NAT is a workaround. Yes, it mostly works around the issue. But it's a pain to configure. It's a pain for app developers and maintainers.
The major deal with NAT's is usually when you start getting two hosts on a WAN, and both are behind different NAT's. Yay. Try to configure a NAT for some random application not having made a big effort to support NAT's there.:-(
And as the IP space keeps getting eaten, what happens is: 1. More circumstances where both are behind a NAT. 2. Less circumstances where someone is "free" and not behind any.
This spells trouble for even the applications *supporting* double-NAT situations, because they rely on a healthy number of "2" there, as it's the only way they can usually solve the headache, if they support trying to solve it in the first place, that is (which is far from a guarantee -- most don't).
Every mobile device is individially addressable right now by its number and network (12223334444@serviceprovider.com) - effectively a single IP address. Since this is also its voice number, it's easy to remember and convenient. We won't be running out at anytime soon (10 billion mobiles per service provider capacity).
??? But that's just a mail adress. How are we supposed to e.g. communicate in real-time directly to that device with a mail address? Hack the mail server to deliver real-time / streaming media too? But besides that raping of the mail protocol, imagine the enormous work the mail server at serviceprovider.com gets once thousands of people try to connect and request streaming media from portable devices behind that provider. All data would need to pass some host that's almost on fire from parsing "e-mails" on the way! You could make an entire mail server cluster and load balance it, but then this cludge to get rid of IPv6 would require that server cluster when true IPv6 would simply have taken away the need for every single "mail" server there and only left the peers to communicate directly with each other.
Each IP address can also directly address 64K computers, via the existing port structure. IP addresses can also be reused (over and over) on intranets and subnets, via NAT. Yes, it's a terrible thing - but we've already solved that problem, and the solution is in use (and works) worldwide.
The number of times I've heard NAT "working" in IPv6 discussions...:-)
Yes, NAT often works, and that's a major reason we don't have IPv6 today.
The main problem with NAT is that it breaks end-to-end networking. Your traffic needs to be collected by someone, and spread by that someone. For that someone to spread the traffic to the proper hosts, that someone needs to understand what data is being sent and where it should go. Without any need for NAT solutions, there is no longer that "someone" needed, much less any knowledge of the network protocol involved. Things "just work", on an IP protocol level. But since NAT's already do support TCP and UDP and you usually don't need much else but custom data piggybacking on those, things generally tend to work pretty well.
At a glance.
For some practical examples of the problems, you'll get trouble with e.g. passive FTP where both participants are behind NAT's (an increasingly common event as IP addresses consumption keep increasing). I've also seen many peer-to-peer apps get big trouble when both hosts are behind a NAT. They simply, if supporting the scenario at all, have to involve third party hosts not behind a NAT as a proxy and send through them. This can make for a pretty pissed off third party host and it will do nasty things to your connection speeds. (your traffic need to travel through yet another place somewhere on the web that one frustrated P2P application picked for you)
As IP address (and hence NAT) usage increase, we will have more and more users needing these solutions, and less and less people available (i.e. not behind NAT's) to solve them for us.
Skype solves this behind the scenes by sending voice traffic in encrypted form to a third untrusted host not behind a NAT if both peers were behind one. Again this sucks for both of you, and shows itself in reduced voice quality due to increased round trip times to that third party host. Maybe the traffic now needs to go through a stupid overloaded router somewhere in the world that would otherwise not even have been part of the routing equation.
You're introducing more causes of lag in case both are behind NAT's in the best case, and in the worst case, the NAT or application will simply not support the scenario and you won't be able to communicate at all.
NAT's can also mean trouble for end-to-end security protocols like IPsec, something IPv6 makes a particular effort of supporting well.
Besides, it's not even just about "NAT doesn't work well, therefore we need IPv6", be
Just recently, an update to Windows added the option to password-encrypt a personal folder.
But this is already possible? Set NTFS to encrypt your folder of choice, and it will be encrypted and protected by the user's login password. Would this simply let a user to protect a folder with a different password than the normal one, and that's all the news there is to this feature?
I can understand if this cancelled feature would've been more risky from an admin's perspective though, because I assume (I haven't checked this in practice) that if you forget your user login on Windows, once an admin resets the password and the user picks a new one, he/she can still access the encrypted data. I.e. it's encrypted by some form of user token, not a specific password?
Give me a reason to get excited, or stop spending my damned tax dollars.
Speaking of this, how much do NASA currently cost American citizens per year? Even better, is there a web site where one can see how the distribution of tax money change from year to year in a reasonably accessible form? I'm not American and have been wondering of this now and then when the subject is brought up.
wtf who cares! i d/led paris hiltn givin a blowjob with bt.. lolol i like dat tape wuts this about columbos? u mean chris colombos directing harry poter? yea it rocked
And now you're also only bringing up encyclopedias to compare with Wikipedia. I think one should keep in mind that this guy is talking about a current event, and looking at Wikipedia right at that moment. In that case, the articles are more at risk of being partially complete, contain misinformation or not had time to be vandalism checked properly. A better parallel in this case would be reading a news paper's breaking news, and accuracy check that. Chances are the journalists can have similar misinformation there. And then it's a more serious matter, as an editor can't step in 5 second later and correct your copy of that paper.
At its worst, Wikipedia is an active deception, a powerful piece of agitprop, not information.
Yes, and at its best, it's pretty darn cool.
Welcome to Wikipedia.:-p
And during current events such as that example he brings up, there was most likely a high visibility template on top of the article saying something like "this article documents a current event, information may change rapidly". I think that should be taken as a sign the content and information is in flux. I advise against using Wikipedia as a sole information source particularly during breaking news events. I'd try newspapers with good reputations for that, although they're keen on spreading misinformation as well at times.
Bah, how about not forcing Opera to keep up to date with specific extensions found in Firefox...
Firefox actually has a worse adblock implementation then Opera, did you know that?
The root of the problem as I see it is not a poor integrated adblock functionality -- I'm sure Opera 9's new interactive and visual adblocking mechanisms are sufficient for most people -- the problem is more likely deep extension support for power users to extend functionality as they want and need.
While Opera ASA is doing an admirable job of keeping up to date with the competition as a company, my number one wish for Opera 10 is good extension support.
And no, Opera's aging Netscape plugin support is lacking in so many areas, like chrome and renderer extensibility, that I won't even discuss it.
Safety and convenience are at the core of eBays policies toward payments. This policy is designed to promote safe online shopping, and to encourage online payment methods that are safe, easy to use, reliable, and offer high levels of protection for users. The policy also attempts to preserve some flexibility for users that still prefer offline payment methods.
I wonder why eBay believes Google Checkout is unsafe, unreliable and/or inconvenient? Seriously, this isn't an obscure, complicated, foreign payment system. It's pretty obvious to me why they really did this, and with this, they're most likely lying about it.
As the link in the article summary also says, even calling Google Checkout something lame like being "too new" doesn't hold much water, given what Google Checkout is.
I have nothing against eBay doing this, but only if they up front told either exactly why, the harsh reality and competition, or didn't comment on it at all. Anything would be better than lying or spreading FUD about certain competitors like this. It's really bad style IMO.
Long story short: you sound like you think that this idea hasn't ocurred to anyone before you. It has, and there are plenty of reasons [slashdot.org] that you can't edit comments on Slashdot.
On some other sites, this is solved by (rather short) editing time limits. Enough to correct spelling mistakes etc, but far from enough to have the time to get modded up.
...the write up here is awfully vague. The incident it refers to happened on Big Brother Australia [cnn.com] - one of the guys in the house held a girl down while the other rubbed his penis on her face. Both are now facing charges.
Maybe I'm crazy here, but the problem then seems to be Big Brother participants, not the Internet.
If "Leopard" is really what it claims to be, i.e. fast and efficient in sharp contrast to slow and resource hungry Windows Vista
What is the author even basing these claims on? Was any tests released that show e.g Vista Beta 2 is *slow* compared to OS X that I missed? Or is it just FUD that once again managed to creep into a news submission?
When I go to the dentist, it's not really the tools that are my issue, but how careful the dentist will be.
Will it be a young woman recently having left studies to a dentist (= good, and not just for possibly her looks), or an old cold hearted, careless person. And I'm not sure if a careless user of a plasma needle sounds much more comfortable! O_o
Or are you not giving a fairly unknown site with little ad revenue basis for an income stream that suddenly gets an enormous spike in traffic a chance?
What is to stop anyone from going to YouTube, searching for the most popular videos of the moment and uploading them to the new site. They would then be getting Ad money for videos that didn't belong to them.
Well, perhaps the fact that it was the most popular YouTube video. For it to become the most popular, it has to have been shared a lot. And due to how popular YouTube is, chances are that it will have already been riding its popularity wave.
Slashdot Mirror
NAT is a workaround. Yes, it mostly works around the issue. But it's a pain to configure. It's a pain for app developers and maintainers.
:-(
The major deal with NAT's is usually when you start getting two hosts on a WAN, and both are behind different NAT's.
Yay. Try to configure a NAT for some random application not having made a big effort to support NAT's there.
And as the IP space keeps getting eaten, what happens is:
1. More circumstances where both are behind a NAT.
2. Less circumstances where someone is "free" and not behind any.
This spells trouble for even the applications *supporting* double-NAT situations, because they rely on a healthy number of "2" there, as it's the only way they can usually solve the headache, if they support trying to solve it in the first place, that is (which is far from a guarantee -- most don't).
??? But that's just a mail adress. How are we supposed to e.g. communicate in real-time directly to that device with a mail address? Hack the mail server to deliver real-time / streaming media too? But besides that raping of the mail protocol, imagine the enormous work the mail server at serviceprovider.com gets once thousands of people try to connect and request streaming media from portable devices behind that provider. All data would need to pass some host that's almost on fire from parsing "e-mails" on the way! You could make an entire mail server cluster and load balance it, but then this cludge to get rid of IPv6 would require that server cluster when true IPv6 would simply have taken away the need for every single "mail" server there and only left the peers to communicate directly with each other.
The number of times I've heard NAT "working" in IPv6 discussions... :-)
Yes, NAT often works, and that's a major reason we don't have IPv6 today.
The main problem with NAT is that it breaks end-to-end networking. Your traffic needs to be collected by someone, and spread by that someone. For that someone to spread the traffic to the proper hosts, that someone needs to understand what data is being sent and where it should go. Without any need for NAT solutions, there is no longer that "someone" needed, much less any knowledge of the network protocol involved. Things "just work", on an IP protocol level. But since NAT's already do support TCP and UDP and you usually don't need much else but custom data piggybacking on those, things generally tend to work pretty well.
At a glance.
For some practical examples of the problems, you'll get trouble with e.g. passive FTP where both participants are behind NAT's (an increasingly common event as IP addresses consumption keep increasing). I've also seen many peer-to-peer apps get big trouble when both hosts are behind a NAT. They simply, if supporting the scenario at all, have to involve third party hosts not behind a NAT as a proxy and send through them. This can make for a pretty pissed off third party host and it will do nasty things to your connection speeds. (your traffic need to travel through yet another place somewhere on the web that one frustrated P2P application picked for you)
As IP address (and hence NAT) usage increase, we will have more and more users needing these solutions, and less and less people available (i.e. not behind NAT's) to solve them for us.
Skype solves this behind the scenes by sending voice traffic in encrypted form to a third untrusted host not behind a NAT if both peers were behind one. Again this sucks for both of you, and shows itself in reduced voice quality due to increased round trip times to that third party host. Maybe the traffic now needs to go through a stupid overloaded router somewhere in the world that would otherwise not even have been part of the routing equation.
You're introducing more causes of lag in case both are behind NAT's in the best case, and in the worst case, the NAT or application will simply not support the scenario and you won't be able to communicate at all.
NAT's can also mean trouble for end-to-end security protocols like IPsec, something IPv6 makes a particular effort of supporting well.
Besides, it's not even just about "NAT doesn't work well, therefore we need IPv6", be
But this is already possible? Set NTFS to encrypt your folder of choice, and it will be encrypted and protected by the user's login password. Would this simply let a user to protect a folder with a different password than the normal one, and that's all the news there is to this feature?
I can understand if this cancelled feature would've been more risky from an admin's perspective though, because I assume (I haven't checked this in practice) that if you forget your user login on Windows, once an admin resets the password and the user picks a new one, he/she can still access the encrypted data. I.e. it's encrypted by some form of user token, not a specific password?
Speaking of this, how much do NASA currently cost American citizens per year? Even better, is there a web site where one can see how the distribution of tax money change from year to year in a reasonably accessible form? I'm not American and have been wondering of this now and then when the subject is brought up.
wtf who cares! i d/led paris hiltn givin a blowjob with bt.. lolol i like dat tape
:-)
wuts this about columbos? u mean chris colombos directing harry poter? yea it rocked
^--- The aforementioned post-digital dark age.
Storing Windows Vista on a disc using bacteria...
Sounds like a suitable medium for the data...
Huh? You can already drag tabs at least in Firefox 1.5, Opera 8, and Opera 9...
It reminded me a bit of this (real) picture.
And now you're also only bringing up encyclopedias to compare with Wikipedia. I think one should keep in mind that this guy is talking about a current event, and looking at Wikipedia right at that moment. In that case, the articles are more at risk of being partially complete, contain misinformation or not had time to be vandalism checked properly. A better parallel in this case would be reading a news paper's breaking news, and accuracy check that. Chances are the journalists can have similar misinformation there. And then it's a more serious matter, as an editor can't step in 5 second later and correct your copy of that paper.
Yes, and at its best, it's pretty darn cool.
Welcome to Wikipedia.
And during current events such as that example he brings up, there was most likely a high visibility template on top of the article saying something like "this article documents a current event, information may change rapidly". I think that should be taken as a sign the content and information is in flux. I advise against using Wikipedia as a sole information source particularly during breaking news events. I'd try newspapers with good reputations for that, although they're keen on spreading misinformation as well at times.
An Inside Look at Google
;-)
:-p
Hey guys, watch it, it's about the women at Google!
I guess now we have yet another reason to go there.
Her throat?
OK, sorry for that, Slashgals. I feel bad now.
Bah, how about not forcing Opera to keep up to date with specific extensions found in Firefox...
Firefox actually has a worse adblock implementation then Opera, did you know that?
The root of the problem as I see it is not a poor integrated adblock functionality -- I'm sure Opera 9's new interactive and visual adblocking mechanisms are sufficient for most people -- the problem is more likely deep extension support for power users to extend functionality as they want and need.
While Opera ASA is doing an admirable job of keeping up to date with the competition as a company, my number one wish for Opera 10 is good extension support.
And no, Opera's aging Netscape plugin support is lacking in so many areas, like chrome and renderer extensibility, that I won't even discuss it.
I nominate this for the strangest news article title of 2006.
Hmm, isn't that an example of intellectual intellectual property infringement? :-)
I quote:
I wonder why eBay believes Google Checkout is unsafe, unreliable and/or inconvenient? Seriously, this isn't an obscure, complicated, foreign payment system. It's pretty obvious to me why they really did this, and with this, they're most likely lying about it.
As the link in the article summary also says, even calling Google Checkout something lame like being "too new" doesn't hold much water, given what Google Checkout is.
I have nothing against eBay doing this, but only if they up front told either exactly why, the harsh reality and competition, or didn't comment on it at all. Anything would be better than lying or spreading FUD about certain competitors like this. It's really bad style IMO.
So you believe it's easier for a server farm to crash than your personal/work computer?
As an example of a real world scenario with huge server farms and redundancy...
When did Google last present this error message for you?
On some other sites, this is solved by (rather short) editing time limits. Enough to correct spelling mistakes etc, but far from enough to have the time to get modded up.
Maybe I'm crazy here, but the problem then seems to be Big Brother participants, not the Internet.
What is the author even basing these claims on?
Was any tests released that show e.g Vista Beta 2 is *slow* compared to OS X that I missed?
Or is it just FUD that once again managed to creep into a news submission?
When I go to the dentist, it's not really the tools that are my issue, but how careful the dentist will be.
Will it be a young woman recently having left studies to a dentist (= good, and not just for possibly her looks), or an old cold hearted, careless person. And I'm not sure if a careless user of a plasma needle sounds much more comfortable! O_o
They have more money than the Russian courts?
Perhaps by increasing server capacity? :-p
Or are you not giving a fairly unknown site with little ad revenue basis for an income stream that suddenly gets an enormous spike in traffic a chance?
Yeah, because it's so fricking hard to click on another hyperlink or move your fingers to form a new URL.
Besides, the argument is fatally flawed which you try to hide by exaggerating things like a madman, making 1 year old = every 15 minutes.
What's the problem with checking out another site after a year?
The laziness of some seem to know no bounds.
Or maybe you're just getting old.
Well, perhaps the fact that it was the most popular YouTube video. For it to become the most popular, it has to have been shared a lot. And due to how popular YouTube is, chances are that it will have already been riding its popularity wave.