There are services possible with IPv6 that are not possible, or certainly more expensive to implement, with IPv4 and its partitioning and NATs and all that. Think multi-cast, for instance. Or, ubiquitous IPSEC. Or, working QOS that is what ATT, Verizon, and Google ought to be talking about instead of trying to defeat net neutrality. Those are new building blocks.
There is money to be made in new services, if we get off our butts and transition.
Though, on the other side of the argument, I've always been amazed that the RIAA has been able to make IP address claims stick, when ISPs can't even vouch that a site is a 'botsite or not.
* live forever * can own slaves (not wage-slaves, but subsidiaries) * can marry for wealth over and over and over (mergers and acquisitions) * can kill with impunity (market warfare, monopolistic actions) * cannot be directly taxed, as such costs are passed on to customers
I'd say "Yes" do it -- take those infected machines off, if they are confirmed part of a botnet, meaning, not only do packet signatures match known malware, but endpoint history match botnet C&C addresses.
On the other hand, if ISPs are not confident they can match "malware" criteria *and* properly identify the offending PCs, how does RIAA evidence of a particular PC infringing come off as legitimate? It should not be able to go both ways.
In the '90's, the US govt gave the automakers a $billion a piece to do R&D for fuel-efficient/electric/whatever vehicles. GM did come out with the EV1, but we know "Who Killed the Electric Car". Toyota develops and successfully markets the Prius -- more power to 'em. I'm sure the GM patented many things, as well.
I don't fear the patents.. back in the day, GM developed the best catalytic converter, and was basically given no option but to license it to everyone under reasonable terms. I'm sure "reasonable terms" means that GM made money, as Toyota will with these patents.
.. that the industry (ISPs) that seems to not be able to detect 'bot traffic and spam emitters well enough to shut those hosts down should be expected to detect downloads of "protected content" and then take action.
Read or view on PBS Robin McNeil's, "The Story of English". English is the language for getting things done cooperatively around the world. English is the "Perl" of spoken language.
And what gets me about that, the "ISP can disconnect you" part, is that we are supposed to believe that the RIAA can "prove" the infraction, but an ISP can't prove that your PC is part of a botnet, or sends spam, or whatever, and disconnect you. Bah. What RIAA BS.
... then ISPs can obviously stop botnet communications, email spam, Windows Messenger port connect attempts, and child porn distribution. What? They plead technical problems with doing any of those?
I think part of the answer is for Quality of Service (QOS) to be implemented properly and universally. Would even the most rabid BT user/provider care hugely if his traffic throughput took a back seat to video for the space of several fragments? It still wouldn't be shut down completely. The win is that when no higher-QOS traffic is on a network segment, BT gets the whole "tube."
There is much more of a workable QOS in IPv6 than in IPv4, where it was more or less grafted on after the original design.
Slashdot Mirror
... is increased network isolation.
There are services possible with IPv6 that are not possible, or certainly more expensive to implement, with IPv4 and its partitioning and NATs and all that. Think multi-cast, for instance. Or, ubiquitous IPSEC. Or, working QOS that is what ATT, Verizon, and Google ought to be talking about instead of trying to defeat net neutrality. Those are new building blocks.
There is money to be made in new services, if we get off our butts and transition.
Couldn't help being reminded of the rejuvenation method invented for humans that didn't have the "Lazarus Gene" in Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love".
My Dlink wireless router switches/forwards IPv6 just fine.
It is not doing routing, though, just switching.
Agreed.
Though, on the other side of the argument, I've always been amazed that the RIAA has been able to make IP address claims stick, when ISPs can't even vouch that a site is a 'botsite or not.
Corporations, in America, unlike natural persons:
* live forever
* can own slaves (not wage-slaves, but subsidiaries)
* can marry for wealth over and over and over (mergers and acquisitions)
* can kill with impunity (market warfare, monopolistic actions)
* cannot be directly taxed, as such costs are passed on to customers
I, for one, welcome my new Sony overlords.
I would imagine he's a tad more mature now than 20 years ago and has more perspective on what constitutes "personal turmoil".
I say confirm him -- he knows the spotlight will be on him, and those under him know that such activities will not be countenanced.
No eating of burritos and cole slaw for 24 hours before the flight. Can't allow potentially deadly explosive by-products aboard.
My US Verizon CDMA phone lit up just fine in India (Mumbai/Pune), thank you very much.
I don't like broccoli.
I'd say "Yes" do it -- take those infected machines off, if they are confirmed part of a botnet, meaning, not only do packet signatures match known malware, but endpoint history match botnet C&C addresses.
On the other hand, if ISPs are not confident they can match "malware" criteria *and* properly identify the offending PCs, how does RIAA evidence of a particular PC infringing come off as legitimate? It should not be able to go both ways.
In the '90's, the US govt gave the automakers a $billion a piece to do R&D for fuel-efficient/electric/whatever vehicles. GM did come out with the EV1, but we know "Who Killed the Electric Car". Toyota develops and successfully markets the Prius -- more power to 'em.
I'm sure the GM patented many things, as well.
I don't fear the patents .. back in the day, GM developed the best catalytic converter, and was basically given no option but to license it to everyone under reasonable terms. I'm sure "reasonable terms" means that GM made money, as Toyota will with these patents.
IBM influences the government to pursue antitrust against AT&T.
Microsoft now doing the same against Google?
Only needs POTS and modems. Works unless the government wants to shut down the whole land-line phone network.
... well, this is awkward.
"Reason being is that C is the closest high level language to how a processor actually operates."
Absolutely true. For a PDP-11.
.. that the industry (ISPs) that seems to not be able to detect 'bot traffic and spam emitters well enough to shut those hosts down should be expected to detect downloads of "protected content" and then take action.
Read or view on PBS Robin McNeil's, "The Story of English". English is the language for getting things done cooperatively around the world. English is the "Perl" of spoken language.
Witness all air traffic control, for instance.
And what gets me about that, the "ISP can disconnect you" part, is that we are supposed to believe that the RIAA can "prove" the infraction, but an ISP can't prove that your PC is part of a botnet, or sends spam, or whatever, and disconnect you. Bah. What RIAA BS.
Spy what? Two days of "Dude, where's my office?"
Are you implying Vint has a hygiene problem?
... then ISPs can obviously stop botnet communications, email spam, Windows Messenger port connect attempts, and child porn distribution. What? They plead technical problems with doing any of those?
This ain't gonna happen.
I think part of the answer is for Quality of Service (QOS) to be implemented properly and universally. Would even the most rabid BT user/provider care hugely if his traffic throughput took a back seat to video for the space of several fragments? It still wouldn't be shut down completely. The win is that when no higher-QOS traffic is on a network segment, BT gets the whole "tube."
There is much more of a workable QOS in IPv6 than in IPv4, where it was more or less grafted on after the original design.
Let's get moving to IPv6.
Good on ya. That's well put. Your ordering is right. And, being notified in the change of status is a self-signed cert is simple, but vital.
Mozilla -- please add that half page of code.
Are they teaching "add 1 to COBOL" in the universities, then?
Farmers do make more money growing "weed".