WIFI is only allowed to transmit 100 mW (0.1 watt).
Even if only 0.01% of the microwave is leaking it is still more powerful than the WIFI. And even less is required if you do not have a perfect WIFI signal to begin with.
Maybe you should read up on what the technology is and does before showing everyone that you do not have a clue. a) NaCl does NOT require that everyone use the same CPU architecture, b) the system has no security compromises, it is exactly as secure as JavaScript. No more, no less.
I am hoping for another Google project: Native Client (NaCl).
What we need is not yet another language with a new set of limitations. Instead we need a system that allows any language, even ones not invented yet. And without waiting for every single browser out there to update to the most recent language specification. Without having to program for every bug in every browser.
Native Client solves this by allowing binary executables and a standardized byte code (LLVM) as alternative. You can code in assmbly, C, C++ or any other language you prefer. And it is still as secure as JavaScript. The execution environment is double sandboxed and secure in a very robust way.
But a few of them will saturate the line 24/7 with bittorrent/etc, and if they get throttled that will cry havoc and try to damage the service as much as possible to the public eye in the net.
We were indeed concerned that this would happen. It turns out that it does not. Even bittorrent will NOT saturate a gigabit link. In fact bittorrent is quite popular here, there is no throttling.
Our outgoing traffic exceeds ingoing traffic. This is the bittorrent in play. I guess there is only so much you can download, but you can always seed.
I am not claiming it is not possible for some user to saturate the link. Only that none of our 1000 users do.
I will hold though that if one user some day saturates our link all by himself, he will be involved in something shady. He would either be running some commercial business such as high bandwidth streaming or hosting of some kind. Or he would be running a large scale file server with pirated goods. We would ask him politely to stop or to pay the real cost associated with the traffic he is generating (about 5k USD/month if he is using a full gigabit).
Bittorrent though is fine. Plenty of users doing 24/7 bittorrent here. They love it. It does not kill our shared gigabit, so everyone are happy.
I did not intent to claim FTTH is the _only_ way to get high speed. My point is that if you have FTTH or even DOCSYS, there is little extra cost in providing the maximum the equipment can handle. If they will bill you extra for that 100 to 250 Mbps upgrade, that is money directly pocketed by them. There is going to be some investment in that 3.0 modem but nothing to justify the extra they usually charge.
We are a provider (kind of). There are a total of 1645 apartments but only approximately 1000 active users at the moment. Each apartment is paying about 5 USD/month for internet. It is incredibly cheap to provide internet this way. A commercial 1 Gbps fiber might be cost prohibitive for a private person or even for many smaller companies. But if you got 1000 people sharing the bill...
Of course we also need to pay for the loan on the equipment and install. That is another 10 USD/month until the load is paid out.
Those 15 USD/month get you access to the shared gigabit fiber. As I mentioned it only peaks at about 300 Mbps during the day and at night it is more like 100 Mbps. So you have 700 Mbps you could use any way you like even during peak-hour.
At the moment, when I watch youtube videos, I either watch them in 480p or 720p (if I really care and want some nice viewing). If I had the capacity to do so with no stuttering or loading, would I have watched all at 1080p? You bet.
Of course. But not as much as you think. The network I base this on is already gigabit, everyone are already watching 1080p, e.t.c.
When you hit 100 Mbps you have probably already the hit the maximum network usage for any normal user. At 100 Mbps you can watch that YouTube video at 1080p and everything else you want. Going further up will only mean even faster downloads. But you will not generally be downloading more at gigabit than at 100 Mbps.
A 100Mbps connection requires one 10GbE aggregation router for every 1,000 users, a 1Gig connection requires on for every hundred.
This is not so. As I wrote we have 1000 users on a gigabit with only a peak of 300 Mbps used. This is fact, that is the way our network operates. Everyone here has gigabit in their home.
So yes I have little hands on experience with the "industry" but I DO have hands on experience with a network with 4000 people and 1000 subscribers. Do you?
And yes the routers are expensive, but not THAT expensive. A router capable of routing 10 Gbit/s is NOT hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have a HP 5412 switch for our core and it has a backbone capable of 40 Gbit/s. As far as I remember we paid around 20k USD for it. Our edge switches are HP 2910 (60 of them) every one capable of 10 Gbit/s as well (two 10 Gbit/s ports and 48 1 Gbit/s ports). Those are 5k USD each (without the 10 Gbit/s option as we have in fact no use for that - 40 users are simply not generating that much traffic).
You are confusing edge routes with the real core routers of the internet. Those are already running 10 Gbit/s or more and would not need upgrading. Giving people access to higher speeds do not generally make them generate more traffic aggregated.
I think the point you are missing is this: Upgrading the edge DOES NOT MEAN THE CORE NEEDS UPGRADING.
100 Mbps and 1,000 Mbps costs the same. Both require FTTH and the expensive part is the fiber. The equipment to run gigabit on that fiber is almost the same cost as 100 Mbps equipment.
Gigabit internet is also not expensive. It turns out that most people do not use huge amounts of bandwidth just because it is possible. They will take advantage of faster download and upload speeds. They will do offsite backups. But since that backup now is 10 times faster it takes 10 times shorter. When you are done, someone else can use the bandwidth. With enough people it evens out.
I live at an apartment complex with a shared gigabit fiber. We have about 1000 active subscribers on that fiber. The average bandwidth used is approximately 100 Mbps and peak is about 300 Mbps (measured in 5 minute intervals). We never get near the full gigabit even though it is available. This does not mean it is useless. It is very useful to be able to download that ISO and not have to wait.
There are lots of use cases and more will come by each day. The major blocker right now is not that my computer is too slow, but that the servers out there usually are not able to deliver at those speeds. That will change when more people are able to take advantage of greater speeds.
Our apartment complex was able to buy a bulk gigabit fiber and share the cost. If you want to buy gigabit, even if FTTH is available in your area, they will rape you hundreds of dollars a month. Do not let this fool into thinking this is the real cost of gigabit internet. This is just what they can get away with because there is almost no competition on high speed internet. There is an issue if someone tries to run a commercial high bandwidth service on your gigabit offering. But for most customers offering gigabit is not one cent more expensive than offering slower speeds.
Phew. That works. So Virgin Media (UK) does support it. I was worried there.
You mean they support IPv6? No unless they are one of the few good ISPs they probably don't. But any recent Windows machine has automatic IPv6 tunneling through a mechanism named Teredo. That is most likely what gives you access to the IPv6 network.
Access through automatic tunneling is considered low quality access though.
Am I incorrect when I say that the root DNS servers are controlled by the US and all other servers are programmed to follow them?
The DNS system is a tree like hierarchy. The root servers only have the IP addresses of the next level, which is the.com,.org,.net and all the.[country code] (.uk,.dk,.se, etc).
It would not be possible to block illegalsite.dk using the root servers. You need the.dk servers to do that. The root servers could take the whole of.dk offline but that would be a major international crisis. Nobody wants that.
Now it is just as easy to get a court order in Denmark to block anything on a.dk domain. It is probably easier. But apparently the american lawyers are lazy and want to use the USA courts.
One can wonder however how it was that thepiratebay.org got blocked in Denmark. But not in the USA where they could simply turn off the domain since it is a.org.
The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police, who assist in investigations into crime on the internet, has informed Telia Stofa, that the internet page which your browser has tried to get in contact with may contain material which could be regarded as child pornography.
On recommandation of The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police Telia Stofa has blocked the access to the internet page. If you have any objections against the internet page being blocked, please contact Telia Stofa.
The Danish Anti-Distribution Filter covering pictures and movies showing sexual abuse of children is part of a European police co-operation (CIRCAMP) for the prevention of commercial and sexual exploitation of children.
According to Section 235 of the Danish Criminal Code it is a criminal offence to disseminate, possess or for a payment or through the internet to become acquainted with child pornography. The maximum penalty can in certain cases be imprisonment for up to 6 years.
Information on criminal conduct on the internet may be passed on to the National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police.
Are you in need of help or guidance in relation to child pornography, please visit www.brydcirklen.dk.
In case you are wondering what The Pirate Bay has to do with child pornography, nothing. It was just easier to get this law into place using the "protect the children" argument. As soon we had this censorship system into place it got used for everything else too. You can expect the same with your new system in the US.
http://216.34.181.45/ [216.34.181.45] gets you to Slashdot with no DNS involvement.
Sorry, no. It would but slashdot does a redirect to the domain name. If slashdot.org were in fact blocked you would be viewing a page telling you to go directly to jail.
baldur@pkunk:~$ curl -v http://216.34.181.45/ * About to connect() to 216.34.181.45 port 80 (#0) * Trying 216.34.181.45... connected * Connected to 216.34.181.45 (216.34.181.45) port 80 (#0) > GET / HTTP/1.1 > User-Agent: curl/7.21.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.21.3 OpenSSL/0.9.8o zlib/1.2.3.4 libidn/1.18 > Host: 216.34.181.45 > Accept: */* > < HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently < Server: Apache/1.3.42 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31 < Location: http://slashdot.org/ < Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 < Content-Length: 297 < Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:45:09 GMT < X-Varnish: 743370790 743370272 < Age: 37 < Connection: keep-alive
Slashdot are never going to do IPv6. Luckily we can have slashdot.org as IPv6 anyway using a public NAT64 server. I would link directly but slashcode does not have support for IPv6 literals in URLs (bug!). So here is a tinyurl to the IPv6 slashdot: http://tinyurl.com/3pwuq98
By the way that URL should work for the majority of windows users. Your computer will automatically use a Teredo IPv6 tunnel to connect to it.
The tinyurl is short for this: http://[2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d]/ (but without the extra space which is there to prevent slashcode from removing all the colons).
The actual split is 32 bit is ISP ID, next 16 bit is customer ID, next 16 subnet ID and 64 bit is interface ID. So it is a 32:16:16:64 split using your notation. Some ISPs might choose a different scheme such as 32:24:8:64.
You can call it waste but it was designed so there would still be plenty of address space to go around.
Your webhosting does not actually need to be IPv6 for you to enable your website. You just need to a AAAA for you DNS name using a public available NAT64.
baldur@pkunk:~$ host slashdot.org slashdot.org has address 216.34.181.45
baldur@pkunk:~$ ping6 -c1 2001:778:0:ffff:64::216.34.181.45 PING 2001:778:0:ffff:64::216.34.181.45(2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d: icmp_seq=1 ttl=233 time=278 ms
Try this URL: http://[2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d]/
remove the space after http and copy this to your URL bar. Slashdot destroys the URL if I link directly. It is a fully valid URL just slashdot being stupid.
They should just have added an extra octet to IPv4. IPv6 is overly complicated, who wants to remember the internal IPv6 address range? sure, let's ping::::::3e:1f:00:7a - oh wait, I have one colon too many.
No you have several colons too many. Let me remove some of them for you and that address can in fact be pinged:
baldur@pkunk:~$ ping6 -c1::3e:1f:00:7a PING::3e:1f:00:7a(::3e:1f:0:7a) 56 data bytes
I get you, but this is probably not such a big issue in practice. You just charge worst case for any received multicast packets. The tier 1 providers do not pay anyone and simply charge double on any outgoing multicast packet.
But this is assuming you are going to route multicast the same way as unicast.
All the smaller ISPs in my country might have deals with larger ISPs just like the case you describe. But they also all have a deal with a tier 1 provider that is willing to route all their traffic. The other deals are just an optimization to save money and improve latency. Such an ISP could choose not to take advantage of their direct connections to large ISPs and send all multicast to their tier 1 upstream. This forces the overall charging structure back to the case I described.
The resulting distribution might not even be any less optimal. There are many equally optimal ways to connect a graph.
Let me expand a little on this. Assuming the following setup:
A content provider at ISP "A" is sending a radio stream.
"A" is connected to backbone provider "B".
There are 100 users listening at each of the ISP's "C1", "C2" and "C3". They are also connected to backbone provider "B".
With the current unicast solution "A" is delivering 300 streams to "B" and getting billed for that. Each of the "C" ISP's are receiving 100 streams from "B" and also getting billed.
With multicast this changes. "A" is delivering 1 stream to "B" and getting billed for only 1 stream. Each of the "C" ISP's are receiving 1 stream from "B". So "B" gets to bill a total of 4 streams compared to 600 streams losing big time. The fact that he can only bill for 4 streams instead of 6 is really nothing compared to the fact that he just lost traffic for almost 600.
The "C" ISP's are very happy though. It is true that somewhere inside their network this stream becomes 100. But it is also true that nowhere in their network will a link carry more traffic than before, so there will be zero upgrades needed. They can pocket all the money they used to pay "B".
If "B" feel really left out he could charge a premium to make up for the 4 vs 6 streams. It will never recover his big loss though.
Now the "C" ISP's are still going to refuse to implement multicast. They are going to make much more money on their IPTV monopoly than by allowing multicast.
To the best of my knowledge there is no real standards for negotiating multi-cast between autonomous systems.
IPv6 takes care of that. Every/64 subnet also has an associated multicast range. This means every user on the internet also has the ability to multicast... provided the ISP bothered enabling it of course.
Technically there is not reason they should not enable IPv6 multicast. You can not saturate any pipes, as someone writes here. The distribution is optimized such that the stream is only broadcast through ports and paths that lead to active subscribers. If nobody listens, no data is sent. It is the most efficient distribution possible.
If I am sending a 1 Mbps stream (assume that is my upstream limit, so I can't be sending any more), then there will be nowhere in the network where a link will carry more than 1 Mbps of data from me. The total amount of data delivered can become huge of course, but that does not matter. The data is copied only at forks and if a lot of data is delivered it is because a lot of users are requesting it - the bill for that would belong to the users listening to the stream, not the one broadcasting it. 1000 users listening also means 1000 users sharing the bill so there is no problem here.
I do agree that ISPs are likely to sabotage multicast for business reason. They do not want any random user to be able to setup his own HDTV broadcasting operation from his home. They want monopoly on providing that service.
Also ISPs lose half their business. Because multicast is such efficient there will be much less bandwidth used. Currently 1000 users listening to a stream means billing the content provider for bandwidth times 1000. With multicast it first becomes 1000 streams near the receivers so the backbone is carrying several orders less data - that is less billable data.
2001:4b10 is allocated to a company named Bogons Ltd, a UK based ISP. BBC is NOT owner of 2001:4b10:bbc::/48. There is no entry for that subnet in the whois database.
Curiously BBC _does_ have an allocation from RIPE. But it is 2001:41c0::/32.
% Information related to '2001:41c0::/32'
inet6num: 2001:41c0::/32 netname: UK-BBC-20041108 descr: British Broadcasting Corporation country: GB...
Slashdot Mirror
It is worth noting that most of these failures do not seem to be wear related. There must be some severe quality issues where they build these things.
WIFI is only allowed to transmit 100 mW (0.1 watt).
Even if only 0.01% of the microwave is leaking it is still more powerful than the WIFI. And even less is required if you do not have a perfect WIFI signal to begin with.
Maybe you should read up on what the technology is and does before showing everyone that you do not have a clue. a) NaCl does NOT require that everyone use the same CPU architecture, b) the system has no security compromises, it is exactly as secure as JavaScript. No more, no less.
I am hoping for another Google project: Native Client (NaCl).
What we need is not yet another language with a new set of limitations. Instead we need a system that allows any language, even ones not invented yet. And without waiting for every single browser out there to update to the most recent language specification. Without having to program for every bug in every browser.
Native Client solves this by allowing binary executables and a standardized byte code (LLVM) as alternative. You can code in assmbly, C, C++ or any other language you prefer. And it is still as secure as JavaScript. The execution environment is double sandboxed and secure in a very robust way.
But a few of them will saturate the line 24/7 with bittorrent/etc, and if they get throttled that will cry havoc and try to damage the service as much as possible to the public eye in the net.
We were indeed concerned that this would happen. It turns out that it does not. Even bittorrent will NOT saturate a gigabit link. In fact bittorrent is quite popular here, there is no throttling.
Our outgoing traffic exceeds ingoing traffic. This is the bittorrent in play. I guess there is only so much you can download, but you can always seed.
I am not claiming it is not possible for some user to saturate the link. Only that none of our 1000 users do.
I will hold though that if one user some day saturates our link all by himself, he will be involved in something shady. He would either be running some commercial business such as high bandwidth streaming or hosting of some kind. Or he would be running a large scale file server with pirated goods. We would ask him politely to stop or to pay the real cost associated with the traffic he is generating (about 5k USD/month if he is using a full gigabit).
Bittorrent though is fine. Plenty of users doing 24/7 bittorrent here. They love it. It does not kill our shared gigabit, so everyone are happy.
I did not intent to claim FTTH is the _only_ way to get high speed. My point is that if you have FTTH or even DOCSYS, there is little extra cost in providing the maximum the equipment can handle. If they will bill you extra for that 100 to 250 Mbps upgrade, that is money directly pocketed by them. There is going to be some investment in that 3.0 modem but nothing to justify the extra they usually charge.
We are a provider (kind of). There are a total of 1645 apartments but only approximately 1000 active users at the moment. Each apartment is paying about 5 USD/month for internet. It is incredibly cheap to provide internet this way. A commercial 1 Gbps fiber might be cost prohibitive for a private person or even for many smaller companies. But if you got 1000 people sharing the bill...
Of course we also need to pay for the loan on the equipment and install. That is another 10 USD/month until the load is paid out.
Those 15 USD/month get you access to the shared gigabit fiber. As I mentioned it only peaks at about 300 Mbps during the day and at night it is more like 100 Mbps. So you have 700 Mbps you could use any way you like even during peak-hour.
At the moment, when I watch youtube videos, I either watch them in 480p or 720p (if I really care and want some nice viewing). If I had the capacity to do so with no stuttering or loading, would I have watched all at 1080p? You bet.
Of course. But not as much as you think. The network I base this on is already gigabit, everyone are already watching 1080p, e.t.c.
When you hit 100 Mbps you have probably already the hit the maximum network usage for any normal user. At 100 Mbps you can watch that YouTube video at 1080p and everything else you want. Going further up will only mean even faster downloads. But you will not generally be downloading more at gigabit than at 100 Mbps.
A 100Mbps connection requires one 10GbE aggregation router for every 1,000 users, a 1Gig connection requires on for every hundred.
This is not so. As I wrote we have 1000 users on a gigabit with only a peak of 300 Mbps used. This is fact, that is the way our network operates. Everyone here has gigabit in their home.
So yes I have little hands on experience with the "industry" but I DO have hands on experience with a network with 4000 people and 1000 subscribers. Do you?
And yes the routers are expensive, but not THAT expensive. A router capable of routing 10 Gbit/s is NOT hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have a HP 5412 switch for our core and it has a backbone capable of 40 Gbit/s. As far as I remember we paid around 20k USD for it. Our edge switches are HP 2910 (60 of them) every one capable of 10 Gbit/s as well (two 10 Gbit/s ports and 48 1 Gbit/s ports). Those are 5k USD each (without the 10 Gbit/s option as we have in fact no use for that - 40 users are simply not generating that much traffic).
You are confusing edge routes with the real core routers of the internet. Those are already running 10 Gbit/s or more and would not need upgrading. Giving people access to higher speeds do not generally make them generate more traffic aggregated.
I think the point you are missing is this: Upgrading the edge DOES NOT MEAN THE CORE NEEDS UPGRADING.
100 Mbps and 1,000 Mbps costs the same. Both require FTTH and the expensive part is the fiber. The equipment to run gigabit on that fiber is almost the same cost as 100 Mbps equipment.
Gigabit internet is also not expensive. It turns out that most people do not use huge amounts of bandwidth just because it is possible. They will take advantage of faster download and upload speeds. They will do offsite backups. But since that backup now is 10 times faster it takes 10 times shorter. When you are done, someone else can use the bandwidth. With enough people it evens out.
I live at an apartment complex with a shared gigabit fiber. We have about 1000 active subscribers on that fiber. The average bandwidth used is approximately 100 Mbps and peak is about 300 Mbps (measured in 5 minute intervals). We never get near the full gigabit even though it is available. This does not mean it is useless. It is very useful to be able to download that ISO and not have to wait.
There are lots of use cases and more will come by each day. The major blocker right now is not that my computer is too slow, but that the servers out there usually are not able to deliver at those speeds. That will change when more people are able to take advantage of greater speeds.
Our apartment complex was able to buy a bulk gigabit fiber and share the cost. If you want to buy gigabit, even if FTTH is available in your area, they will rape you hundreds of dollars a month. Do not let this fool into thinking this is the real cost of gigabit internet. This is just what they can get away with because there is almost no competition on high speed internet. There is an issue if someone tries to run a commercial high bandwidth service on your gigabit offering. But for most customers offering gigabit is not one cent more expensive than offering slower speeds.
Phew. That works. So Virgin Media (UK) does support it. I was worried there.
You mean they support IPv6? No unless they are one of the few good ISPs they probably don't. But any recent Windows machine has automatic IPv6 tunneling through a mechanism named Teredo. That is most likely what gives you access to the IPv6 network.
Access through automatic tunneling is considered low quality access though.
You have to write it as http://[2001:4860:8006::6a]
They made a RFC about this new syntax for IPv6 literals: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2732.txt
The problem is without the [] you would need to count :'s to find the optional port part of the URL.
Am I incorrect when I say that the root DNS servers are controlled by the US and all other servers are programmed to follow them?
The DNS system is a tree like hierarchy. The root servers only have the IP addresses of the next level, which is the .com, .org, .net and all the .[country code] (.uk, .dk, .se, etc).
It would not be possible to block illegalsite.dk using the root servers. You need the .dk servers to do that. The root servers could take the whole of .dk offline but that would be a major international crisis. Nobody wants that.
Now it is just as easy to get a court order in Denmark to block anything on a .dk domain. It is probably easier. But apparently the american lawyers are lazy and want to use the USA courts.
One can wonder however how it was that thepiratebay.org got blocked in Denmark. But not in the USA where they could simply turn off the domain since it is a .org.
And how do you do that with a browser?
Interesting, another site, which happens to be blocked by DNS in my country, is also doing this rather stupid redirect:
baldur@pkunk:~$ host thepiratebay.org 8.8.8.8
thepiratebay.org has address 194.71.107.15
baldur@pkunk:~$ curl -v http://194.71.107.15/ ...
< HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
< Location: http://thepiratebay.org/
Now try it with the "official" DNS server:
baldur@pkunk:~$ host thepiratebay.org 212.10.10.4
thepiratebay.org has address 212.10.10.15
This is what the site looks like if you do not override the DNS server:
http://212.10.10.15/#Engelsk
Text in english:
The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police, who assist in investigations into crime on the internet, has informed Telia Stofa, that the internet page which your browser has tried to get in contact with may contain material which could be regarded as child pornography.
On recommandation of The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police Telia Stofa has blocked the access to the internet page. If you have any objections against the internet page being blocked, please contact Telia Stofa.
The Danish Anti-Distribution Filter covering pictures and movies showing sexual abuse of children is part of a European police co-operation (CIRCAMP) for the prevention of commercial and sexual exploitation of children.
According to Section 235 of the Danish Criminal Code it is a criminal offence to disseminate, possess or for a payment or through the internet to become acquainted with child pornography. The maximum penalty can in certain cases be imprisonment for up to 6 years.
Information on criminal conduct on the internet may be passed on to the National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police.
Are you in need of help or guidance in relation to child pornography, please visit www.brydcirklen.dk.
In case you are wondering what The Pirate Bay has to do with child pornography, nothing. It was just easier to get this law into place using the "protect the children" argument. As soon we had this censorship system into place it got used for everything else too. You can expect the same with your new system in the US.
http://216.34.181.45/ [216.34.181.45] gets you to Slashdot with no DNS involvement.
Sorry, no. It would but slashdot does a redirect to the domain name. If slashdot.org were in fact blocked you would be viewing a page telling you to go directly to jail.
baldur@pkunk:~$ curl -v http://216.34.181.45/
* About to connect() to 216.34.181.45 port 80 (#0)
* Trying 216.34.181.45... connected
* Connected to 216.34.181.45 (216.34.181.45) port 80 (#0)
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> User-Agent: curl/7.21.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.21.3 OpenSSL/0.9.8o zlib/1.2.3.4 libidn/1.18
> Host: 216.34.181.45
> Accept: */*
>
< HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
< Server: Apache/1.3.42 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31
< Location: http://slashdot.org/
< Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
< Content-Length: 297
< Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:45:09 GMT
< X-Varnish: 743370790 743370272
< Age: 37
< Connection: keep-alive
If he wants to access it from Starbucks, then that one won't do.
Sure it will, he just needs a VPN.
Who wants to offer the whole world free access to a printer?
Slashdot are never going to do IPv6. Luckily we can have slashdot.org as IPv6 anyway using a public NAT64 server. I would link directly but slashcode does not have support for IPv6 literals in URLs (bug!). So here is a tinyurl to the IPv6 slashdot: http://tinyurl.com/3pwuq98
By the way that URL should work for the majority of windows users. Your computer will automatically use a Teredo IPv6 tunnel to connect to it.
The tinyurl is short for this: http ://[2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d]/ (but without the extra space which is there to prevent slashcode from removing all the colons).
This works because the address is from the public NAT64 available at http://ipv6.lt/nat64_en.php.
You will actually get a 400 Bad Request from the slashdot webserver, but this too is a bug in slashcode. These guys do really not grok IPv6...
If slashdot put that IPv6 address in as a AAAA for slashdot.org they would have IPv6 support just like that.
The actual split is 32 bit is ISP ID, next 16 bit is customer ID, next 16 subnet ID and 64 bit is interface ID. So it is a 32:16:16:64 split using your notation. Some ISPs might choose a different scheme such as 32:24:8:64.
You can call it waste but it was designed so there would still be plenty of address space to go around.
Your webhosting does not actually need to be IPv6 for you to enable your website. You just need to a AAAA for you DNS name using a public available NAT64.
Here is a public available NAT64: http://ipv6.lt/nat64_en.php
Using that you can access slashdot.org on IPv6:
baldur@pkunk:~$ host slashdot.org
slashdot.org has address 216.34.181.45
baldur@pkunk:~$ ping6 -c1 2001:778:0:ffff:64::216.34.181.45
PING 2001:778:0:ffff:64::216.34.181.45(2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d: icmp_seq=1 ttl=233 time=278 ms
Try this URL: http ://[2001:778:0:ffff:64:0:d822:b52d]/
remove the space after http and copy this to your URL bar. Slashdot destroys the URL if I link directly. It is a fully valid URL just slashdot being stupid.
There is nothing wrong with assigning your printer an address such as fd00::5. That is not too hard to remember is it?
They should just have added an extra octet to IPv4. IPv6 is overly complicated, who wants to remember the internal IPv6 address range? sure, let's ping ::::::3e:1f:00:7a - oh wait, I have one colon too many.
No you have several colons too many. Let me remove some of them for you and that address can in fact be pinged:
baldur@pkunk:~$ ping6 -c1 ::3e:1f:00:7a ::3e:1f:00:7a(::3e:1f:0:7a) 56 data bytes
PING
--- ::3e:1f:00:7a ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 0ms
Maybe go learn a bit about the subject before complaining?
That is the old internet 4. You want the new and better internet 6: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
I get you, but this is probably not such a big issue in practice. You just charge worst case for any received multicast packets. The tier 1 providers do not pay anyone and simply charge double on any outgoing multicast packet.
But this is assuming you are going to route multicast the same way as unicast.
All the smaller ISPs in my country might have deals with larger ISPs just like the case you describe. But they also all have a deal with a tier 1 provider that is willing to route all their traffic. The other deals are just an optimization to save money and improve latency. Such an ISP could choose not to take advantage of their direct connections to large ISPs and send all multicast to their tier 1 upstream. This forces the overall charging structure back to the case I described.
The resulting distribution might not even be any less optimal. There are many equally optimal ways to connect a graph.
Let me expand a little on this. Assuming the following setup:
A content provider at ISP "A" is sending a radio stream.
"A" is connected to backbone provider "B".
There are 100 users listening at each of the ISP's "C1", "C2" and "C3". They are also connected to backbone provider "B".
With the current unicast solution "A" is delivering 300 streams to "B" and getting billed for that. Each of the "C" ISP's are receiving 100 streams from "B" and also getting billed.
With multicast this changes. "A" is delivering 1 stream to "B" and getting billed for only 1 stream. Each of the "C" ISP's are receiving 1 stream from "B". So "B" gets to bill a total of 4 streams compared to 600 streams losing big time. The fact that he can only bill for 4 streams instead of 6 is really nothing compared to the fact that he just lost traffic for almost 600.
The "C" ISP's are very happy though. It is true that somewhere inside their network this stream becomes 100. But it is also true that nowhere in their network will a link carry more traffic than before, so there will be zero upgrades needed. They can pocket all the money they used to pay "B".
If "B" feel really left out he could charge a premium to make up for the 4 vs 6 streams. It will never recover his big loss though.
Now the "C" ISP's are still going to refuse to implement multicast. They are going to make much more money on their IPTV monopoly than by allowing multicast.
To the best of my knowledge there is no real standards for negotiating multi-cast between autonomous systems.
IPv6 takes care of that. Every /64 subnet also has an associated multicast range. This means every user on the internet also has the ability to multicast... provided the ISP bothered enabling it of course.
Technically there is not reason they should not enable IPv6 multicast. You can not saturate any pipes, as someone writes here. The distribution is optimized such that the stream is only broadcast through ports and paths that lead to active subscribers. If nobody listens, no data is sent. It is the most efficient distribution possible.
If I am sending a 1 Mbps stream (assume that is my upstream limit, so I can't be sending any more), then there will be nowhere in the network where a link will carry more than 1 Mbps of data from me. The total amount of data delivered can become huge of course, but that does not matter. The data is copied only at forks and if a lot of data is delivered it is because a lot of users are requesting it - the bill for that would belong to the users listening to the stream, not the one broadcasting it. 1000 users listening also means 1000 users sharing the bill so there is no problem here.
I do agree that ISPs are likely to sabotage multicast for business reason. They do not want any random user to be able to setup his own HDTV broadcasting operation from his home. They want monopoly on providing that service.
Also ISPs lose half their business. Because multicast is such efficient there will be much less bandwidth used. Currently 1000 users listening to a stream means billing the content provider for bandwidth times 1000. With multicast it first becomes 1000 streams near the receivers so the backbone is carrying several orders less data - that is less billable data.
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt
2001:4b10 is allocated to a company named Bogons Ltd, a UK based ISP. BBC is NOT owner of 2001:4b10:bbc::/48. There is no entry for that subnet in the whois database.
Curiously BBC _does_ have an allocation from RIPE. But it is 2001:41c0::/32.
% Information related to '2001:41c0::/32'
inet6num: 2001:41c0::/32 ...
netname: UK-BBC-20041108
descr: British Broadcasting Corporation
country: GB