So, I use v6 only = clients that use v4 only can't connect to me = bad. If I use v4+v6 so that all clients can connect, it involves NAT port mapping for v4 and firewall for v6.
If I want to redirect incoming connections to another PC, with v4 I have to change the port mapping, so that port 1234 goes to 192.168.0.5 instead of 192.168.0.4. How do I achieve that with v6?
probably something like this:
was: 2001::4 ->2001::4 2001::5 ->2001::5 now: 2001::4 ->2001::5 for port 1234 2001::5 ->2001::5 for everything, except port 1234
Also, one ISP (not mine) has actually tried to limit the usage of NAT by setting TTL=1 to all "download" packets, while you can get around it with custom router firmware or using PC as a router, reguar consumer routers just drop all incoming packets. So it seems they cared (or still do) about multiple PCs (probably they do not want their clients sharing the connection with their neighbors).
Yes, I know that currently the application determines the port. Anyway, my idea probably would have greater backward compatibility with existing networks and software (yes, typing a nonstandard port number may be inconvenient (if you use an old application), but you still can connect to whatever server you want in contrast to IPv6 under which old applications cannot access the servers at all, unless they still have an v4 address).
IPv6 also requires a lot of changes, if it didn't, it would be easy to implement.
Just like DNS resolves example.com to 1.2.3.4, it could resolve http://example.com/ to 1.2.3.4:81, the application would ask not only for the IP, but also for port. Now, as I said, some applications would not be able to use this, so you would still need more than one IP, except if you have 100 web servers, they could all share the same IP, while being on separate machines.
For old applications that do not ask for port, the DNS would respond like it does now, but you may have to specify the port manually.
On the other hand, I read somewhere that it is possible to configure a NAT to route between v4 local network and v6 internet. If that is not a lie, I may just have found a way for my old PCs to communicate with the internet after everyone has switched to v6...
If IPv6 was something that I had to install only on my router, I would have done it already (or would do when I change my routers software), now, not only do I have to install it on my router, but on all of my devices, for little to no advantage. Yes, all of my PCs would have public IPs, yeas, they would be filtered, so, where is the advantage?
Also, I have old PCs running Windows NT4 and 2000 which (AFAIK) do not support IPv6, my printer also doesn't. So, I would have to have both versions, remember to map ports correctly, so that my PCs can accept incoming connections (for BitTorrent and other services) from v4 and v6 clients (and that the incoming connections do not end up routed to different PCs).
Now, if I want to access my network from outside, I use VPN (L2TP). L2TP, by the way, works even when both endpoints are behind a NAT, given that appropriate protocols and ports are forwarded to the server (client does not need any forwarding). If I cannot use VPN, I can map a port to some service that I want to access even if I can't use VPN, then I have to remember my IP (or hostname) and the port, instead of having to remember IPs for all of my PCs (and ports too).
I am sure that I am not alone thinking all this, because, as we see, v6 usage is kind of limited.
I like to be able to appear as a single PC (just in case my ISP decides that I should also pay for every PC that I have), also, I do not want anyone to know how many different PCs are in my network and whether those multiple connections are originating from one or more PCs.
So, if a device does not have to be accessed from outside (or does not have to accept incoming connections), why should it have a public IP?
For example - my printer. It does not need to access the internet or accept incoming connections from outside. A client-only PC. It needs to access the internet, but not accept incoming connections.
Also, a 1:n NAT is very useful in fooling your ISP into thinking that you have only one PC (in case that ISP would charge you more for multiple PCs).
So yeah, I give all of my PCs long v6 addresses, then filter them to make everything work like it did with v4, but with IPs that are harder to remember...
Also, I have PCs that run windows NT4 and 2000 (using xp/2003 would mean that I need better hardware (=more heat) just for the OS itself, because these PCs do their tasks nicely).
You can get the microwave (or a tape recorder, or a VCR) fixed by a third party (or do it yourself) depending on what part has broken.
Only Microsoft can fix these firmware issues. If the source code for the firmware was publicly available, someone could fix the problem and distribute the fixed firmware for free or for money, but since it isn't, only MS can patch it.
There is also a private v6 address range - anything in the fc00::/7 range should not be publicly routable so you can use this for totally private machines (not sure why you'd want to, but you might).
Good to know, because I still do not understand why all of my PCs should have a publicly routable IPs if they should not accept incoming connections and I would have to filter then at my firewall and I would still use NAT to fool my ISP into thinking that I only have one PC. So I can use thee private range anyway.
So instead of upgrading IP, you merely want to change how DNS and TCP and all networking applications work? Yeah, good luck with that.
How about this: Upgrade DNS to give out port numbers. For example: I want to go to http://www.example.com/ the DNS gives the answer 1.2.3.4:80, if I want to go to http://mail.example.com/ DNS gives 1.2.3.4:81, therefore a NAT with port forwarding could work for multiple servers.
Old applications would still use the old ports, however, new ones would automatically get the port number from DNS, and for old ones you wold have to type the port manually.
Yes, there are some applications that have to use whole IP (for example, protocols other than TCP or UDP), but the need for separate IPs can be greatly reduced.
Would you like to be put behind a NAT by your ISP, because you're a mere 'internet user' on a 'home connection', so obviously you don't need incoming connections, since the ISP decided for you that those can only be bad for you?
The company I work for would gladly be behind ISPs NAT (and give away the static public IP) if that meant paying less, since we do not have any servers, and use the internet for web browsing and email, and are sitting behind a local NAT (zero forwarded ports) anyway.
And I see no reason for my whole internal network to have public IPs just to have them blocked at the firewall (essentially making the same as is currently with a NAT). Also, it is difficult (if not impossible) to make windows NT4 and 2000 work with v6.
However, I have read somewhere that it is possible to have a NAT between a v4 internal network and v6 internet, so I will use it when the time comes.
The problem with IP6 is that there are millions of network devices (think printers, wireless access points, etc.) that don't run IP6...
And I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to give my printer a publicly accessible IP address that I would still need to block at my firewall. If IPv6 becomes really necessary to access the internet then I would just use a NAT that allows to access IPv6 network from a IPv4 (my internal) network (read somewhere that this type of NAT is possible).
There are, indeed, strong feelings on both sides about the dog. Rover is the default animated character that appears when you open the Search Companion. People love it or loathe it. There seems to be very little middle ground. Fortunately, everyone can be made happy.
Usually my web pages are quite simple, but IE6 does not support some css feature or whatever, then I insert a conditional statement that IE6 executes, I have IE7 on another PC. And my first priority is Opera and Firefox, since I am using those browsers to view all websites (except windows update and bitdefender).
On the other hand I agree that people shouldn't be using IE (especially <7) for main browsing.
Energy usage in my room: Tube headphone amplifier: ~20W (usually on 6-12hours/day) Incandescent light: 40W (6-12hours/day) 21" CRT monitor: 130W (6-12hours/day) 6 PCs: ~900W (24/7)
While I could replace the incandescent bulb with a CFL (I don't because I don't like the spectrum), the power I save would be negligible, and I actually would save more power if I stopped participating in BOINC projects.
then autorun.exe will be executed when user doubleclicks on their USB device in "My Computer". If you don't believe me - try it out...
I think this will not work on Vista or if autorun.inf reading is disabled, but it will work on XP even if AutoPlay is disabled using group policy editor.
There are 3 cell phone providers in Lithuania, they all have almost total coverage and are very competitive, so the prices are quite low, for example:
Our currency is Litas. 1Lt=100ct, 1EUR=3.4528Lt
Omnitel (one of the companies) has a prepaid service targeted at young people who text a lot, so one SMS costs 5ct if the recipient uses the same service or 10ct if he does not. For 3Lt/month you can have 500 messages/day to those who use the same service. For 9Lt/month you can get 500 messages/day to everyone. International messages cost a lot though (45ct/message).
Calls are more expensive at 11ct/min inside the same service or 44ct/min to everyone, but as I said, this service is marketed to those who text a lot.
For a subscription (that is not prepaid) service you get some number of "free minutes" or you can use the minimal fee to make calls and/or send messages (that is, if I pay 4Lt/month and one SMS costs 9ct then if I send less than 44 messages in a month, I will pay only those 4Lt).
Tele2 is usually the cheapest provider, while Omnitel is the most expensive, while usually their service is better (i.e. less dropped calls etc).
Our cell phone providers compete and provide service that is quite cheap (well, cheaper than the $0.2=49ct/SMS in the US that someone wrote). Maybe the American providers just got together and agreed upon inflated prices?
P.S. I do not work for any of the companies mentioned.
When I had a phone that did not support 3G, if the phone was places near an audio amplifier I could hear noise when the phone contacted the tower. There was a contact for every incoming and outgoing text message and call, but if the phone was idle, it would contact the tower once in a few hours, so sending/receiving text messages does make the phone contact the tower more often, that means it is using more bandwidth.
SMS is also useful in the annual cell network DDoS by sending "Happy new year!" messages to all your contacts. Calling is impossible for the first few hours of the 1st of January...
Ever been on the phone with somebody who was surfing the net, and you realized that they weren't really listening to you, and when you called them on it they completely denied that they weren't not paying you attention when you knew damn well they were preoccupied?
Maybe you young whippersnappers can multitask better than I can at my creaky age (creaky technologically, anyway), but being in a conversation with someone who receives and replies to a text message more often than not stops the verbal conversation dead in its tracks until the message is sent. Maybe I'm old-fashioned or something, but I find it more rude than just stepping away for a two minute phone conversation because then, at least, there isn't the pretense that you and the person you're talking to have each other's complete attention.
On the other hand, the person who received the text message can finish his conversation with you and then reply to it. Or how about when you are watching some very interesting TV show (or news or whatever) and the phone rings? With a text message you could just reply later. Or when you have to think before replying...
Slashdot Mirror
So, I use v6 only = clients that use v4 only can't connect to me = bad.
If I use v4+v6 so that all clients can connect, it involves NAT port mapping for v4 and firewall for v6.
If I want to redirect incoming connections to another PC, with v4 I have to change the port mapping, so that port 1234 goes to 192.168.0.5 instead of 192.168.0.4. How do I achieve that with v6?
probably something like this:
was:
2001::4 ->2001::4
2001::5 ->2001::5
now:
2001::4 ->2001::5 for port 1234
2001::5 ->2001::5 for everything, except port 1234
Also, one ISP (not mine) has actually tried to limit the usage of NAT by setting TTL=1 to all "download" packets, while you can get around it with custom router firmware or using PC as a router, reguar consumer routers just drop all incoming packets. So it seems they cared (or still do) about multiple PCs (probably they do not want their clients sharing the connection with their neighbors).
However, once the connection is established, the central server is no longer needed.
Yes, I know that currently the application determines the port. Anyway, my idea probably would have greater backward compatibility with existing networks and software (yes, typing a nonstandard port number may be inconvenient (if you use an old application), but you still can connect to whatever server you want in contrast to IPv6 under which old applications cannot access the servers at all, unless they still have an v4 address).
IPv6 also requires a lot of changes, if it didn't, it would be easy to implement.
Just like DNS resolves example.com to 1.2.3.4, it could resolve http://example.com/ to 1.2.3.4:81, the application would ask not only for the IP, but also for port. Now, as I said, some applications would not be able to use this, so you would still need more than one IP, except if you have 100 web servers, they could all share the same IP, while being on separate machines.
For old applications that do not ask for port, the DNS would respond like it does now, but you may have to specify the port manually.
On the other hand, I read somewhere that it is possible to configure a NAT to route between v4 local network and v6 internet. If that is not a lie, I may just have found a way for my old PCs to communicate with the internet after everyone has switched to v6...
If IPv6 was something that I had to install only on my router, I would have done it already (or would do when I change my routers software), now, not only do I have to install it on my router, but on all of my devices, for little to no advantage. Yes, all of my PCs would have public IPs, yeas, they would be filtered, so, where is the advantage?
Also, I have old PCs running Windows NT4 and 2000 which (AFAIK) do not support IPv6, my printer also doesn't. So, I would have to have both versions, remember to map ports correctly, so that my PCs can accept incoming connections (for BitTorrent and other services) from v4 and v6 clients (and that the incoming connections do not end up routed to different PCs).
Now, if I want to access my network from outside, I use VPN (L2TP). L2TP, by the way, works even when both endpoints are behind a NAT, given that appropriate protocols and ports are forwarded to the server (client does not need any forwarding). If I cannot use VPN, I can map a port to some service that I want to access even if I can't use VPN, then I have to remember my IP (or hostname) and the port, instead of having to remember IPs for all of my PCs (and ports too).
I am sure that I am not alone thinking all this, because, as we see, v6 usage is kind of limited.
I like to be able to appear as a single PC (just in case my ISP decides that I should also pay for every PC that I have), also, I do not want anyone to know how many different PCs are in my network and whether those multiple connections are originating from one or more PCs.
So, if a device does not have to be accessed from outside (or does not have to accept incoming connections), why should it have a public IP?
For example - my printer. It does not need to access the internet or accept incoming connections from outside.
A client-only PC. It needs to access the internet, but not accept incoming connections.
Also, a 1:n NAT is very useful in fooling your ISP into thinking that you have only one PC (in case that ISP would charge you more for multiple PCs).
So yeah, I give all of my PCs long v6 addresses, then filter them to make everything work like it did with v4, but with IPs that are harder to remember...
Also, I have PCs that run windows NT4 and 2000 (using xp/2003 would mean that I need better hardware (=more heat) just for the OS itself, because these PCs do their tasks nicely).
You can get the microwave (or a tape recorder, or a VCR) fixed by a third party (or do it yourself) depending on what part has broken.
Only Microsoft can fix these firmware issues. If the source code for the firmware was publicly available, someone could fix the problem and distribute the fixed firmware for free or for money, but since it isn't, only MS can patch it.
There is also a private v6 address range - anything in the fc00::/7 range should not be publicly routable so you can use this for totally private machines (not sure why you'd want to, but you might).
Good to know, because I still do not understand why all of my PCs should have a publicly routable IPs if they should not accept incoming connections and I would have to filter then at my firewall and I would still use NAT to fool my ISP into thinking that I only have one PC. So I can use thee private range anyway.
How can I write an application that connects from one NATted box to another?
Hamachi does it somehow...
So instead of upgrading IP, you merely want to change how DNS and TCP and all networking applications work? Yeah, good luck with that.
How about this:
Upgrade DNS to give out port numbers.
For example: I want to go to http://www.example.com/ the DNS gives the answer 1.2.3.4:80, if I want to go to http://mail.example.com/ DNS gives 1.2.3.4:81, therefore a NAT with port forwarding could work for multiple servers.
Old applications would still use the old ports, however, new ones would automatically get the port number from DNS, and for old ones you wold have to type the port manually.
Yes, there are some applications that have to use whole IP (for example, protocols other than TCP or UDP), but the need for separate IPs can be greatly reduced.
Would you like to be put behind a NAT by your ISP, because you're a mere 'internet user' on a 'home connection', so obviously you don't need incoming connections, since the ISP decided for you that those can only be bad for you?
The company I work for would gladly be behind ISPs NAT (and give away the static public IP) if that meant paying less, since we do not have any servers, and use the internet for web browsing and email, and are sitting behind a local NAT (zero forwarded ports) anyway.
On the other hand, I like my static external IP.
And I see no reason for my whole internal network to have public IPs just to have them blocked at the firewall (essentially making the same as is currently with a NAT). Also, it is difficult (if not impossible) to make windows NT4 and 2000 work with v6.
However, I have read somewhere that it is possible to have a NAT between a v4 internal network and v6 internet, so I will use it when the time comes.
The problem with IP6 is that there are millions of network devices (think printers, wireless access points, etc.) that don't run IP6...
And I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to give my printer a publicly accessible IP address that I would still need to block at my firewall. If IPv6 becomes really necessary to access the internet then I would just use a NAT that allows to access IPv6 network from a IPv4 (my internal) network (read somewhere that this type of NAT is possible).
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/crawford_september03.mspx
No More Dog Days
There are, indeed, strong feelings on both sides about the dog. Rover is the default animated character that appears when you open the Search Companion. People love it or loathe it. There seems to be very little middle ground. Fortunately, everyone can be made happy.
You didn't read that page, did you?
Usually my web pages are quite simple, but IE6 does not support some css feature or whatever, then I insert a conditional statement that IE6 executes, I have IE7 on another PC. And my first priority is Opera and Firefox, since I am using those browsers to view all websites (except windows update and bitdefender).
On the other hand I agree that people shouldn't be using IE (especially <7) for main browsing.
I still use IE6.
I use IE (any version) for exactly 3 things:
And for them, IE6 is faster than IE7.
Use NAT. Or is it possible to configure some router to somehow detect NAT and deny service for its users?
Energy usage in my room:
Tube headphone amplifier: ~20W (usually on 6-12hours/day)
Incandescent light: 40W (6-12hours/day)
21" CRT monitor: 130W (6-12hours/day)
6 PCs: ~900W (24/7)
While I could replace the incandescent bulb with a CFL (I don't because I don't like the spectrum), the power I save would be negligible, and I actually would save more power if I stopped participating in BOINC projects.
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\IniFileMapping\autorun.inf]
@="@SYS:Does_Not_Exist"
This takes care of autorun.inf once and for all, you can even keep AutoPlay if you want it.
USB storage devices aren't actually eligible for AutoPlay. However, if the device presents itself as if it were, say, a CD-ROM, it is.
If the autorun.inf file is like this:
[autorun]
open=autorun.exe
shell=explore
Shell\open=&Open
Shell\open\Command=autorun.exe
Shell\explore=&Explore
Shell\explore\Command=autorun.exe
then autorun.exe will be executed when user doubleclicks on their USB device in "My Computer". If you don't believe me - try it out...
I think this will not work on Vista or if autorun.inf reading is disabled, but it will work on XP even if AutoPlay is disabled using group policy editor.
It depends.
There are 3 cell phone providers in Lithuania, they all have almost total coverage and are very competitive, so the prices are quite low, for example:
Our currency is Litas. 1Lt=100ct, 1EUR=3.4528Lt
Omnitel (one of the companies) has a prepaid service targeted at young people who text a lot, so one SMS costs 5ct if the recipient uses the same service or 10ct if he does not. For 3Lt/month you can have 500 messages/day to those who use the same service. For 9Lt/month you can get 500 messages/day to everyone. International messages cost a lot though (45ct/message).
Calls are more expensive at 11ct/min inside the same service or 44ct/min to everyone, but as I said, this service is marketed to those who text a lot.
For a subscription (that is not prepaid) service you get some number of "free minutes" or you can use the minimal fee to make calls and/or send messages (that is, if I pay 4Lt/month and one SMS costs 9ct then if I send less than 44 messages in a month, I will pay only those 4Lt).
For more information visit Tele2 website (it has English language as an option): http://www.tele2.lt/en/services/mokejimo_planai.html
Tele2 is usually the cheapest provider, while Omnitel is the most expensive, while usually their service is better (i.e. less dropped calls etc).
Our cell phone providers compete and provide service that is quite cheap (well, cheaper than the $0.2=49ct/SMS in the US that someone wrote). Maybe the American providers just got together and agreed upon inflated prices?
P.S. I do not work for any of the companies mentioned.
When I had a phone that did not support 3G, if the phone was places near an audio amplifier I could hear noise when the phone contacted the tower. There was a contact for every incoming and outgoing text message and call, but if the phone was idle, it would contact the tower once in a few hours, so sending/receiving text messages does make the phone contact the tower more often, that means it is using more bandwidth.
SMS is also useful in the annual cell network DDoS by sending "Happy new year!" messages to all your contacts. Calling is impossible for the first few hours of the 1st of January...
Ever been on the phone with somebody who was surfing the net, and you realized that they weren't really listening to you, and when you called them on it they completely denied that they weren't not paying you attention when you knew damn well they were preoccupied?
Maybe you young whippersnappers can multitask better than I can at my creaky age (creaky technologically, anyway), but being in a conversation with someone who receives and replies to a text message more often than not stops the verbal conversation dead in its tracks until the message is sent. Maybe I'm old-fashioned or something, but I find it more rude than just stepping away for a two minute phone conversation because then, at least, there isn't the pretense that you and the person you're talking to have each other's complete attention.
On the other hand, the person who received the text message can finish his conversation with you and then reply to it. Or how about when you are watching some very interesting TV show (or news or whatever) and the phone rings? With a text message you could just reply later. Or when you have to think before replying...
Besides, I doubt that an online version of Office would run faster unless your PC is a real fossil.
MS Office 97 runs quite well on 486DX 50MHz/16MB RAM laptop with windows 95. I doubt that the online version would run better...