The proper way to route should never have a big fat routing table. Apparently IPv6 didn't solve the classic routing problems that IPv4 has, probably because IPv4 was hitting other limitations first. If we're going to have non-portable address space to limit the size of routing tables, then what's the point of even going to IPv6 at all?
Lack of portability isn't inherint in the design of IPv6... it's a function of the backwards thinking by bureacrats left over from IPv4. Most businesses only want portable space (at least once they understand the issues).
Let's see. How about a bargain basement price of US$0.01 per address. A small block of IPv6 has 4294967296 addresses. That's $42,949,672.96 Quite a killing there. Too bad it's IPv6 itself that's going to be killed.
All I need is a block of about 256 addresses in IPv6. Why is that so f***ing hard for the allocators to do? They need to stop thinking in terms of IPv4 to allocate IPv6 space.
This is exactly why IPv6 currently sucks. There's almost no benefit to it unless you can get portable space. And the allocation process for IPv6 is even more difficult than for IPv4. Sure you can get a lot more numbers... if you can get anything at all. The problem is you can't even get portable address space.
I'd like to try out IPv6, probably using tunneling for now. But I want to get the address space NOW that I will keep FOR ALL TIME. They are not letting that happen. And that is what I think will be the biggest roadblock to IPv6 acceptance.
Everyone will get ONE address block in IPv6 now, instead of a zillion routeable pieces of IPv4. The problem is, the definition of everyone is now much larger. If more people (and companies) have a portablely routeable address space, they're gonna want to be routed to. And that means you (owner of an IPv6 portable routed block) are probably gonna "own" about 20 bytes in every core and border router. How many of these blocks do you think there will be?
Suing you is too much trouble. Adding your server to RSS would be easier if it were mine to control. Oh wait. It is. Sorta. I have a shadow zone of my own for RBL/RSS/DUL zones. Wow, I have the power. I can block anyone I want. I can open up anyone I want. So actually I don't have to choose just between all or nothing. I can block you if I want. Or I can let you back in if RSS blocks you.
Have you made sure you're not an open relay? I've heard it's not trivial to do with old sendmails. I abandoned sendmail back around 8.8 or so, when it was too much trouble to keep hacking sendmail.cf to keep all the tricks of the spammers out, and now run Postfix.
Then, as they say, choose another ISP. And if there isn't one, start one. Do you think there are enough customers to make it float? Ask around. Maybe there are. If your ISP pisses off enough people, you'll have investors clamoring for your technical skills in making it work.
Spam is a network integrity reason. If it isn't stopped or controlled, it will expand beyond the limits of network capacity and deny services to legitimate customers, or increase their costs.
How do you define a major backbone? And what makes you think a major backbone somehow isn't paying the cost of the spam bandwidth and having to charge that bandwidth cost back to their customers?
Your analog presumes that it is possible to identify what city someone comes from, but is otherwise unable to tell if they are a speeder. The circumstances needed to make that analog match would be so bizarre that I don't think anything else would be realistic.
Even backbones are businesses who can choose who they take on as customers and who they peer with. And there are choices.
That's fine if you live in New York City, and have lots of options. What if you live in Podunk, Utah, and there's only a couple of ISPs operating locally? If all those ISPs have the same policy, then you have a great business opportunity to offer a service to all the people that don't give a shit about the spam they get and only care for total access to everywhere.
If some city were the origination of massive numbers of phone connections that was depriving people of the use of their phones, and the telco in that city was not acting effectively to prevent the problem, then by all means they should drop said city until the problem gets corrected. They should not only be allowed to do this, but required to.
Of course this is less likely to happen for phone calls than for internet spam, due to the pricing and charging structures involved. But if it did happen, that would be the analogy. If the ISPs that allow spam to come from their customers had to pay for it, you can bet they would suddenly "find" a means to stop it (or else extract the cost for said customer).
Re:Jsut how smart is "smart'?
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 2
There was a story a while back about a company (not sure if it was cable or DSL) that was doing similar bandwidth monitoring. When they did find someone going over their levels for a month, even by 40% over, they would also have sales contact them about an "upgrade". But the upgrade was a change from around $35 a month to over $300 a month.
If you have a big pipe to the consumer, and can monitor their usage accurately, then you really can put them in incremental tiers of service level. If they need (want) twice the bandwidth, then double the bandwidth part of the cost. Let customers set their own levels with their wallets! Why not?
And if you're going to fall back on saying the software can't do that, yet, then let's get together and go over to the development department and kick some pointy haired arse because the software should have been able to do that right from the start, and any good developer would be able to do that easily if management had wanted it.
Re:Jsut how smart is "smart'?
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 2
How much more bandwidth, and how much more cost? I'm just curious if this offering is priced appropriately. Also, if the tier step is too steep, I can see why the customers are wanting to cheat on you. Of course if you were charging per usage, they wouldn't be cheating, although I suspect they might not like that (since they would have to pay for what they get).
Re:Jsut how smart is "smart'?
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 2
Did you give that customer the option for a higher bandwidth contract, say at double the price for double the bandwidth? If so, then I would agree thc customer is cheating you. But if not, then I think you're in the wrong and the contract is agreed to under duress. If the physical link can handle 10 meg up, and the customer wants to use 10 meg up, and pays you for it, then adjust your core pipe accordingly, make more profits, and be a nice guy. Of course you need to use QOS either way.
It does not matter where the data comes from. The situation would be the same as long as they have a legal right to a copy of the data (they probably do). Gracenote is arguing that they are providing a service of having collected the data together in one place, cleaned it up, organized and indexed it, and provide a service mechanism to deliver it. That's all fine and good. And it might even be a good thing that they are doing, since they do need to pay for the computer and the connectivity.
The problem is in their expectation of having monopoly rights over the whole concept enough to sue someone who chooses to go to the competition. Unless they can show that the competition specifically is violating some intellectual property belonging to Gracenote. The question now is, does FreeDB do that? I don't know because I have not looked. Is Roxio using Gracenote's code to access FreeDB? I don't know because I have not looked. But Gracenote did not come out and clearly assert these things were the case, so therefore I will assume that neither is true.
That only leaves me to believe that Gracenote is upset because probably their business plan depends on the notion that they will have a monopoly on this market. I suggest a call for a Justice Department investigation into such a monopoly. If Gracenote thinks they have a legal right to be a monopoly (e.g. through specific intellectual property), then they should say so and say what that is.
Lots of projects vary in size. The problem with a 5000 LOC project is that contract brokers never take them, so they are never outsourced. There's not enough revenue in 5000 LOC for a broker to mess with. They either get done in-house, or not at all.
But some aspects of XP can still work on small projects. The iterative cycle is one of them. Pair programming obviously is not.
Pair programming is NOT the same as a collaboration meeting. I've done development where we did collaboration every 1 to 2 days, assigned tasks, rotated tasks, and everyone went off to do their own thing (no pair programming... there were only 4 people). On very large and very complex system, I assume there is a point where pair programming is a win. On smaller projects, there certainly is a point where it is a big lose.
Based on a talk I heard recently about XP, it was mostly designed for very large projects, and seemed to also be for those kinds of projects where a customer contracts out for custom development, where 20 or more people are needed.
But the iterative design/code/test cycles are good even on small projects. I know because I have done that, or things very much like that, all through my programming career (without really know a name for it other than "it makes sense and it works"). Many of my projects simply never came back with bug reports, and the rest very few, when I did things this way.
And this shit happens, too (in case you haven't been reading the news the past several years).
Part of the problem is that we (schools and parents) often do nothing at all for the incremental problems kids get into, then suddenly lash out when it "goes too far". Then the kid is surprised because he only pushed the envelope a tad bit further in his mind.
If we end up making a lot of kids want to die, and if it also happens to be the case that some of these kids build up extreme hatred at the same time because of an abusive social culture in the school (frequently supported by the school administration), and if these same kids are also not taught an overhwhelming level of morality and ethics, and if these (very smart) kids know where to get a gun........
Slashdot Mirror
The proper way to route should never have a big fat routing table. Apparently IPv6 didn't solve the classic routing problems that IPv4 has, probably because IPv4 was hitting other limitations first. If we're going to have non-portable address space to limit the size of routing tables, then what's the point of even going to IPv6 at all?
I want portable permanent IP space w/o an archaic routing system. IPv6's routing does not appear to be the solution.
Lack of portability isn't inherint in the design of IPv6 ... it's a function of the backwards thinking by bureacrats left over from IPv4. Most businesses only want portable space (at least once they understand the issues).
Let's see. How about a bargain basement price of US$0.01 per address. A small block of IPv6 has 4294967296 addresses. That's $42,949,672.96 Quite a killing there. Too bad it's IPv6 itself that's going to be killed.
All I need is a block of about 256 addresses in IPv6. Why is that so f***ing hard for the allocators to do? They need to stop thinking in terms of IPv4 to allocate IPv6 space.
So can I get my portable life-time IPv6 allocation from NTT?
This is exactly why IPv6 currently sucks. There's almost no benefit to it unless you can get portable space. And the allocation process for IPv6 is even more difficult than for IPv4. Sure you can get a lot more numbers ... if you can get anything at all. The problem is you can't even get portable address space.
I'd like to try out IPv6, probably using tunneling for now. But I want to get the address space NOW that I will keep FOR ALL TIME. They are not letting that happen. And that is what I think will be the biggest roadblock to IPv6 acceptance.
Everyone will get ONE address block in IPv6 now, instead of a zillion routeable pieces of IPv4. The problem is, the definition of everyone is now much larger. If more people (and companies) have a portablely routeable address space, they're gonna want to be routed to. And that means you (owner of an IPv6 portable routed block) are probably gonna "own" about 20 bytes in every core and border router. How many of these blocks do you think there will be?
Suing you is too much trouble. Adding your server to RSS would be easier if it were mine to control. Oh wait. It is. Sorta. I have a shadow zone of my own for RBL/RSS/DUL zones. Wow, I have the power. I can block anyone I want. I can open up anyone I want. So actually I don't have to choose just between all or nothing. I can block you if I want. Or I can let you back in if RSS blocks you.
Have you made sure you're not an open relay? I've heard it's not trivial to do with old sendmails. I abandoned sendmail back around 8.8 or so, when it was too much trouble to keep hacking sendmail.cf to keep all the tricks of the spammers out, and now run Postfix.
Then, as they say, choose another ISP. And if there isn't one, start one. Do you think there are enough customers to make it float? Ask around. Maybe there are. If your ISP pisses off enough people, you'll have investors clamoring for your technical skills in making it work.
Spam is a network integrity reason. If it isn't stopped or controlled, it will expand beyond the limits of network capacity and deny services to legitimate customers, or increase their costs.
The first 2 are a matter of law, so businesses can't just choose to ignore the law.
In the 3rd example, they actually do have this right. A trucking business certainly has the right to not carry goods to or from Montana.
How do you define a major backbone? And what makes you think a major backbone somehow isn't paying the cost of the spam bandwidth and having to charge that bandwidth cost back to their customers?
Your analog presumes that it is possible to identify what city someone comes from, but is otherwise unable to tell if they are a speeder. The circumstances needed to make that analog match would be so bizarre that I don't think anything else would be realistic.
Even backbones are businesses who can choose who they take on as customers and who they peer with. And there are choices.
That's fine if you live in New York City, and have lots of options. What if you live in Podunk, Utah, and there's only a couple of ISPs operating locally? If all those ISPs have the same policy, then you have a great business opportunity to offer a service to all the people that don't give a shit about the spam they get and only care for total access to everywhere.
Get a T1. You know you want it.
Then you need to do 2 things:
- Choose an ISP that doesn't block places on the net.
- Choose an ISP that doesn't do the kinds of things that would get themselves blocked.
Now if you happen to be a spammer, you're not going to be able to succeed with the 2nd item.If some city were the origination of massive numbers of phone connections that was depriving people of the use of their phones, and the telco in that city was not acting effectively to prevent the problem, then by all means they should drop said city until the problem gets corrected. They should not only be allowed to do this, but required to.
Of course this is less likely to happen for phone calls than for internet spam, due to the pricing and charging structures involved. But if it did happen, that would be the analogy. If the ISPs that allow spam to come from their customers had to pay for it, you can bet they would suddenly "find" a means to stop it (or else extract the cost for said customer).
There was a story a while back about a company (not sure if it was cable or DSL) that was doing similar bandwidth monitoring. When they did find someone going over their levels for a month, even by 40% over, they would also have sales contact them about an "upgrade". But the upgrade was a change from around $35 a month to over $300 a month.
If you have a big pipe to the consumer, and can monitor their usage accurately, then you really can put them in incremental tiers of service level. If they need (want) twice the bandwidth, then double the bandwidth part of the cost. Let customers set their own levels with their wallets! Why not?
And if you're going to fall back on saying the software can't do that, yet, then let's get together and go over to the development department and kick some pointy haired arse because the software should have been able to do that right from the start, and any good developer would be able to do that easily if management had wanted it.
How much more bandwidth, and how much more cost? I'm just curious if this offering is priced appropriately. Also, if the tier step is too steep, I can see why the customers are wanting to cheat on you. Of course if you were charging per usage, they wouldn't be cheating, although I suspect they might not like that (since they would have to pay for what they get).
Did you give that customer the option for a higher bandwidth contract, say at double the price for double the bandwidth? If so, then I would agree thc customer is cheating you. But if not, then I think you're in the wrong and the contract is agreed to under duress. If the physical link can handle 10 meg up, and the customer wants to use 10 meg up, and pays you for it, then adjust your core pipe accordingly, make more profits, and be a nice guy. Of course you need to use QOS either way.
It does not matter where the data comes from. The situation would be the same as long as they have a legal right to a copy of the data (they probably do). Gracenote is arguing that they are providing a service of having collected the data together in one place, cleaned it up, organized and indexed it, and provide a service mechanism to deliver it. That's all fine and good. And it might even be a good thing that they are doing, since they do need to pay for the computer and the connectivity.
The problem is in their expectation of having monopoly rights over the whole concept enough to sue someone who chooses to go to the competition. Unless they can show that the competition specifically is violating some intellectual property belonging to Gracenote. The question now is, does FreeDB do that? I don't know because I have not looked. Is Roxio using Gracenote's code to access FreeDB? I don't know because I have not looked. But Gracenote did not come out and clearly assert these things were the case, so therefore I will assume that neither is true.
That only leaves me to believe that Gracenote is upset because probably their business plan depends on the notion that they will have a monopoly on this market. I suggest a call for a Justice Department investigation into such a monopoly. If Gracenote thinks they have a legal right to be a monopoly (e.g. through specific intellectual property), then they should say so and say what that is.
FYI IANAL BIPOO/.
Some of XP can work. Obviously pair programming is a problem with just one person. But iterative cycles do work well.
Lots of projects vary in size. The problem with a 5000 LOC project is that contract brokers never take them, so they are never outsourced. There's not enough revenue in 5000 LOC for a broker to mess with. They either get done in-house, or not at all.
But some aspects of XP can still work on small projects. The iterative cycle is one of them. Pair programming obviously is not.
Pair programming is NOT the same as a collaboration meeting. I've done development where we did collaboration every 1 to 2 days, assigned tasks, rotated tasks, and everyone went off to do their own thing (no pair programming ... there were only 4 people). On very large and very complex system, I assume there is a point where pair programming is a win. On smaller projects, there certainly is a point where it is a big lose.
Based on a talk I heard recently about XP, it was mostly designed for very large projects, and seemed to also be for those kinds of projects where a customer contracts out for custom development, where 20 or more people are needed.
But the iterative design/code/test cycles are good even on small projects. I know because I have done that, or things very much like that, all through my programming career (without really know a name for it other than "it makes sense and it works"). Many of my projects simply never came back with bug reports, and the rest very few, when I did things this way.
And this shit happens, too (in case you haven't been reading the news the past several years).
Part of the problem is that we (schools and parents) often do nothing at all for the incremental problems kids get into, then suddenly lash out when it "goes too far". Then the kid is surprised because he only pushed the envelope a tad bit further in his mind.
If we end up making a lot of kids want to die, and if it also happens to be the case that some of these kids build up extreme hatred at the same time because of an abusive social culture in the school (frequently supported by the school administration), and if these same kids are also not taught an overhwhelming level of morality and ethics, and if these (very smart) kids know where to get a gun........
Grover Middle School was lucky.