Also, ES like 3.0+ does all everything with vertex arrays and not immediate mode. (Immediate mode is still available in 3.0+, though deprecated, however it was completely removed from ES.) The biggest difference between ES and mainstream OGL is the central role of 16:16 fixed point, which to be honest is not very much different from FP, you just need to pay more attention to expression precision.
Chrome does not have save tabs as bookmark folder yet, a stopper for me. And firefox in all its crufty leaky glory is still more stable than chrome. As far as bloat goes it is tweedledee versus tweedledum. I would not pronounce firefox dead just yet.
He had the right attitude, wrong implementation. In fact, 15 bits may be borrowed from the IPv4 checksum field for some sensible address extension scheme.
Wouldn't that break when the packet has to go through a non-v6 aware router that thinks the checksum is invalid?
That's exactly what you want. A non-aware router drops the packet while a IPv4.5 aware router passes it along in the correct direction.
Err, sorry, 12 byte sockaddr_in addresses, the remaining 4 bytes of the original 16 bytes allowed for being the port and protocol family. Obviosly IPv6 addresses should have been no more than 12 bytes, and 6 bytes less one bit would have been the smartest decision in the known universe. Unfortunately, IPv6 was not designed by citizens of the known universe, it was designed by space aliens out to destroy the human race in order to make room for a new space freeway or something.
IPv6 addressing is brain damaged for at least two reasons:
1) It overflowed the 16 bytes prudently allocated for struct sockaddr_in by people who understand backwards compatibility better than the IPv6 designers.
2) The existing IPv4 address space was embedded at the least significant instead of most significant end of the IPv6 address. What on earth were they thinking?
Various apologists usually trot out the security argument, which is bogus (a form of security by obscurity) and some bafflegab about routing advantages. The fact is, IPv6 addresses put four times the cache pressure on routers compared to IPv4 and failed to drain the swamp. Bottom line is, 128 bit IPv6 addresses was a massive mistake. One of many in the slowl motion IPv6 train wreck.
And that's why what you're talking about wouldn't have been any better than IPv6. It requires updates to almost every unmanaged residential host and gateway before anybody would be able to rely on it
The correct approach is to make IP4.5 completely compatible with existing NAT setups, then any residential operators who care to update their networks (me!) get access to an additional 15 bits or so of flat address space, with the high order 4 bytes remaining strictly compatible with the existing internet. See, nothing changes except you get this additional address space you can share with billions of friends.
Is this a backwards opportunity taken for asserting that he is one of the Fathers of the Internet?
I would say so. Below is the references section of RFC 791. Cerf shows up only on the "Catenet" article while the bulk of the heavy lifting was apparently done by John Postel, a rather more humble person it would appear. And Bob Kahn, who for some reason does not appear in these references. On the whole, Cerf seems to have mainly acted as a PM and money man.
[1] Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model for Internetworking," Information
Processing Techniques Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, IEN 48, July 1978.
[2] Bolt Beranek and Newman, "Specification for the Interconnection of
a Host and an IMP," BBN Technical Report 1822, Revised May 1978.
[3] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol - DARPA Internet
Program Protocol Specification," RFC 792, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[4] Shoch, J., "Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and Routing,"
COMPCON, IEEE Computer Society, Fall 1978.
[5] Postel, J., "Address Mappings," RFC 796, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[6] Shoch, J., "Packet Fragmentation in Inter-Network Protocols,"
Computer Networks, v. 3, n. 1, February 1979.
[7] Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway", IEN 109, Bolt Beranek and
Newman, August 1979.
[8] Postel, J., "Service Mappings," RFC 795, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[9] Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers," RFC 790, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
really? what happens when a packet goes past a NAT router, into a network that's behind another NAT router? I guess you can store every packet that zips past the router in its own memory, but you couldn't store it in the packet itself. Not unless you had 2 optional fields. And then what happens when.. you get the idea.
He had the right attitude, wrong implementation. In fact, 15 bits may be borrowed from the IPv4 checksum field for some sensible address extension scheme. Much as IPv6 did, but hopefully without the complete redesign that proved more than counterproductive.
If we're going to roll out updates to every NAT device and host, we might as well roll out IPv6, its already partially rolled-out. Job done!
If done right, we only need to update the last hop which is typically a DSL router.
I assert that the migration would already have happened (and seamlessly) if we had just extended the address space and left everything else the way it was.
I agree, and further assert that it is not too late to go back and do that.
To be fair, I believe this is a marketing problem.
It is more than a marketing problem. The internet revolves around millions of important web hosts on four byte addresses serving billions of viewers also on four byte addresses. Proposing and promulgating an incompatible 16 byte address space in the face of this reality, obvious then and now, was just plain dumb. The practical problems are numerous, from the stupidly long IPv6 addresses looking unfamiliar and being clumsy to handle when expressed as numbers, thus driving net admins batty, to huge numbers of applications written for 8 byte sockaddr_in addresses still not converted to IPv6, and the work required to convert them being nontrivial by design. In reality, if you switch to IPv6 today you will be sitting lonely on an island. For a commercial web site it would be suicide.
For what it's worth, Vint Cerf was instrumental in ensuring that the putative IPv6 fix would fail massively.
It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like a little more information than a simple bald assertion by a random Slashdot poster.
Ask and you shall receive. Vint Cerf held the post of "Internet Architect" from 1989 to 1992 during which time IPv6, then called IPNG was designed. Vint described himself personally to me as "chairman of the committee" which I accepted at face value, although the documentary evidence does not support that. Nonetheless, wearing his various hats including chairman of ICANN and chairman of ISOC, he played more than a cameo role in the evolution of IPv6.
Incidentally, when I asked him if more could have been done by the designers of IPv6 to ease the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 he got red in the face and spat out in a most unseemly way "certainly not". I was quite taken aback at that response to my simple, fair and on the face of it, topical question. I did not further converse with him, and have not done so since.
For what it's worth, Vint Cerf was instrumental in ensuring that the putative IPv6 fix would fail massively.
It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like a little more information than a simple bald assertion by a random Slashdot poster.
Ask and you shall receive. Vint Cerf helf the post of "Internet Architect" from 1989 to 1992 during which time IPv6, then called IPNG was designed. Vint described himself personally to me as "chairman of the committee" which I accepted at face value, although the documentary evidence does not support that. Nonetheless, wearing his various hats including chairman of ICANN and chairman of ISOC, he played more than a cameo role in the evolution of IPv6.
The fact that PC gaming's level of innovation has cooled somewhat means that this happened a lot later than I would have expected.
Don't confuse the slowdown in PC game innovation with advances in PC graphics hardware. The latter has continued at its usual pace, or faster if anything. Microsoft's control of the PC game software development toolchain has been a huge wet blanket. Expect that to change in the not too distant future with the resurgence of OpenGL in the cross platform development segment. Another emerging factor is the indie segment, long suppressed by the market dominance of industry giants like EA, it now has access to distribution channels that can't be blocked by the usual axis of compliant retailers and Microsoft toadies.
...taking a seed stock of 12 tonnes of hydrogen and using a series of chemical reactions with various elements found on Mars to produce rocket fuel for the way back.
That is a waste, instead plan to stay a lot longer than six months and invest the 12 tons in amenities. Who would be crazy enough to sign up for a one way trip to Mars? Plenty, including me.
I only bought a PS3 so that I would not have to run games on Windows. There have been many issues, including three returns for repair of defective components, two just out of warranty. The operating system is limited and buggy. The browser sucks beyond belief. Sony has been horrible to deal with at every step. PS3 hardware now falls well behind budget PC hardware. After this PS3 it is back to PC gaming for me, and exclusively on Linux. By the time this PS3 is ready for the scrapheap there will be plenty of A list titles available on Linux, and plenty of mature free and open projects.
I wonder how that would compared to total Linux activations per day, which besides Android phones and tablets would include DSL routers, TV sets and so on?
Over the past few years, modern Linux distributions such as Ubuntu have utterly transformed the open-source desktop user experience into something sleek and simple, while arguably surpassing Windows and Mac OS in both security and stability.
...and usability. I installed and played a new A list title on Windows last week and every minute of the experience made me want to scream. From the surprise reboot due to virus patches to the 25 digit "authorization" code that has to be entered manually, to the many step, go back to the beginning and try to figure it out again installation process, to the jerky video, to the clumsy user interface, it all trails the modern Linux desktop experience by a wide country mile. I swear, this is the last time I will ever run a game of any description on Windows, or any application that I am not absolutely forced to. These days that happens about once every two years, and fallilng.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, ES like 3.0+ does all everything with vertex arrays and not immediate mode. (Immediate mode is still available in 3.0+, though deprecated, however it was completely removed from ES.) The biggest difference between ES and mainstream OGL is the central role of 16:16 fixed point, which to be honest is not very much different from FP, you just need to pay more attention to expression precision.
I await the submission of your Internet Draft with bated breath.
Code talks, BS walks my friend.
Chrome does not have save tabs as bookmark folder yet, a stopper for me. And firefox in all its crufty leaky glory is still more stable than chrome. As far as bloat goes it is tweedledee versus tweedledum. I would not pronounce firefox dead just yet.
He had the right attitude, wrong implementation. In fact, 15 bits may be borrowed from the IPv4 checksum field for some sensible address extension scheme.
Wouldn't that break when the packet has to go through a non-v6 aware router that thinks the checksum is invalid?
That's exactly what you want. A non-aware router drops the packet while a IPv4.5 aware router passes it along in the correct direction.
...8 byte sockaddr_in addresses...
Err, sorry, 12 byte sockaddr_in addresses, the remaining 4 bytes of the original 16 bytes allowed for being the port and protocol family. Obviosly IPv6 addresses should have been no more than 12 bytes, and 6 bytes less one bit would have been the smartest decision in the known universe. Unfortunately, IPv6 was not designed by citizens of the known universe, it was designed by space aliens out to destroy the human race in order to make room for a new space freeway or something.
IPv6 addressing is wonderfully simple.
IPv6 addressing is brain damaged for at least two reasons:
1) It overflowed the 16 bytes prudently allocated for struct sockaddr_in by people who understand backwards compatibility better than the IPv6 designers.
2) The existing IPv4 address space was embedded at the least significant instead of most significant end of the IPv6 address. What on earth were they thinking?
Various apologists usually trot out the security argument, which is bogus (a form of security by obscurity) and some bafflegab about routing advantages. The fact is, IPv6 addresses put four times the cache pressure on routers compared to IPv4 and failed to drain the swamp. Bottom line is, 128 bit IPv6 addresses was a massive mistake. One of many in the slowl motion IPv6 train wreck.
And that's why what you're talking about wouldn't have been any better than IPv6. It requires updates to almost every unmanaged residential host and gateway before anybody would be able to rely on it
The correct approach is to make IP4.5 completely compatible with existing NAT setups, then any residential operators who care to update their networks (me!) get access to an additional 15 bits or so of flat address space, with the high order 4 bytes remaining strictly compatible with the existing internet. See, nothing changes except you get this additional address space you can share with billions of friends.
Is this a backwards opportunity taken for asserting that he is one of the Fathers of the Internet?
I would say so. Below is the references section of RFC 791. Cerf shows up only on the "Catenet" article while the bulk of the heavy lifting was apparently done by John Postel, a rather more humble person it would appear. And Bob Kahn, who for some reason does not appear in these references. On the whole, Cerf seems to have mainly acted as a PM and money man.
[1] Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model for Internetworking," Information
Processing Techniques Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, IEN 48, July 1978.
[2] Bolt Beranek and Newman, "Specification for the Interconnection of
a Host and an IMP," BBN Technical Report 1822, Revised May 1978.
[3] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol - DARPA Internet
Program Protocol Specification," RFC 792, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[4] Shoch, J., "Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and Routing,"
COMPCON, IEEE Computer Society, Fall 1978.
[5] Postel, J., "Address Mappings," RFC 796, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[6] Shoch, J., "Packet Fragmentation in Inter-Network Protocols,"
Computer Networks, v. 3, n. 1, February 1979.
[7] Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway", IEN 109, Bolt Beranek and
Newman, August 1979.
[8] Postel, J., "Service Mappings," RFC 795, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[9] Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers," RFC 790, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
really? what happens when a packet goes past a NAT router, into a network that's behind another NAT router? I guess you can store every packet that zips past the router in its own memory, but you couldn't store it in the packet itself. Not unless you had 2 optional fields. And then what happens when.. you get the idea.
He had the right attitude, wrong implementation. In fact, 15 bits may be borrowed from the IPv4 checksum field for some sensible address extension scheme. Much as IPv6 did, but hopefully without the complete redesign that proved more than counterproductive.
If we're going to roll out updates to every NAT device and host, we might as well roll out IPv6, its already partially rolled-out. Job done!
If done right, we only need to update the last hop which is typically a DSL router.
I assert that the migration would already have happened (and seamlessly) if we had just extended the address space and left everything else the way it was.
I agree, and further assert that it is not too late to go back and do that.
To be fair, I believe this is a marketing problem.
It is more than a marketing problem. The internet revolves around millions of important web hosts on four byte addresses serving billions of viewers also on four byte addresses. Proposing and promulgating an incompatible 16 byte address space in the face of this reality, obvious then and now, was just plain dumb. The practical problems are numerous, from the stupidly long IPv6 addresses looking unfamiliar and being clumsy to handle when expressed as numbers, thus driving net admins batty, to huge numbers of applications written for 8 byte sockaddr_in addresses still not converted to IPv6, and the work required to convert them being nontrivial by design. In reality, if you switch to IPv6 today you will be sitting lonely on an island. For a commercial web site it would be suicide.
Corrected link...
For what it's worth, Vint Cerf was instrumental in ensuring that the putative IPv6 fix would fail massively.
It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like a little more information than a simple bald assertion by a random Slashdot poster.
Ask and you shall receive. Vint Cerf held the post of "Internet Architect" from 1989 to 1992 during which time IPv6, then called IPNG was designed. Vint described himself personally to me as "chairman of the committee" which I accepted at face value, although the documentary evidence does not support that. Nonetheless, wearing his various hats including chairman of ICANN and chairman of ISOC, he played more than a cameo role in the evolution of IPv6.
Incidentally, when I asked him if more could have been done by the designers of IPv6 to ease the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 he got red in the face and spat out in a most unseemly way "certainly not". I was quite taken aback at that response to my simple, fair and on the face of it, topical question. I did not further converse with him, and have not done so since.
For what it's worth, Vint Cerf was instrumental in ensuring that the putative IPv6 fix would fail massively.
It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like a little more information than a simple bald assertion by a random Slashdot poster.
Ask and you shall receive. Vint Cerf helf the post of "Internet Architect" from 1989 to 1992 during which time IPv6, then called IPNG was designed. Vint described himself personally to me as "chairman of the committee" which I accepted at face value, although the documentary evidence does not support that. Nonetheless, wearing his various hats including chairman of ICANN and chairman of ISOC, he played more than a cameo role in the evolution of IPv6.
For what it's worth, Vint Cerf was instrumental in ensuring that the putative IPv6 fix would fail massively.
Vint Cerf should blame himself for the IPv6 mess instead.
The fact that PC gaming's level of innovation has cooled somewhat means that this happened a lot later than I would have expected.
Don't confuse the slowdown in PC game innovation with advances in PC graphics hardware. The latter has continued at its usual pace, or faster if anything. Microsoft's control of the PC game software development toolchain has been a huge wet blanket. Expect that to change in the not too distant future with the resurgence of OpenGL in the cross platform development segment. Another emerging factor is the indie segment, long suppressed by the market dominance of industry giants like EA, it now has access to distribution channels that can't be blocked by the usual axis of compliant retailers and Microsoft toadies.
what the point of getting humans to Mars is?
So that if we damage this planet beyond repair we don't go extinct.
...taking a seed stock of 12 tonnes of hydrogen and using a series of chemical reactions with various elements found on Mars to produce rocket fuel for the way back.
That is a waste, instead plan to stay a lot longer than six months and invest the 12 tons in amenities. Who would be crazy enough to sign up for a one way trip to Mars? Plenty, including me.
You have issues, my friend.
I only bought a PS3 so that I would not have to run games on Windows. There have been many issues, including three returns for repair of defective components, two just out of warranty. The operating system is limited and buggy. The browser sucks beyond belief. Sony has been horrible to deal with at every step. PS3 hardware now falls well behind budget PC hardware. After this PS3 it is back to PC gaming for me, and exclusively on Linux. By the time this PS3 is ready for the scrapheap there will be plenty of A list titles available on Linux, and plenty of mature free and open projects.
Byebye in advance, Sony.
He said 275,000 iOS activations a day.
I wonder how that would compared to total Linux activations per day, which besides Android phones and tablets would include DSL routers, TV sets and so on?
Apparently you missed the part that says: "Nielsen is adding its voice to the chorus of research firms confirming the ascension of Android."
Indeed, Ray Ozzie did play a pivotal role in helping keep Microsoft's leaders heads in the cloud.
I don't see IPv6 deployed 100% any time soon.
Or even 1%.
Ah, touched a nerve of some Window$ droid did we?
Over the past few years, modern Linux distributions such as Ubuntu have utterly transformed the open-source desktop user experience into something sleek and simple, while arguably surpassing Windows and Mac OS in both security and stability.
...and usability. I installed and played a new A list title on Windows last week and every minute of the experience made me want to scream. From the surprise reboot due to virus patches to the 25 digit "authorization" code that has to be entered manually, to the many step, go back to the beginning and try to figure it out again installation process, to the jerky video, to the clumsy user interface, it all trails the modern Linux desktop experience by a wide country mile. I swear, this is the last time I will ever run a game of any description on Windows, or any application that I am not absolutely forced to. These days that happens about once every two years, and fallilng.