For corporate clients that you don't want on the internet, firewalls which are no less complicated to configure than any NAT setup, can be used.
This statement leads me to believe you've never looked at a corporate firewall policy, much less an actual ruleset. I've seen a few dozen, from medium to large enterprises. And I can't count the number of times I've seen rules that would leave them wide-open were it not for their NAT to a private address space. In all cases this was accidental, as it left some number of internal hosts exposed. However, it had slipped through because of old rules or some typo.
Current routing hardware can handle it just fine.
I'm not so certain of this. However, I'd like to see the information you are basing your assessment on.
A decade ago, the internet was made up of peers.
Yes, and the traffic (and security threats) were trivial compared to now. That's why I'm saying that an IPV6 migration requires very careful consideration.
Actually, that article supports my point that MS appears to be playing it straight this time. Think about it, all four previous proposals were shot down almost immediately as transparent attempts to get around the ruling. However, after looking at several documents and the patent commitment, I can't find a hole yet. To my knowledge no one else has either.
Now, this isn't to say I entirely trust them. My style is more "trust but verify." However, so far this appears to be the real deal. Until there's good reason to think otherwise our reaction should be cautiously optimistic, because a positive response could encourage good behavior in the future.
Of course, I hope the EU rails them if this turns out to be another ruse.
Actually, IPV6 in it's current form could make things a lot worse. At least NAT forces organizations to manage their internal address space and keeps some of the routing burden off our backbone. It also provides some extra security by keeping all those soft targets (client workstations) off the big bad Internet, even when people make a mess of their firewall.
Now think about that fact that IPV6 bumps up the address space 2^96 times. Imagine the burden that will place on routing tables. Imagine how many more nodes will pop up when you consider that people don't feel the need to hassle with NAT. Think about the routing overhead and the security nightmares that could result.
Without very careful consideration IPV6 could knock the Internet back a decade. It makes sense when you consider that it was designed to meet the problems of a decade ago. Now, I'm not saying it's bad, but it certainly has the potential to go that way. So caution is certainly warranted.
First, pull the plug on all those AdSense garbage and "Domain Parking" sites. That'll free up a bunch.
Not so much. The vast majority of those sites are on shared web hosting that use one IP for a potentially unlimited number of hosts. And since most of those servers also host legitimate sites, getting rid of them wouldn't change address utilization at all.
Well, they do have a really bad track record. But this time I genuinely think they're playing it straight. The EU is putting so much pressure on them that they don't have a choice not too. So, personally, I'd like to credit them for finally moving towards a level playing field, even it was done at gunpoint.
To be fair, an intelligently designed AJAX site can delay load content and, as a result, consume less bandwidth than a static site. Although, I admit that you rarely see this in practice.
Slashdot Mirror
This statement leads me to believe you've never looked at a corporate firewall policy, much less an actual ruleset. I've seen a few dozen, from medium to large enterprises. And I can't count the number of times I've seen rules that would leave them wide-open were it not for their NAT to a private address space. In all cases this was accidental, as it left some number of internal hosts exposed. However, it had slipped through because of old rules or some typo.
I'm not so certain of this. However, I'd like to see the information you are basing your assessment on.
Yes, and the traffic (and security threats) were trivial compared to now. That's why I'm saying that an IPV6 migration requires very careful consideration.
Actually, that article supports my point that MS appears to be playing it straight this time. Think about it, all four previous proposals were shot down almost immediately as transparent attempts to get around the ruling. However, after looking at several documents and the patent commitment, I can't find a hole yet. To my knowledge no one else has either.
Now, this isn't to say I entirely trust them. My style is more "trust but verify." However, so far this appears to be the real deal. Until there's good reason to think otherwise our reaction should be cautiously optimistic, because a positive response could encourage good behavior in the future.
Of course, I hope the EU rails them if this turns out to be another ruse.
Actually, IPV6 in it's current form could make things a lot worse. At least NAT forces organizations to manage their internal address space and keeps some of the routing burden off our backbone. It also provides some extra security by keeping all those soft targets (client workstations) off the big bad Internet, even when people make a mess of their firewall.
Now think about that fact that IPV6 bumps up the address space 2^96 times. Imagine the burden that will place on routing tables. Imagine how many more nodes will pop up when you consider that people don't feel the need to hassle with NAT. Think about the routing overhead and the security nightmares that could result.
Without very careful consideration IPV6 could knock the Internet back a decade. It makes sense when you consider that it was designed to meet the problems of a decade ago. Now, I'm not saying it's bad, but it certainly has the potential to go that way. So caution is certainly warranted.
Not so much. The vast majority of those sites are on shared web hosting that use one IP for a potentially unlimited number of hosts. And since most of those servers also host legitimate sites, getting rid of them wouldn't change address utilization at all.
Well, they do have a really bad track record. But this time I genuinely think they're playing it straight. The EU is putting so much pressure on them that they don't have a choice not too. So, personally, I'd like to credit them for finally moving towards a level playing field, even it was done at gunpoint.
To be fair, an intelligently designed AJAX site can delay load content and, as a result, consume less bandwidth than a static site. Although, I admit that you rarely see this in practice.