Apparently not the ones that are hogging all the class A... oops... I mean/8... address space. OTOH, you can't reach almost all the machines with those addresses, anyway.
I just booted up my Win98 hard drive (after spending 15 minutes looking for it). I tried to configure it for IPv6. It doesn't seem to have any support for IPv6. So I guess you're right. But Linux users will have to race the BSD users to get online with IPv6. I'm just waiting for ARIN to send me my address allocation.
The legacy class A assignments just became/8 assignments. Not all of them have been chopped up (other than inside the companies with those assignments). Maybe those companies should be the first to go with IPv6.
At the time the addressing plans were made, the model of computing going on was a central mainframe connected to by a bunch of terminals. And even if everyone in a company did have computer access, it was with a serial terminal. So the vision was that a company would need N+R addresses for N mainframes and R routers, or maybe 2*(N+R) for redundancy if they were really leet.
Deploy IP to the home? Only a handful of people even had a computer at home back then.
The DMA and many businesses want to spam everyone. But do they need more than a billion addresses? If all of these countries would pass laws requiring all spam (it's not spam if the actual owner of the mailbox that is signed up confirmed that they requested the mail) to only be transmitted by IPv4 (not outlawed... just told to do it by IPv4) then I bet there would suddenly be a lot of interest in IPv6.
Yes, NAT is a hack. And it works adequately for most. But is IPv6 really any better if you can't get your address space? I'm sure that if there was an incentive to switch to IPv6, more would be doing it.
If your company thinks NAT is too limited, then it should have gotten, or be getting, its own IPv6 assignment. Cite the address. If it's a case of your management not understanding the problem and the solution, give me your CEO's home phone number and I'll given him a call at 3AM and whisper into his ear "IPv6... IPv6... you want IPv6... IPv6 will make your network better, faster, cheaper... IPv6... do IPv6 now".
Create an incentive for IPv6. It's simple. Start making permanent portable IPv6 address assignments to anyone willing to actually deploy IPv6 quickly. The rules could be that whoever receives the assignment must have their network configured for IPv6, and their principle servers responding to IPv6 addresses, within 6 months, and must shut off IPv4 on a common cutover date which will be not earlier than 12 months after the first date these assignments are available, and will be announced specifically with a 6 month lead time. Anyone who fails to complete those steps on deadline loses their permanent assignment and then has to qualify for an assignment under the usual rules and get all new addresses. If that won't get ISPs and other networks to move forward, then I'd say IPv6 is dead and we should move on to IPv7 and really do it right.
IPv6 is fundamentally broken. The routing system for it does not scale to the same level the address space does. There are enough addresses for everyone to have their own portable/64 assignment (if not larger), but IPv6 can't handle the routing. The routing technology was not improved to scale up, even though it could have been done (although I don't know if it can be done with the way IPv6 was designed). But that's not a valid excuse for not having scalable routing as the IP layer structure could have been designed to allow for it. Wedging another layer in below IP for IPv6 might also work, but I think we would be better off waiting for a clean re-design, perhaps to be called IPv7 (and pushing them to hurry up with it).
If you don't believe me, just post a call for portable address assignments in IPv6 for everyone. You're get plenty of responses saying that the routing can't handle it. And that is the problem.
I've often wondered this too. What the heck do people do to get themselves in the 100+ spams per day situation?
That's a very good question. But the answer is a strange one. My mail server receives hundreds of spam attempts every day for an accumulated set of several hundred email addresses that have never even existed. Some of them look like dictionary or name list attacks where the spammer tries a few common names (they try more on the larger ISPs, I think). Some of these addresses are rather distinctive. I took one of the distinctive ones and did some google searching. I managed to not only figure out where the spammer probably harvested the address, but I also tracked down who probably submitted the address with a forged domain name to the web board I found it on, including their real email address. Given the reality of it being spammed, I can't say that I blame them for not giving their real address. And no, I did not forward all their spam to them.
As for my primary email address, to which 50 to 200 spams are attempted daily, it's been around for years and was used in lots of Usenet posts and several domain registrations. It's probably on most spam CDs.
You are not alone. There are lots of people that never get any spam. For 4 years, my mother never received any spam whatsoever. She used her email address at a small ISP only to exchange email with family. I told her long ago to never use her address when providing input to web sites. Later she opened an AOL account and got another email address. She gave out that address over the telephone to a couple of companies. By the year she died, she was getting about 5 spams a day on that AOL address while still none on the small ISP address. There's no telling how the spammers got it. She wanted to blame AOL. I wasn't so sure about that.
I've used coded addresses for every different place I give out an email address for the past 2 years. So far, only one of those coded addresses has received any spam. That was the address I used on monster.com (which has probably leaked on the recruiter/employer side of the site). My primary address, which I have been using for years before, and is the one my domains are associated with as well, gets 50 to 200 spams a day, typically. I've seen peaks of over 1500 a day generally caused by some very abusive spammers (almost all of that 1500 from the same spammer, apparently). My filtering is based only on the IP address or domain name of the sending mail server (i.e. I do not use any content filtering at all). Up until about a couple weeks ago I was seeing about 1 spam leak through a week. Over the past 2 weeks I've been getting about 2 to 3 leak through a day. I've also noticed a big rise in the number of spams through May 2003. Spammers seem to be getting more aggressive.
What if you were already working for another ISP? Would they simply have fired him for that? Sounds to me like a situation a land shark would love to get involved in for free. Make sure that in the future, neither of you ever sign any NCA. If they fire him for that he has a case. If they fire him for who you work for, he has a bigger case. If they sue you for working for a competitor, you have an even bigger case since you aren't even a party to the agreement at all.
Then that's a case of the company having decided to have a policy that requires an NCA of employees, and not a matter of ISO. The role of ISO certification, then, is simply making sure that whatever company policy exists that people actually do it. Shame on a company that would let things happen any other way than whatever the policy is. What ISO seems to be ensuring is consistent application of policy (or at least a better attempt at it). But someone saying that ISO requires an NCA to be signed is wrong. It would be a company policy that requires an NCA to be signed, and ISO simply requires people to follow the policy.
Then that's not ISO requiring it. And even if someone declines to sign it, that isn't a violation of a requirement to keep all records, since that isn't an item to record. If management decides that NCAs are required, that's a management decision. Even if they decided that the NCAs that are signed are essential paperwork, that's different than deciding that everyone has to sign one. Maybe they only want them for people on a specific project. And maybe they won't fire someone who declines to sign it (and therefore there isn't any paperwork to keep aside from a notation a particular employee decided not to sign). I would think NDAs would be more important, anyway.
That discovery process will have to be repeated for each and every case they pursue against everyone else. At some point, it will surely leak out. I have already found some suspicious code in the kernel, anyway. Most of it can be easily removed.
Or... it might not leak, but someone will say it has, and say that the kernel has had it removed in the next version. Two can play this game. Of course SCO will deny that.
What I'd like to see is for Linus himself to sue SCO and pursue the discovery process. What's the judge going to do? Tell Linus to not remove the SCO code from the kernel (assuming there is validity to the SCO claim)?
What I want to see is that in cases where the employer is imposing an NCA that precludes you from working in your field, that they pay the FULL AMOUNT of the unemployment benefits for as long as the NCA is in effect (for a lifetime if that's what they wrote the NCA terms for), and that this time period not be counted against you for purposes of drawing on unemployment after the term of the NCA is overwith. So that means, if you qualify for 1.5 years of unemployment benefits, and your employer is imposing a 5 year NCA, then you have a total of up to 6.5 years of unemployment benefits, and the unemployment benefits fund only has to pay the last 1.5 years of that. Then the company can, at any time, write a letter to you and the agency processing the unemployment, stating they are nullifying or ending the NCA terms, and won't have to pay at that point any more than if they had routinely let you go, and you then begin normal unemployment benefits, free to take any job you can find. The unemployment system should NOT be required to carry the burden of these NCA practices.
But if the company pursues the case anyway, and tries to drag you into court over it, while you are trying to pay off all the debts you incurred during the period of unemployment before you got a low paying job at their competitor, then what lawyer is going to help defend you for free?
Yes, I am aware that an employer pays part of the unemployment. What I would rather see, though, is that the employer be required to pay the full amount, including all administrative fees, in addition to the regular amount paid into the unemployment fund. The idea here is that you won't actually draw money from the unemployment fund itself, for the duration of the NCA term, and thus it doesn't count against the amount of time you are allowed to draw from unemployment. So for example, if you would qualify for say, 18 months of unemployment normally, and your NCA prevents you from working (assuming it is enforceable, which has serious doubts) for 12 months, then you would actually receive a total of up to 30 months of benefits. The first 12 months would be from the employer who holds the NCA over you, and the normal unemployment requirements about seeking work won't even apply. The remaining 18 months would be directly on unemployment, and the clock would work as if you were employed for the time frame the employer pays you. And the amount you are paid for sitting at home and not competing would be either 50% of your working pay, or the actual unemployment benefits level, whichever is larger.
Well, that's my dream anyway. It's not likely to ever happen. Fortunately, NCA's have doubtful enforceability, though in some cases people have been harassed because of them.
What the hell did the lawyer letters actually demand that you do? Or did you not even get that far before tossing them? If it was me, I'd have put them up on a website called www.${companyname}-wants-me-to-quit-my-job.com. Maybe you still can.
As for the legal fees, do check up on your credit report. If they have placed derogatory items on your credit report, then it may be time to sue them.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently not the ones that are hogging all the class A ... oops ... I mean /8 ... address space. OTOH, you can't reach almost all the machines with those addresses, anyway.
I just booted up my Win98 hard drive (after spending 15 minutes looking for it). I tried to configure it for IPv6. It doesn't seem to have any support for IPv6. So I guess you're right. But Linux users will have to race the BSD users to get online with IPv6. I'm just waiting for ARIN to send me my address allocation.
You had to have a class to learn how to configure IPv6? I take it your job there wasn't very technical.
But IPv6 wasn't designed to solve the other problem, which is to be able to scale the routing up as large as the address space it brings.
The legacy class A assignments just became /8 assignments. Not all of them have been chopped up (other than inside the companies with those assignments). Maybe those companies should be the first to go with IPv6.
At the time the addressing plans were made, the model of computing going on was a central mainframe connected to by a bunch of terminals. And even if everyone in a company did have computer access, it was with a serial terminal. So the vision was that a company would need N+R addresses for N mainframes and R routers, or maybe 2*(N+R) for redundancy if they were really leet.
Deploy IP to the home? Only a handful of people even had a computer at home back then.
The DMA and many businesses want to spam everyone. But do they need more than a billion addresses? If all of these countries would pass laws requiring all spam (it's not spam if the actual owner of the mailbox that is signed up confirmed that they requested the mail) to only be transmitted by IPv4 (not outlawed ... just told to do it by IPv4) then I bet there would suddenly be a lot of interest in IPv6.
IPv6 has already run out of available permanent address prefixes for routing. That's because it's routing infrastructure is broken.
Yes, NAT is a hack. And it works adequately for most. But is IPv6 really any better if you can't get your address space? I'm sure that if there was an incentive to switch to IPv6, more would be doing it.
If your company thinks NAT is too limited, then it should have gotten, or be getting, its own IPv6 assignment. Cite the address. If it's a case of your management not understanding the problem and the solution, give me your CEO's home phone number and I'll given him a call at 3AM and whisper into his ear "IPv6 ... IPv6 ... you want IPv6 ... IPv6 will make your network better, faster, cheaper ... IPv6 ... do IPv6 now".
Create an incentive for IPv6. It's simple. Start making permanent portable IPv6 address assignments to anyone willing to actually deploy IPv6 quickly. The rules could be that whoever receives the assignment must have their network configured for IPv6, and their principle servers responding to IPv6 addresses, within 6 months, and must shut off IPv4 on a common cutover date which will be not earlier than 12 months after the first date these assignments are available, and will be announced specifically with a 6 month lead time. Anyone who fails to complete those steps on deadline loses their permanent assignment and then has to qualify for an assignment under the usual rules and get all new addresses. If that won't get ISPs and other networks to move forward, then I'd say IPv6 is dead and we should move on to IPv7 and really do it right.
IPv6 is fundamentally broken. The routing system for it does not scale to the same level the address space does. There are enough addresses for everyone to have their own portable /64 assignment (if not larger), but IPv6 can't handle the routing. The routing technology was not improved to scale up, even though it could have been done (although I don't know if it can be done with the way IPv6 was designed). But that's not a valid excuse for not having scalable routing as the IP layer structure could have been designed to allow for it. Wedging another layer in below IP for IPv6 might also work, but I think we would be better off waiting for a clean re-design, perhaps to be called IPv7 (and pushing them to hurry up with it).
If you don't believe me, just post a call for portable address assignments in IPv6 for everyone. You're get plenty of responses saying that the routing can't handle it. And that is the problem.
After you move, get your next DSL through Speakeasy. They will delegate RDNS to static IPs if you ask.
That's a very good question. But the answer is a strange one. My mail server receives hundreds of spam attempts every day for an accumulated set of several hundred email addresses that have never even existed. Some of them look like dictionary or name list attacks where the spammer tries a few common names (they try more on the larger ISPs, I think). Some of these addresses are rather distinctive. I took one of the distinctive ones and did some google searching. I managed to not only figure out where the spammer probably harvested the address, but I also tracked down who probably submitted the address with a forged domain name to the web board I found it on, including their real email address. Given the reality of it being spammed, I can't say that I blame them for not giving their real address. And no, I did not forward all their spam to them.
As for my primary email address, to which 50 to 200 spams are attempted daily, it's been around for years and was used in lots of Usenet posts and several domain registrations. It's probably on most spam CDs.
You are not alone. There are lots of people that never get any spam. For 4 years, my mother never received any spam whatsoever. She used her email address at a small ISP only to exchange email with family. I told her long ago to never use her address when providing input to web sites. Later she opened an AOL account and got another email address. She gave out that address over the telephone to a couple of companies. By the year she died, she was getting about 5 spams a day on that AOL address while still none on the small ISP address. There's no telling how the spammers got it. She wanted to blame AOL. I wasn't so sure about that.
I've used coded addresses for every different place I give out an email address for the past 2 years. So far, only one of those coded addresses has received any spam. That was the address I used on monster.com (which has probably leaked on the recruiter/employer side of the site). My primary address, which I have been using for years before, and is the one my domains are associated with as well, gets 50 to 200 spams a day, typically. I've seen peaks of over 1500 a day generally caused by some very abusive spammers (almost all of that 1500 from the same spammer, apparently). My filtering is based only on the IP address or domain name of the sending mail server (i.e. I do not use any content filtering at all). Up until about a couple weeks ago I was seeing about 1 spam leak through a week. Over the past 2 weeks I've been getting about 2 to 3 leak through a day. I've also noticed a big rise in the number of spams through May 2003. Spammers seem to be getting more aggressive.
What if you were already working for another ISP? Would they simply have fired him for that? Sounds to me like a situation a land shark would love to get involved in for free. Make sure that in the future, neither of you ever sign any NCA. If they fire him for that he has a case. If they fire him for who you work for, he has a bigger case. If they sue you for working for a competitor, you have an even bigger case since you aren't even a party to the agreement at all.
I wish you could name the company.
Then that's a case of the company having decided to have a policy that requires an NCA of employees, and not a matter of ISO. The role of ISO certification, then, is simply making sure that whatever company policy exists that people actually do it. Shame on a company that would let things happen any other way than whatever the policy is. What ISO seems to be ensuring is consistent application of policy (or at least a better attempt at it). But someone saying that ISO requires an NCA to be signed is wrong. It would be a company policy that requires an NCA to be signed, and ISO simply requires people to follow the policy.
Then that's not ISO requiring it. And even if someone declines to sign it, that isn't a violation of a requirement to keep all records, since that isn't an item to record. If management decides that NCAs are required, that's a management decision. Even if they decided that the NCAs that are signed are essential paperwork, that's different than deciding that everyone has to sign one. Maybe they only want them for people on a specific project. And maybe they won't fire someone who declines to sign it (and therefore there isn't any paperwork to keep aside from a notation a particular employee decided not to sign). I would think NDAs would be more important, anyway.
That discovery process will have to be repeated for each and every case they pursue against everyone else. At some point, it will surely leak out. I have already found some suspicious code in the kernel, anyway. Most of it can be easily removed.
Or ... it might not leak, but someone will say it has, and say that the kernel has had it removed in the next version. Two can play this game. Of course SCO will deny that.
What I'd like to see is for Linus himself to sue SCO and pursue the discovery process. What's the judge going to do? Tell Linus to not remove the SCO code from the kernel (assuming there is validity to the SCO claim)?
Yes, they DO pay ... but not enough.
What I want to see is that in cases where the employer is imposing an NCA that precludes you from working in your field, that they pay the FULL AMOUNT of the unemployment benefits for as long as the NCA is in effect (for a lifetime if that's what they wrote the NCA terms for), and that this time period not be counted against you for purposes of drawing on unemployment after the term of the NCA is overwith. So that means, if you qualify for 1.5 years of unemployment benefits, and your employer is imposing a 5 year NCA, then you have a total of up to 6.5 years of unemployment benefits, and the unemployment benefits fund only has to pay the last 1.5 years of that. Then the company can, at any time, write a letter to you and the agency processing the unemployment, stating they are nullifying or ending the NCA terms, and won't have to pay at that point any more than if they had routinely let you go, and you then begin normal unemployment benefits, free to take any job you can find. The unemployment system should NOT be required to carry the burden of these NCA practices.
But if the company pursues the case anyway, and tries to drag you into court over it, while you are trying to pay off all the debts you incurred during the period of unemployment before you got a low paying job at their competitor, then what lawyer is going to help defend you for free?
Yes, I am aware that an employer pays part of the unemployment. What I would rather see, though, is that the employer be required to pay the full amount, including all administrative fees, in addition to the regular amount paid into the unemployment fund. The idea here is that you won't actually draw money from the unemployment fund itself, for the duration of the NCA term, and thus it doesn't count against the amount of time you are allowed to draw from unemployment. So for example, if you would qualify for say, 18 months of unemployment normally, and your NCA prevents you from working (assuming it is enforceable, which has serious doubts) for 12 months, then you would actually receive a total of up to 30 months of benefits. The first 12 months would be from the employer who holds the NCA over you, and the normal unemployment requirements about seeking work won't even apply. The remaining 18 months would be directly on unemployment, and the clock would work as if you were employed for the time frame the employer pays you. And the amount you are paid for sitting at home and not competing would be either 50% of your working pay, or the actual unemployment benefits level, whichever is larger.
Well, that's my dream anyway. It's not likely to ever happen. Fortunately, NCA's have doubtful enforceability, though in some cases people have been harassed because of them.
But don't ask your employer. Ask your own lawyer to get an answer in your best interest.
What the hell did the lawyer letters actually demand that you do? Or did you not even get that far before tossing them? If it was me, I'd have put them up on a website called www.${companyname}-wants-me-to-quit-my-job.com. Maybe you still can.
As for the legal fees, do check up on your credit report. If they have placed derogatory items on your credit report, then it may be time to sue them.
ISO certification requires this? Now that's getting really absurd. I smell a whole new story there.