If they had enough capacity on their network to avoid congestion, they wouldn't *need* to prioritise anything. This appears to be running a poor network, then charging more to compensate for it.
Most of the cost of electricity is in the fixed infrastructure - power stations and the transmission lines, not the fuel (at least if you're somewhere which predominantly uses coal/nuclear, rather than gas), so the analogy isn't at all ridiculous.
Being able to deploy proxies is fine as long as you have someone to manage them. What about a home user who's only given a NATted connection by their ISP because there aren't enough IPs? If he wants to attach such a phone he'll need the ISPs cooperation in getting it to work - deployment of the appropriate proxies at their end, and so forth.
The internet has been as successful as it has because it *didn't* need the cooperation of the network to deploy new services.
That was a lengthy answer, thanks. If I understand DNS64 correctly, it forms an AAAA record based on the address of a gateway and the IPv4 address - e.g. an A record showing 1.2.3.4 goes to something like 2001:a:b::1.2.3.4, and the V6 host then sends the packets to that address instead. It would seem to make sense to supply the gateway address to the end hosts, so the hosts could do the conversion, but I guess that wouldn't be backwards compatible.
Most people will probably continue to have one ISP connected by a firewall. Instead of NAT which inherently does stateful firewalling, they'll just have a simpler stateful firewall and skip the address translation tables.
I'd rather have no separate firewall and have the security on the hosts. Since we can't expect home users to go round configuring their firewall box, either we let incoming connections through or limit the kind of applications people can use. I suppose you could adapt UPnP, but why bother? If you don't want the connections, simply don't open a listening port.
Oddly enough I typically get a 10% lower ping through my HE tunnel than with native v4. 6to4 and Teredo are much worse though, since they really need both the v4 and v6 ends to deploy gateways to avoid your packets take bizarre routes. Not many ISPs have their own 6to4 gateways, from what I've seen.
If ISPs really cared about selling an average, they could monitor the speeds customers were getting at various intervals and award them a discount based on how much lower than advertised their speed is.
Given that the lower speed is usually a technical limit of ADSL, it costs the same for the ISP whether the end user is getting 20 MBps or 2 MBps. So I can't see that idea going down well.
Does NAT64 only work with the DNS mangling? That seems a bit of a problem with the concept - plenty of applications use IPv4 addresses directly. Is there no way for a client to discover the prefix of the NAT gateway, so it can send deal with this?
Vista and 7 use IPV6 connectivity first, if it's available - that is, they'll autoconfigure IPV6 connectivity out of the box. The problem is that very few ISPs and home routers support it.
There are nudges in the right direction though, with a few ISPs seriously looking into it (e.g. Comcast). Hopefully most of the ISP provided routers will be able to be remotely patched to support V6. I don't want to end up an internet with no peer-to-peer connectivity.
Halon's less toxic than CO2 though, at the relevant concentrations necessary for putting out fires. You can't survive a CO2 flooded room but you can survive a halon flooded one, with only fairly mild effects. Not that you shouldn't avoid the exposure if possible. It was phased out because of ozone depletion issues, not because there was anything wrong with it as an extinguisher.
Having to stick on a packet header every few tens of bytes of data seems very wasteful of limited radio specrum. Wouldn't it make rather more sense to just transmit the voice data to the base station and have the other end and convert to IP there?
Voice may be a minority of data carried on land-based networks, but that true for mobile networks now as well?
All that's true, and annoying, but at least somewhat mitigated by a) the availability of diesels at reasonable prices and b) the fact that things are closer together than in the US, reducing the amount that the average Briton needs to drive. Also IIRC car insurance is more expensive in the USA.
Except that where's the evidence of injustice? To me it all seemed above board, with all sides allowed to make a fair case. The court will have had access to better information than either of us, but to me her behaviour was very suspicious, and I wasn't at all surprised that she was convicted.
A 20 year old is quite capable and responsible for crimes that she commits, so punishing one is hardly an injustice.
ISPs are providing a service. They have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to regulate what's passing through their networks, because it's their network.
Not if the public don't agree to that, they don't. If they don't like the regulation, then they shouldn't sell access to their network. Different rules apply for a private facility and one that's open to the public.
LLU works fine with poor lines, my parents have LLU (Sky) and only get 1.5 MBps. I don't think any LLU providers will refuse to serve a line that can handle 2.5 Mbps, and ADSL2+ is fine for such things - you just don't get any benefit over ADSL.
No, climate change won't go away even if people don't believe in it. But any attempts to reduce the problem will be affected by disinformation campaigns.
Anyone who says that facts speak for themselves hasn't been paying much attention to the world. Open, honestly motivated scientific inquiry only works as long as all sides are open and honest. In the battle for acceptance of ideas amongst non-experts, dirty tricks beats honesty every time. In the face of the FUD campaigns by the so-called "sceptics", non-cooperation by the scientists is only to be expected.
A vast quantity of revenue is raised by the taxes on vehicles and petrol, far more than necessary to cover the roads budget. By contrast, public transport requires considerable subsidy.
No, in general cars do not need to do 0-60 in 4sec, but they do need to do it faster than 9~10sec.
No they don't, I had no trouble safely driving a Ford Escort with a 16 second 0-60 time. Frustrating, but safe. Are the drivers where you are really so terrible they can't make room for cars joining a road? If so, better training and a tougher driving test would seem appropriate.
You are aware that ARM *started* as a computer CPU, and a desktop one at that (Acorn Archimedes)? People were doing very serious work on machines with much less power than an ARM mobile processor not so long ago.
Well, it does in the sense that the railways are subsidised by the taxpayer, and fuel duty forms part of the tax revenue.
In any case, a large number of trains run on oil. Subsidising rail may reduce the oil demand a bit (although at colossal cost compared to the benefits), but the money doesn't help make what oil extraction *is* done any cleaner or help develop any alternatives to oil.
Note that's in UK gallons, which is equivalent to $6.70 in American gallons.
This is still more than double the US price of course - but I'm not seeing much evidence that all the extra tax money raised here in the UK is actually being used to help mitigate the damaging effects of oil - it's just going into the general tax fund.
Those fuel consumption figures are OK but not amazing, especially for a diesel. A diesel of that age is also likely to produce lots of nasty particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions. So no, it's not green.
Slashdot Mirror
If they had enough capacity on their network to avoid congestion, they wouldn't *need* to prioritise anything. This appears to be running a poor network, then charging more to compensate for it.
Shame, Demon used to be a decent ISP in the 90s.
In what universe is that "standard" for a home user?
Most of the cost of electricity is in the fixed infrastructure - power stations and the transmission lines, not the fuel (at least if you're somewhere which predominantly uses coal/nuclear, rather than gas), so the analogy isn't at all ridiculous.
Being able to deploy proxies is fine as long as you have someone to manage them. What about a home user who's only given a NATted connection by their ISP because there aren't enough IPs? If he wants to attach such a phone he'll need the ISPs cooperation in getting it to work - deployment of the appropriate proxies at their end, and so forth.
The internet has been as successful as it has because it *didn't* need the cooperation of the network to deploy new services.
That was a lengthy answer, thanks. If I understand DNS64 correctly, it forms an AAAA record based on the address of a gateway and the IPv4 address - e.g. an A record showing 1.2.3.4 goes to something like 2001:a:b::1.2.3.4, and the V6 host then sends the packets to that address instead. It would seem to make sense to supply the gateway address to the end hosts, so the hosts could do the conversion, but I guess that wouldn't be backwards compatible.
Most people will probably continue to have one ISP connected by a firewall. Instead of NAT which inherently does stateful firewalling, they'll just have a simpler stateful firewall and skip the address translation tables.
I'd rather have no separate firewall and have the security on the hosts. Since we can't expect home users to go round configuring their firewall box, either we let incoming connections through or limit the kind of applications people can use. I suppose you could adapt UPnP, but why bother? If you don't want the connections, simply don't open a listening port.
Oddly enough I typically get a 10% lower ping through my HE tunnel than with native v4. 6to4 and Teredo are much worse though, since they really need both the v4 and v6 ends to deploy gateways to avoid your packets take bizarre routes. Not many ISPs have their own 6to4 gateways, from what I've seen.
If ISPs really cared about selling an average, they could monitor the speeds customers were getting at various intervals and award them a discount based on how much lower than advertised their speed is.
Given that the lower speed is usually a technical limit of ADSL, it costs the same for the ISP whether the end user is getting 20 MBps or 2 MBps. So I can't see that idea going down well.
Does NAT64 only work with the DNS mangling? That seems a bit of a problem with the concept - plenty of applications use IPv4 addresses directly. Is there no way for a client to discover the prefix of the NAT gateway, so it can send deal with this?
Vista and 7 use IPV6 connectivity first, if it's available - that is, they'll autoconfigure IPV6 connectivity out of the box. The problem is that very few ISPs and home routers support it.
There are nudges in the right direction though, with a few ISPs seriously looking into it (e.g. Comcast). Hopefully most of the ISP provided routers will be able to be remotely patched to support V6. I don't want to end up an internet with no peer-to-peer connectivity.
Halon's less toxic than CO2 though, at the relevant concentrations necessary for putting out fires. You can't survive a CO2 flooded room but you can survive a halon flooded one, with only fairly mild effects. Not that you shouldn't avoid the exposure if possible. It was phased out because of ozone depletion issues, not because there was anything wrong with it as an extinguisher.
Having to stick on a packet header every few tens of bytes of data seems very wasteful of limited radio specrum. Wouldn't it make rather more sense to just transmit the voice data to the base station and have the other end and convert to IP there?
Voice may be a minority of data carried on land-based networks, but that true for mobile networks now as well?
All that's true, and annoying, but at least somewhat mitigated by a) the availability of diesels at reasonable prices and b) the fact that things are closer together than in the US, reducing the amount that the average Briton needs to drive. Also IIRC car insurance is more expensive in the USA.
Except that where's the evidence of injustice? To me it all seemed above board, with all sides allowed to make a fair case. The court will have had access to better information than either of us, but to me her behaviour was very suspicious, and I wasn't at all surprised that she was convicted.
A 20 year old is quite capable and responsible for crimes that she commits, so punishing one is hardly an injustice.
ISPs are providing a service. They have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to regulate what's passing through their networks, because it's their network.
Not if the public don't agree to that, they don't. If they don't like the regulation, then they shouldn't sell access to their network. Different rules apply for a private facility and one that's open to the public.
Well, not really "other countries" plural, just one, Italy. Which, as the Knox trial showed, does not have a functioning justice system.
Yes, because if a foreign court finds an American guilty of something, it must be non-functional.
LLU works fine with poor lines, my parents have LLU (Sky) and only get 1.5 MBps. I don't think any LLU providers will refuse to serve a line that can handle 2.5 Mbps, and ADSL2+ is fine for such things - you just don't get any benefit over ADSL.
No, climate change won't go away even if people don't believe in it. But any attempts to reduce the problem will be affected by disinformation campaigns.
Anyone who says that facts speak for themselves hasn't been paying much attention to the world. Open, honestly motivated scientific inquiry only works as long as all sides are open and honest. In the battle for acceptance of ideas amongst non-experts, dirty tricks beats honesty every time. In the face of the FUD campaigns by the so-called "sceptics", non-cooperation by the scientists is only to be expected.
A vast quantity of revenue is raised by the taxes on vehicles and petrol, far more than necessary to cover the roads budget. By contrast, public transport requires considerable subsidy.
No, in general cars do not need to do 0-60 in 4sec, but they do need to do it faster than 9~10sec.
No they don't, I had no trouble safely driving a Ford Escort with a 16 second 0-60 time. Frustrating, but safe. Are the drivers where you are really so terrible they can't make room for cars joining a road? If so, better training and a tougher driving test would seem appropriate.
You are aware that ARM *started* as a computer CPU, and a desktop one at that (Acorn Archimedes)? People were doing very serious work on machines with much less power than an ARM mobile processor not so long ago.
Well, it does in the sense that the railways are subsidised by the taxpayer, and fuel duty forms part of the tax revenue.
In any case, a large number of trains run on oil. Subsidising rail may reduce the oil demand a bit (although at colossal cost compared to the benefits), but the money doesn't help make what oil extraction *is* done any cleaner or help develop any alternatives to oil.
Note that's in UK gallons, which is equivalent to $6.70 in American gallons.
This is still more than double the US price of course - but I'm not seeing much evidence that all the extra tax money raised here in the UK is actually being used to help mitigate the damaging effects of oil - it's just going into the general tax fund.
Not always. My O2 connection is unlimited, for example. It's usually the BT resellers that have the low limits.
Even so, I probably average about 25 GB/month. I don't know what people are doing to go over 250.
Those fuel consumption figures are OK but not amazing, especially for a diesel. A diesel of that age is also likely to produce lots of nasty particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions. So no, it's not green.