Right on the NTP virtualization (which is irrelevant), but wrong on the "bootstrap problem".
I run a two private mini-DCs, one fully virtualized, the other almost. In the "almost" DC, only the pfSense box is not virtualized. It handles DNS caching, firewall duties, VPN access, and DHCP. In the second DC, even pfSense runs in a VM. The "trick" is to use the tools you have -- set the VM startup order so the VMs responsible for DNS are started first, or at least soon enough to be up before the VMs that rely on them. The ESX servers themselves do not need DNS for anything.
NTP on the VMs is irrelevant. The hypervisors will do NTP to keep themselves synced, and the VMs sync through the (always installed, right?) VMWare tools (or open-vm-tools) since even running an NTP *client* in a VM is problematic and ultimately pointless.
I agree with the parsing nightmare, though XML is not the right answer either.
Transport needs encryption, authentication, and compression. Internally, the data can be handled by something similar to inetd+tcpmux.
SCTP w/ default-persistent connections for the transport.
PK signing of data to verify authorship, replacing SSL
Mandatory compression
A generic, extensible, data envelope used to hold the actual goodies, with a few well defined but generic header fields.
This gets rid of most of the problems that currently exist with TCP, allows efficient proxying and reverse proxying, and wastes fewer resources. Encryption at the transport layer means webservers in a virtual hosting environment no longer have to figure out what key to use before they know the target host. Signing data means the stream can be authenticated with existing SSL certificates and the CA infrastructure.
The data envelope would have a minimum number of headers. The envelope types, provided by client and server plugins, could be as simple as a datagram transport for "text/plain" to handle the bulk of existing websites, or as complex as an "application/webdav" handler for remote publishing, or "application/vcr" for interactive a/v media. If the overall protocol is thought of similar to TCPMUX where channel IDs are used instead of tcp/udp ports, we get everything we need, "forever".
The single pre-defined envelope type is simply used to exchange a list of supported envelope types by both ends. This is the only part of the protocol that would continue to be "string based", so no central authority is needed to assign and manage a mapping between envelope types and IDs
Are you saying that an individual can take away your birth right (Constitution, Amendments, Bill of Rights) because they are individuals and private, simply because you entered a contract with them....really?
No. But any individual can (and they often do) waive their rights, for example, when signing a contract.
You mistakenly assume that you will have a choice, most Americans do not have another choice. In fact most Americans, I am guessing well over 90%, can not escape censorship and fraud with their bandwidth via throttling.
Nonsense. Internet access (and certainly broadband) is not some fundamental right of yours. You do have a choice, even if that choice is "no internet for you." Likely though, your hyperbole is just transparent. Almost everywhere has at least one broadband provider, even if it's a "crummy" 256 or 128 kbit ADSL line. HughesNet is available just about everywhere in North America. Cellular service and finally dialup are also available almost everywhere. Nearly everyone has a choice (well over 90% as you put it). Not liking your choices doesn't make them any less of a choice. Of course you also have that most capitalist of choices: start your own company.
The infrastructure is not only NOT their property, based on their non performance under contractual law it should be taken away from them and given back to the citizens of the community.
Well at least I know which socialist hole you crawled out of now.
Back in the 1990s, most, if not all, of the existing telcos received one or all of these three for one thing...Fiber To The Home.
~ outright grants of millions of dollars for fiber
~ ability to add fees to customers bills for fiber
~ ability to add additional taxes to customers bills for fiber.
WTF? Where's the Fiber?
The billions, if not trillions, they've spent on their networks is the lions share of the investment. "Given back to the people" amounts to no more than typical socialist drivel in this context. But go ahead, "give" it back "to the people", which can only mean, to the government. See how well they run an ISP.
Bandwidth is being saturated by entitled twerps who don't know or care how their usage pattern affects everyone else, and your solution is to give them fiber? You, my friend, are completely out to lunch.
Surreal comments by VZ, Romney, and SCOTUS aside, the facts are pretty simple, and so should be the case against NN.
1. Whatever corporations are, they are not the federal government nor a state government. Your rights (enumerated and non) in the Constitution are protected from infringement by the federal government (always), and state/local governments (if incorporated). They are not protected from "infringement" by a corporation or individual you willingly enter a contract with. IOW, you are on private property, you have no rights.
2. You agree to the contract when you enter it, including those annoying parts about the contract being subject to change at the whim of one party but not the other. Don't like it? Don't sign. My internet and wireless service are both contract-free. When they change the rules in a way I can't live with, I switch.
3. #1 and #2 in mind, they have every right to manage their network however they see fit. They may not have a first amendment right on the network, not being people and all, but you definitely have no such right when using their property -- unless your contract says otherwise.
All the fear mongering over what is going to happen if NN isn't passed is just that, FUD. If you want to know what the internet will look like if/when NN does pass, prepare to kiss your cap-free broadband goodbye. If left to manage their networks, they will be able to filter the abusers without running afoul of the law (too often), and when they do (e.g. WRT vonage, etc.) existing antitrust laws can take care of it, and we will all continue to enjoy dirt cheap broadband with no monthly cap. If the crybabies get their way, and something like NN is passed, prepare for broadband prices to go through the roof, and/or per-MB/per-minute charges return with a vengeance. They can only afford to oversell bandwidth when people aren't abusing it. Overselling makes it fast for MOST people, MOST of the time. If any individual has a "right" to abuse that and max out their line all the time, and cause everyone using the service to suffer, the only answer is to price the abusers out of the market.
You don't run an NTP server in a VM. NTP servers need realtime (or as close as possible on a non-RTOS) access to the clock and network, and no matter much you jack up the priority of your NTP server VM, it's not going to be stable enough for anyone to bother using it. This is why e.g. VMWare ESX run an internal ntp daemon that the VMs can sync to, which itself syncs to the ntp pool.
All you need to know about it is right there in the blurb. "node.js", "mongoDB", and "enterprise JavaScript framework". That's enough for me to send it to the circular file with extreme prejudice, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on the NTP virtualization (which is irrelevant), but wrong on the "bootstrap problem". I run a two private mini-DCs, one fully virtualized, the other almost. In the "almost" DC, only the pfSense box is not virtualized. It handles DNS caching, firewall duties, VPN access, and DHCP. In the second DC, even pfSense runs in a VM. The "trick" is to use the tools you have -- set the VM startup order so the VMs responsible for DNS are started first, or at least soon enough to be up before the VMs that rely on them. The ESX servers themselves do not need DNS for anything. NTP on the VMs is irrelevant. The hypervisors will do NTP to keep themselves synced, and the VMs sync through the (always installed, right?) VMWare tools (or open-vm-tools) since even running an NTP *client* in a VM is problematic and ultimately pointless.
I *am* Corbin Dallas.
I agree with the parsing nightmare, though XML is not the right answer either.
Transport needs encryption, authentication, and compression. Internally, the data can be handled by something similar to inetd+tcpmux.
This gets rid of most of the problems that currently exist with TCP, allows efficient proxying and reverse proxying, and wastes fewer resources. Encryption at the transport layer means webservers in a virtual hosting environment no longer have to figure out what key to use before they know the target host. Signing data means the stream can be authenticated with existing SSL certificates and the CA infrastructure.
The data envelope would have a minimum number of headers. The envelope types, provided by client and server plugins, could be as simple as a datagram transport for "text/plain" to handle the bulk of existing websites, or as complex as an "application/webdav" handler for remote publishing, or "application/vcr" for interactive a/v media. If the overall protocol is thought of similar to TCPMUX where channel IDs are used instead of tcp/udp ports, we get everything we need, "forever".
The single pre-defined envelope type is simply used to exchange a list of supported envelope types by both ends. This is the only part of the protocol that would continue to be "string based", so no central authority is needed to assign and manage a mapping between envelope types and IDs
Are you saying that an individual can take away your birth right (Constitution, Amendments, Bill of Rights) because they are individuals and private, simply because you entered a contract with them....really?
No. But any individual can (and they often do) waive their rights, for example, when signing a contract.
You mistakenly assume that you will have a choice, most Americans do not have another choice. In fact most Americans, I am guessing well over 90%, can not escape censorship and fraud with their bandwidth via throttling.
Nonsense. Internet access (and certainly broadband) is not some fundamental right of yours. You do have a choice, even if that choice is "no internet for you." Likely though, your hyperbole is just transparent. Almost everywhere has at least one broadband provider, even if it's a "crummy" 256 or 128 kbit ADSL line. HughesNet is available just about everywhere in North America. Cellular service and finally dialup are also available almost everywhere. Nearly everyone has a choice (well over 90% as you put it). Not liking your choices doesn't make them any less of a choice. Of course you also have that most capitalist of choices: start your own company.
The infrastructure is not only NOT their property, based on their non performance under contractual law it should be taken away from them and given back to the citizens of the community.
Well at least I know which socialist hole you crawled out of now.
Back in the 1990s, most, if not all, of the existing telcos received one or all of these three for one thing...Fiber To The Home.
WTF? Where's the Fiber?
The billions, if not trillions, they've spent on their networks is the lions share of the investment. "Given back to the people" amounts to no more than typical socialist drivel in this context. But go ahead, "give" it back "to the people", which can only mean, to the government. See how well they run an ISP. Bandwidth is being saturated by entitled twerps who don't know or care how their usage pattern affects everyone else, and your solution is to give them fiber? You, my friend, are completely out to lunch.
Surreal comments by VZ, Romney, and SCOTUS aside, the facts are pretty simple, and so should be the case against NN.
1. Whatever corporations are, they are not the federal government nor a state government. Your rights (enumerated and non) in the Constitution are protected from infringement by the federal government (always), and state/local governments (if incorporated). They are not protected from "infringement" by a corporation or individual you willingly enter a contract with. IOW, you are on private property, you have no rights.
2. You agree to the contract when you enter it, including those annoying parts about the contract being subject to change at the whim of one party but not the other. Don't like it? Don't sign. My internet and wireless service are both contract-free. When they change the rules in a way I can't live with, I switch.
3. #1 and #2 in mind, they have every right to manage their network however they see fit. They may not have a first amendment right on the network, not being people and all, but you definitely have no such right when using their property -- unless your contract says otherwise.
All the fear mongering over what is going to happen if NN isn't passed is just that, FUD. If you want to know what the internet will look like if/when NN does pass, prepare to kiss your cap-free broadband goodbye. If left to manage their networks, they will be able to filter the abusers without running afoul of the law (too often), and when they do (e.g. WRT vonage, etc.) existing antitrust laws can take care of it, and we will all continue to enjoy dirt cheap broadband with no monthly cap. If the crybabies get their way, and something like NN is passed, prepare for broadband prices to go through the roof, and/or per-MB/per-minute charges return with a vengeance. They can only afford to oversell bandwidth when people aren't abusing it. Overselling makes it fast for MOST people, MOST of the time. If any individual has a "right" to abuse that and max out their line all the time, and cause everyone using the service to suffer, the only answer is to price the abusers out of the market.
You don't run an NTP server in a VM. NTP servers need realtime (or as close as possible on a non-RTOS) access to the clock and network, and no matter much you jack up the priority of your NTP server VM, it's not going to be stable enough for anyone to bother using it. This is why e.g. VMWare ESX run an internal ntp daemon that the VMs can sync to, which itself syncs to the ntp pool.
All you need to know about it is right there in the blurb. "node.js", "mongoDB", and "enterprise JavaScript framework". That's enough for me to send it to the circular file with extreme prejudice, anyway.