6 on their home network to reach servers on the internet.
No, just the v4 part of it. That's where most of the nasties will come from, and disabling v4 will help a lot more on that front than disabling v6 will.
Windows 10 is completely orthogonal here. "Don't use Win10" is another thing I won't argue with, but it has nothing to do with v6.
While I wouldn't argue the need for better firewall software (something that does per-application firewalling on Linux, please?), you're not actually a sitting duck on v6. Your router's firewall will prevent any inbound connections, and the sheer size of a v6/64 means that it's hard to even find a functioning IP to attempt connect to (although you shouldn't rely on that obscurity).
If you're going to disable anything, you're better off disabling v4.
The point is, there is no such thing as an IPv6 packet that looks like IPv4, even when the source and destination addresses permit it. That is the big gaping flaw of IPv6 that lead to the adoption fiasco.
The thing is... there is! 6to4 is roughly that. It's hardly a big gaping flaw in v6 if it's something that v6 already did.
(6to4 sends a v6 packet between two v4 hosts by setting the protocol header to 41 and putting the v6 packet inside the v4 one. Those packets look like any other v4 packets.)
Everything that could possibly be made different about IPv6 was made different.
I disagree with this. v6 is actually very similar to v4. Routing, subnetting etc works in exactly the same way as it does in v4, and it runs over the same L2 links in the same way that v4 does. Many of the differences that do exist (e.g. NDP vs ARP) are directly due to the increased address size.
About the only big differences are RAs (except v4 has those too), multicast instead of broadcast for neighbor discovery (but v4 does multicast too) and link-local addresses (v4 has those as well).
I'm not making a proposal. I am saying that the time is right to make a proposal. I didn't know that there's actually a proposal on the table, here. I will be taking some time to study it, I suggest you do too. It seems I'm far from the only person who thinks that IPv6 is still a disaster and there is room to attack the problem from another direction.
You are far from the first person I've seen to say that. I'm getting somewhat fed up of seeing people say "v6 sucks because it didn't do <x>" or "they should've done <y>" when x is something v6 did and y wouldn't actually work. I've yet to see anybody that had any ideas that weren't one or the other of those.
I've looked over that draft you linked to before, and if I remember correctly it's roughly suggesting the same mechanism as 6to4 (possibly with some NAT64-like mixed in?). I don't see how proposing something we already have is going to help.
"Turn off the power" would be completely useless in many cases. For instance, anything with internet access could sign itself up for a free AWS trial and (legally, even!) create a redundant backup of itself. Anything with email access could probably send a few viruses out to do the same thing illegally with random computers. There are a ridiculous number of ways an AI could find to get itself onto computers that aren't connected to your power supply.
"Just turn the power off" is extremely shortsighted here.
Yeah? It's not fundamentally any different to a v4 header. It's got a new protocol number and more of it is dedicated to storing addresses. Yes, it's 2x the size, but that's because the src+dst addresses are already 32 bytes to v4's 20 bytes total.
Presumably you were suggesting to do the same thing, because there's no way to fit a pair of 128-bit addresses into the v4 header without making it bigger.
Nothing wrong with the technique, but there's something wrong with IPv6, namely not the slightest attempt to retain backward compatibility with IPv4 at the protocol level.
Well, there's that version number in the header, which allows the two to coexist. But more to the point: how is your v4x any different to this? You're suggesting doing exactly the same things v6 did.
(Note that I'm not shouting you down here; I'm pointing out that you're proposing essentially the thing that we already did.)
Funnily enough, what you've described there is basically IPv6. If you think that NAT is the way to go about connecting to legacy v4-only hosts, then what's wrong with NAT64 in IPv6, which does exactly that?
Privacy addresses don't overflow your ARP tables. And in any case, you don't need privacy addresses to keep your MAC out of your address; RFC 7217 is a thing and Windows 7+ use it (or something very similar) by default out of the box, or you can use DHCPv6 or even just manually pick an address.
And I can't seriously believe that you're arguing that we want an address shortage. We don't.
(In a similar vein, we don't want to pay tons of money to deal with NAT forever, which is why people are telling you that using NAT on v6 is dumb: because it'll make networks more complicated, and thus more expensive, more or less forever.)
It's really difficult to be backwards compatible with v4 though, at least in the way you're probably envisioning. There's only 32 bits available in the v4 header for the src/dest address, and the pidgeonhole principle isn't exactly something you can just ignore. How would a v4 computer specify which address to send a packet to if there isn't enough space in the header field to do it?
There's a reason you can't send packets directly between v4 and v6 endpoints, and it's not because v6 is badly designed. It's because you can't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
He's missing that people will pay their increased taxes by using their new UBI. Your tax goes up by $1k/mo but your UBI gives you an extra $1k/mo, so you end up no better or worse off. Except actually you're a lot better off because you'll still have a $1k/mo income if/when you lose your job.
And on top of that is the part where administration costs of all our existing welfare programs go out of the window, which eliminates the part of your taxes which are currently being wasted on overhead, which translates to money you get to keep that you otherwise wouldn't have got.
We're already taking money from people. Social security, medicare etc are all paid for out of taxes. We've already reached the conclusion that this aspect of UBI is okay, so why are you bringing it up as if it's significant?
They're papercuts... it's just that there's so many of them, and they never seems to be getting any better, just different.
I install Debian Squeeze and X acceleration doesn't work. I upgrade to Wheezy, and my sound card has no volume control. Upgrading to Jessie fixes those, but now printing segfaults the drivers and network-manager automatically breaks all bridge interfaces I create. I understand that computers are hard, but just once I'd like to install a Linux desktop without having to wonder which major subsystem is going to be broken this time.
And don't forget that's single-threaded, whereas a filesystem (which will split files up into blocks) can use all available cores for compression.
You can actually set ZFS to be case-insensitive, on a per-dataset basis, with the casesensitivity=sensitive|insensitive option. Support for that was added in 2007, so I guess it was pretty new at the time.
You're saying that I'm stupid because I can read a v6 address from a log, whereas you can't. Okay.
It's not a very convincing argument.
I didn't say anything about Windows; I just wanted to make the point that disabling v6 because you think it's less secure than v4 is dumb, not smart, because it isn't less secure. It's just as secure (or rather, just as insecure) as v4 is.
$ host distrowatch.com
distrowatch.com has address 82.103.136.226
distrowatch.com has IPv6 address 2a00:9080:1:20c::1
Not quite sure where you're going with this, but there you go.
People who are aware of the technical differences between browsers do not swing the great "market share" % points up or down; they're the extreme minority
They are the minority, but they're also usually the free tech support guy for friends and family. In the past, I used to aggressively push Firefox to anybody I could, but I wouldn't do that for the current Firefox.
Given that Firefox doesn't have much else in the way of marketing, I wonder how big an impact the deliberate loss/disenfranchisement of their technical user base is having.
Ah, yes, "through NAT". That's why they aren't suitable for connecting to the internet: because the only way to get them to even sort-of work is with NAT.
NAT makes your network more complicated, and therefore more expensive (in either money or time) to deal with. The amount of money spent on implementing, testing and debugging NAT traversal in all the software that needs it (games, VoIP, etc) is silly and it doesn't even work all the time. And manually setting up port forwards is a pain and it only works if your ISP even gives you at least one public IP; the moment they put you behind CGNAT (as many ISPs in the US are doing, because they don't even have enough IPs to give one per subscriber) then you're totally screwed.
Let's not even touch on RFC1918 clashes with VPNs or when merging two company networks, or the routing table size (which is going to trend way upwards as v4 fragments further and further) or the spiralling costs of buying v4 blocks off of other people.
Tons of NAT everywhere is not viable, sensible or acceptable for the future of the internet. It's been great as a delaying tactic, yes, I'll grant you that, but continuing to cling to it is just stupid.
They're suitable for their purpose of private networks, but for networks that are connected to the internet, they aren't very suitable at all.
HE's tunnels aren't encrypted, so I'm not sure if you can really consider them "private".
Also, HE publish country info for tunnels in whois, so if Netflix can't work out where the tunnel user is then that's Netflix's fault for not using the whois data available to them.
...hah, what a fail. I of course meant this comment: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (although I doubt anybody will have much trouble finding it themselves).
They aren't, because there aren't enough v4 addresses to do that (did you somehow miss the memo on that?).
If your home network isn't connected to the internet, then fine, but most people want internet access and thus will need v6 on their home network to reach servers on the internet.
No, just the v4 part of it. That's where most of the nasties will come from, and disabling v4 will help a lot more on that front than disabling v6 will.
Windows 10 is completely orthogonal here. "Don't use Win10" is another thing I won't argue with, but it has nothing to do with v6.
Disabling v6 isn't smart. See this comment: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
While I wouldn't argue the need for better firewall software (something that does per-application firewalling on Linux, please?), you're not actually a sitting duck on v6. Your router's firewall will prevent any inbound connections, and the sheer size of a v6 /64 means that it's hard to even find a functioning IP to attempt connect to (although you shouldn't rely on that obscurity).
If you're going to disable anything, you're better off disabling v4.
I'm guessing that vds6.net is https://vds6.net/. You may also be interested in http://www.lowendspirit.com/, who are only a few bucks per year as well.
You don't need to know either of those. v6 is simple enough that your grandmother can use it.
Ah, fair point on my version/protocol mixup.
The point is, there is no such thing as an IPv6 packet that looks like IPv4, even when the source and destination addresses permit it. That is the big gaping flaw of IPv6 that lead to the adoption fiasco.
The thing is... there is! 6to4 is roughly that. It's hardly a big gaping flaw in v6 if it's something that v6 already did.
(6to4 sends a v6 packet between two v4 hosts by setting the protocol header to 41 and putting the v6 packet inside the v4 one. Those packets look like any other v4 packets.)
Everything that could possibly be made different about IPv6 was made different.
I disagree with this. v6 is actually very similar to v4. Routing, subnetting etc works in exactly the same way as it does in v4, and it runs over the same L2 links in the same way that v4 does. Many of the differences that do exist (e.g. NDP vs ARP) are directly due to the increased address size.
About the only big differences are RAs (except v4 has those too), multicast instead of broadcast for neighbor discovery (but v4 does multicast too) and link-local addresses (v4 has those as well).
I'm not making a proposal. I am saying that the time is right to make a proposal. I didn't know that there's actually a proposal on the table, here. I will be taking some time to study it, I suggest you do too. It seems I'm far from the only person who thinks that IPv6 is still a disaster and there is room to attack the problem from another direction.
You are far from the first person I've seen to say that. I'm getting somewhat fed up of seeing people say "v6 sucks because it didn't do <x>" or "they should've done <y>" when x is something v6 did and y wouldn't actually work. I've yet to see anybody that had any ideas that weren't one or the other of those.
I've looked over that draft you linked to before, and if I remember correctly it's roughly suggesting the same mechanism as 6to4 (possibly with some NAT64-like mixed in?). I don't see how proposing something we already have is going to help.
"Turn off the power" would be completely useless in many cases. For instance, anything with internet access could sign itself up for a free AWS trial and (legally, even!) create a redundant backup of itself. Anything with email access could probably send a few viruses out to do the same thing illegally with random computers. There are a ridiculous number of ways an AI could find to get itself onto computers that aren't connected to your power supply.
"Just turn the power off" is extremely shortsighted here.
Yeah? It's not fundamentally any different to a v4 header. It's got a new protocol number and more of it is dedicated to storing addresses. Yes, it's 2x the size, but that's because the src+dst addresses are already 32 bytes to v4's 20 bytes total.
Presumably you were suggesting to do the same thing, because there's no way to fit a pair of 128-bit addresses into the v4 header without making it bigger.
Nothing wrong with the technique, but there's something wrong with IPv6, namely not the slightest attempt to retain backward compatibility with IPv4 at the protocol level.
Well, there's that version number in the header, which allows the two to coexist. But more to the point: how is your v4x any different to this? You're suggesting doing exactly the same things v6 did.
(Note that I'm not shouting you down here; I'm pointing out that you're proposing essentially the thing that we already did.)
Funnily enough, what you've described there is basically IPv6. If you think that NAT is the way to go about connecting to legacy v4-only hosts, then what's wrong with NAT64 in IPv6, which does exactly that?
Privacy addresses don't overflow your ARP tables. And in any case, you don't need privacy addresses to keep your MAC out of your address; RFC 7217 is a thing and Windows 7+ use it (or something very similar) by default out of the box, or you can use DHCPv6 or even just manually pick an address.
And I can't seriously believe that you're arguing that we want an address shortage. We don't.
(In a similar vein, we don't want to pay tons of money to deal with NAT forever, which is why people are telling you that using NAT on v6 is dumb: because it'll make networks more complicated, and thus more expensive, more or less forever.)
It's really difficult to be backwards compatible with v4 though, at least in the way you're probably envisioning. There's only 32 bits available in the v4 header for the src/dest address, and the pidgeonhole principle isn't exactly something you can just ignore. How would a v4 computer specify which address to send a packet to if there isn't enough space in the header field to do it?
There's a reason you can't send packets directly between v4 and v6 endpoints, and it's not because v6 is badly designed. It's because you can't do it.