The answer, at least for cable, is that the existing infrastructure doesn't allow the high-speed access in most of the cases, and need to be upgraded. This takes lots of time and money.
In case of DSL the situation probably the same even if DSL camp claims that the 'existing infrastructure can be used'. There is also a number of distance limitations.
I for once agree with Eric Raymond. Both Marxism/communism and nazism are fundamentally the same. Their core belief is totalitarian society. I have a right to say so. I've spent 27 years of my life living in such a society. As to 'american rednecks', let me point out that disproportionally large number of american academia still worship Marxism and communism. Those people should truly be called american REDnecks. Quite paradoxal situation, I would say. The products of 'academic freedom' advocate the system which fundamental unfree, and furthermore ostracized everyone not agreed with them.
In the environment where you cannot change your MAC address (like a cable modem), mostly likely you can't change your IP address as well. In the environment you can fiddle with your IP address, you can replace your hardwired MAC address with 'soft' arbitrary MAC address. This MAC address must be unique within your broadcast domain, but that's about it.
The whole issue is nothing but lots of fluff. Bill Frezza has no clue. I don't really care about IPv6 in general, but - hell, this particular issue is not the issue at all.
If I send something in open, I use my IP address anyway. It is in DNS. It is mapped to my machine, with my name as a part of the machine. However when I have to hide, I'll go to extra efforts to hide my origin. Well, so I'll replace my hardwired MAC address with something else. Big deal.
If you are old enough to remember the Desert Shield, Patriot missiles should ring the bell. If not, let me remind you. There was much ado about those missiles, and how they destroy the Iraque's Scuds. After the war, however, we've finally were able to read the true story: there was not a single instance where Patrior missile actually homed on Scud and killed it. It was mostly a propaganda, pure and simple.
There were several instances of fake or 'well controlled' tests with other anti-missile missiles.
I am for strong defense, and that's why I'm concerned with sometime too cozy relationships between the military and companies like Ratheon et al. This is what is called a 'military-industrial complex'. Lots of moneys are getting wasted, thanks to this complex. I hope this won't undermined our defense capabilities too much. Oh well...
Re:Every toaster on the internet?
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 1
Why every toaster on the internet needs to be connected?
Well, how about my toaster talking to your toaster? ("Oh boy, I"m toasted" - 'Me too').
I agree that private addresses and NAT serve quite well to aleviate the address shortage. What people don't understand BTW is the complexity of move from IPv4 to IPv6. I work for fairly large first-tier ISP, so I have some rough idea what would it take. MOre than considerable effort. In any case it seems like V. Cerf is the only one who promotes it. Otherwise nothing short of a complete meltodown would force the move to ipv6.
You now, the whole tenure business is to insure the academic integrity (or I think so).
The whole story reminds the my friend's cat who's name was Leibniz (the german phylosopher and mathematician, if you remember your calculus I). Leiby has a habit of rolling on this back and having anyone scratching his belly. THis reminds me those 'independent academicians and researches' on Billy's payroll. They are only happy when someone scratches their bellies... (but I digress)
what I've heard on NPR is these guidelines are rather biased. Apparently in terms of Y2K, Italy is as just unprepared as Ukraine, but since italy is US' ally (for god sake), the guidlines say something like 'Italy could have done more work', whereas Ukraine is simply rated as 'unsafe'.
you know, dilbert web site has really cool 'vision statement' generator. well, actually this is a 'mission statement' generator, but what's the difference anyway?
---
The customer can count on us to assertively leverage other's quality materials to allow us to enthusiastically create unique intellectual capital because that is what the customer expects
The rate-limiting feature of cisco routers currently allow to 'slow down' the sessions with specific source or destination. there is no magic in it, nor it is a 'hidden feature'. it can be used for various purposes. in fact it works really well (I've spent the last few days playing with it). I'm sure other routers' vendors have similar features.
Performing it straight on an interface shouldn't hurt too much - although I gotta admit, I've got no numbers to back me up here.
- Yes, the overhead is something like 0.001% or less. Can live with it.
Matching per IP address is rather CPU intensive though, according to the documentation.
Actually, it's a bit more involved than that. According to documentation, using the standard access list (if you wish to match IP addr) shouldn't be that bad, but using the extended access list (if you wish to match say TCP port number) causes more overhead. What we've got is something like 10% overhead with a standard access list, and >20% with extended access list.
By overhead I mean 'the packet rate which still can be processed by CPU'. (on input for instance, you'll see 'ignores' if CPU can't keep up with the incoming packet rate)
You know what really bugs me all the time. I am using Perl a lot, and yet those folks... Gosh, don't you think they have made a religion out of it? Just look at the Tom Christiansen web site.
PERL is a language of post-modernistic epoch.
PERL is a spirit of UNIX.
and so forth and so forth.
THose folks surely do have super-inflated egos. In fact, PERL is quickly becoming a kitchen sink, rather incoherent collection of features noone really understands, just take a look at the discussion on PERL usenet groups. These are no longer the rational discussions, but rather sort of 'how many angels can fit on a tip of the needle'.
Saying so, I am still using PERL for quick and dirty work, but when I fell I need to have a high degree of confidence in what's going on, I am using C, compiled with GCC.
As far as Tom's article is concerned, remember boys and girls: MEAN PEOPLE SUCK.
THis is not the cost of IPv6-capable router (well, practically all the routers used on INTERNET backbone are IPv6 capable) but the *cost of converting the INTERNET backbone* which is the major stumbling block.
There is very little motivation amongst the major ISPs to migrate to IPv6. The main reason for IPv6 - the potential address shortage - has been blown out of proportions. More efficient address space allocation, as well as extensive use of private addresses and NAT make 'the day when we all run out of address' further and further off. There are no other solid reasons to move to IPv6. The only other reason I can think of - very elegant scheme of assigning addresses to the host - is no longer relevant due to the wide speard of DHCP.
Granted, the large address space is indead much better than the combination of private address and NAT, as well as the IPV6 scenario for allocating addresses to the host is better than DHCP - but not at the extent to justify the massive conversion of INTERNET backbone to V6.
What I've heard from someone who's been participating in IPv6 committee (can't give his name but there is a hint: he wrote several key RFCs 'on how to write RFCs' and also teaches at Harvard) that the whole IPv6 was nothing but the big P.R.: IP was still evolving, its enemies has been trying to speard the FUD, and 'runing out of addresses' scare was part of that FUD. Consequently, IPv6 specs was mostly response to that FUD. Of course now IETF feels kind of funny: they've spent so much time and efforts and seems like noone cares.
AFAIK, Metcalfe is indead doesn't know what he's talking about. He *is* completely out of touch.
His prediction made a few years ago that 'INTERNET would come to a grinding halt' was a complete B.S.'. He had to take his words back. Publicly.
As far a 'cocky little punks'... well, I've been in computing/networking business for about 15 years, currently work for one of the top-tier INTERNET providers... We make INTERNET work, buddy. What are *your* credentials, by the way?
Robert Metcalf has invented Ethernet, and that has truly revolutionized the whole networking business. Since then however he didn't make a single contribution to anything AFAIK. He became a columnist and every once in a while fires the cheap shots just to attract attention to himself (so I guess people can still remember him)
Last year Metcalf predicted the INTERNET would come to the gridlock 'during the last year' or so. It didn't happen, and he had to eat a crow. Now he's doing it again.
Seems like he doesn't understand the nature of INTERNET, and apparently he doesn't understand the nature of the open source movement either.
they say 'it is possible because digital signal takes less bandwidth than the anolog'. This is BS. Digital signal takes *more* bandwidth the analog. Substantially more. But then we can do some fancy things like MPEG-2 compression, and that's how we can keep the bandwidth requirements for digital video within the reasonable bounds.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer, at least for cable, is that
the existing infrastructure doesn't allow the
high-speed access in most of the cases, and
need to be upgraded. This takes lots of time and
money.
In case of DSL the situation probably the same
even if DSL camp claims that the 'existing
infrastructure can be used'. There is also a
number of distance limitations.
New Mexicans are on a right track! First their
governor had the guts to declare 'the war on
marijuana' a total bullshit. Now, this one.
I for once agree with Eric Raymond. Both
Marxism/communism and nazism are fundamentally
the same. Their core belief is totalitarian
society. I have a right to say so. I've spent 27
years of my life living in such a society. As to
'american rednecks', let me point out that
disproportionally large number of american
academia still worship Marxism and communism.
Those people should truly be called american
REDnecks. Quite paradoxal situation, I would say.
The products of 'academic freedom' advocate the
system which fundamental unfree, and furthermore
ostracized everyone not agreed with them.
In the environment where you cannot change your
MAC address (like a cable modem), mostly likely
you can't change your IP address as well. In the
environment you can fiddle with your IP address,
you can replace your hardwired MAC address with
'soft' arbitrary MAC address. This MAC address
must be unique within your broadcast domain, but
that's about it.
The whole issue is nothing but lots of fluff.
Bill Frezza has no clue. I don't really
care about IPv6 in general, but - hell, this
particular issue is not the issue at all.
If I send something in open, I use my IP address
anyway. It is in DNS. It is mapped to my machine,
with my name as a part of the machine. However
when I have to hide, I'll go to extra efforts to
hide my origin. Well, so I'll replace my
hardwired MAC address with something else. Big
deal.
If you are old enough to remember the Desert Shield, Patriot missiles should ring the bell.
...
If not, let me remind you. There was much ado
about those missiles, and how they destroy the
Iraque's Scuds. After the war, however, we've
finally were able to read the true story: there
was not a single instance where Patrior missile
actually homed on Scud and killed it. It was mostly a propaganda, pure and simple.
There were several instances of fake or 'well controlled' tests with other anti-missile missiles.
I am for strong defense, and that's why I'm concerned with sometime too cozy relationships between the military and companies like Ratheon et al. This is what is called a 'military-industrial complex'. Lots of moneys are getting wasted, thanks to this complex. I hope this won't undermined our defense capabilities too much. Oh well
Why every toaster on the internet needs to be
connected?
Well, how about my toaster talking to your toaster? ("Oh boy, I"m toasted" - 'Me too').
I agree that private addresses and NAT serve quite
well to aleviate the address shortage. What people don't understand BTW is the complexity of move from IPv4 to IPv6. I work for fairly large first-tier ISP, so I have some rough idea what would it take. MOre than considerable effort. In any case it seems like V. Cerf is the only one who promotes it. Otherwise nothing short of a complete meltodown would force the move to ipv6.
yes, just what we need: more hype and hysteria.
as we weren't fed up with Y2K already.
netscape 5 hopefully will be slim. staroffice
is rather hopeless, though. KOffice may be better,but it is still too early to say.
>Every two years the speed of software halves.
-------
I'm anxious to see the 1Hz processor (in about
28-30 years, assuming the current clock speed is
500Mhz)
Just don't ever try to play mp3 files on it.
You now, the whole tenure business is to insure
... (but I digress)
the academic integrity (or I think so).
The whole story reminds the my friend's cat who's
name was Leibniz (the german phylosopher and
mathematician, if you remember your calculus I).
Leiby has a habit of rolling on this back and
having anyone scratching his belly. THis reminds
me those 'independent academicians and researches'
on Billy's payroll. They are only happy when
someone scratches their bellies
what I've heard on NPR is these guidelines are
rather biased. Apparently in terms of Y2K,
Italy is as just unprepared as Ukraine, but
since italy is US' ally (for god sake), the
guidlines say something like 'Italy could have
done more work', whereas Ukraine is simply rated
as 'unsafe'.
Gosh, I've never realized it was *him*. I've
always thought it was Billary who did that.
He's been active participant of tcpip usenet
discussion group. I've received some very
useful responses from him.
I've met him once in Boston, about 6 years ago.
He gave a presentation on IPv6 with an emphasis
on programming perspective. It was very
informative.
As I'm writing this message, two of his books -
TCP/IP illustrated, and Unix network programming
sit on my desk.
News of his death simply blew my mind.
you know, dilbert web site has really cool
'vision statement' generator. well, actually
this is a 'mission statement' generator, but
what's the difference anyway?
---
The customer can count on us to assertively leverage other's quality materials to allow us to enthusiastically create unique intellectual capital because that is what the customer expects
our govenment went postal
What a nice guy!
Should he be made a saint or something?
Oral sex! Oral sex!
The rate-limiting feature of cisco routers
currently allow to 'slow down' the sessions
with specific source or destination. there is
no magic in it, nor it is a 'hidden feature'.
it can be used for various purposes. in fact
it works really well (I've spent the last few
days playing with it). I'm sure other routers'
vendors have similar features.
Performing it straight on an interface shouldn't hurt too much - although I
gotta admit, I've got no numbers to back me up here.
- Yes, the overhead is something like 0.001% or
less. Can live with it.
Matching per IP address is rather CPU intensive though, according to the
documentation.
Actually, it's a bit more involved than that.
According to documentation, using the standard
access list (if you wish to match IP addr)
shouldn't be that bad, but using the extended
access list (if you wish to match say TCP port
number) causes more overhead. What we've got
is something like 10% overhead with a standard
access list, and >20% with extended access list.
By overhead I mean 'the packet rate which still
can be processed by CPU'. (on input for instance,
you'll see 'ignores' if CPU can't keep up with
the incoming packet rate)
Hope it helps.
You know what really bugs me all the time. I am ... Gosh,
using Perl a lot, and yet those folks
don't you think they have made a religion out of
it? Just look at the Tom Christiansen web site.
PERL is a language of post-modernistic epoch.
PERL is a spirit of UNIX.
and so forth and so forth.
THose folks surely do have super-inflated egos.
In fact, PERL is quickly becoming a kitchen sink,
rather incoherent collection of features noone
really understands, just take a look at the
discussion on PERL usenet groups. These are no
longer the rational discussions, but rather sort
of 'how many angels can fit on a tip of the
needle'.
Saying so, I am still using PERL for quick and
dirty work, but when I fell I need to have
a high degree of confidence in what's going on,
I am using C, compiled with GCC.
As far as Tom's article is concerned, remember
boys and girls: MEAN PEOPLE SUCK.
THis is not the cost of IPv6-capable router
(well, practically all the routers used on
INTERNET backbone are IPv6 capable) but the
*cost of converting the INTERNET backbone*
which is the major stumbling block.
There is very little motivation amongst the
major ISPs to migrate to IPv6. The main reason
for IPv6 - the potential address shortage -
has been blown out of proportions. More efficient
address space allocation, as well as extensive
use of private addresses and NAT make
'the day when we all run out of address' further
and further off. There are no other solid reasons
to move to IPv6. The only other reason I can
think of - very elegant scheme of assigning
addresses to the host - is no longer relevant
due to the wide speard of DHCP.
Granted, the large address space is indead much
better than the combination of private address and
NAT, as well as the IPV6 scenario for allocating
addresses to the host is better than DHCP -
but not at the extent to justify the massive
conversion of INTERNET backbone to V6.
What I've heard from someone who's been
participating in IPv6 committee (can't give his
name but there is a hint: he wrote several key
RFCs 'on how to write RFCs' and also teaches at
Harvard) that the whole IPv6 was nothing but
the big P.R.: IP was still evolving, its enemies
has been trying to speard the FUD, and 'runing
out of addresses' scare was part of that FUD.
Consequently, IPv6 specs was mostly response to
that FUD. Of course now IETF feels kind of
funny: they've spent so much time and efforts
and seems like noone cares.
AFAIK, Metcalfe is indead doesn't know what
... well, I've ... We make INTERNET work,
he's talking about. He *is* completely out of
touch.
His prediction made a few years ago that
'INTERNET would come to a grinding halt' was
a complete B.S.'. He had to take his words back.
Publicly.
As far a 'cocky little punks'
been in computing/networking business for about
15 years, currently work for one of the top-tier
INTERNET providers
buddy. What are *your* credentials, by the way?
Robert Metcalf has invented Ethernet, and that
has truly revolutionized the whole networking
business. Since then however he didn't make
a single contribution to anything AFAIK. He became
a columnist and every once in a while fires the
cheap shots just to attract attention to himself
(so I guess people can still remember him)
Last year Metcalf predicted the INTERNET would
come to the gridlock 'during the last year' or so.
It didn't happen, and he had to eat a crow. Now
he's doing it again.
Seems like he doesn't understand the nature of
INTERNET, and apparently he doesn't understand
the nature of the open source movement either.
they say 'it is possible because digital signal
takes less bandwidth than the anolog'. This is BS.
Digital signal takes *more* bandwidth the
analog. Substantially more. But then we can do
some fancy things like MPEG-2 compression, and
that's how we can keep the bandwidth requirements
for digital video within the reasonable bounds.