You have to have multicast routing set up between you and the networks you want multicast to go to...and the clients have to 'subscribe' to your multicast group. They won't hear anything from you until they tell their local multicast router they want to talk to you.
So, yeah, multicast doesn't generally work unless you're on the same subnet. That said, here's a fun one to run under Linux: ping6 -c2 ff02::1%eth0
Any hosts configured to respond to ICMP6 echo requests will send a reply. I once counted several hundred hosts on my VPS provider's network that way.
Set up an application-layer proxy on a host with both addresses, same as you would with IPv4.
So, set up a machine running Squid, where that machine has IPs from both your upstream ISPs. All your internal clients can use that Squid proxy to get out. SIP? No problem; use a SIP proxy.
Since you're pushing the 'logical, not physical' link angle, you can go one step further and set up a tunnel to another endpoint on the Internet, and use that as another possible route. (i.e. I have IPv6 access because I use a proto41 tunnel from Hurricane Electric)
If you don't want to go that route, have radvd announce both prefixes on your internal network, and allow clients to select which source address they use. Use short 'preferred' lifetimes, and you can have some daemon tweak your radvd configuration whenever you decide you want to favor one prefix over the other.
But, really, an application-layer proxy is your best option.
Tracking ability is going to be driven more by browser request headers than by IP address, anyway.
I expect ISPs will get beyond/64s within a year or two. Being stuck with only a single/64 is BS; I have my home wired and wireless networks on different subnets for pretty simple (but entirely valid) reasons:
Broadcast and multicast traffic on a gigabit link doesn't risk flooding the far-slower wireless link
It makes it trivially easy to partition off wireless clients from wired clients, reducing the vulnerability my wireless network gives me. I'll be able to do even better once I split off to two SSIDs, one for guests and one for trusted users; guests wouldn't get access to any of the rest of the network.
Heck, multi-SSID behaviors with varying trust levels are finding their way into consumer routers already (while I'm wardriving, I see a lot of -guest networks coming from residences...even a very non-technical friend of mine has a -guest network that came up by default with their consumer router.), but that can't work if the routers don't have enough address space to work with.
ULA addresses are good for having 'private' address ranges. Don't rely on link-local. As sexy as it sounds, a lot of tools (especially browsers) don't handle them well; they get hung up on the concept that an IP address may be valid only when combined with an interface.
Also, realize that corporate environments are probably going to push you through an HTTP proxy server...which will then appear to be the origination point for traffic. Your workstations don't need to be exposed.
Not a heat issue, it's a pressure issue. The fluid rock in the mantle squezes up into magma cavities underneath under the volcanos.
Now, it's possible to have a solid rock cap on top of such a cavity, but that results in massive explosions of smoke and ash (see pictures of cone-type volcanos) rather than long flows of very fluid magma (see pictures of shield-type volcanos).
Granted, it's been a couple decades since I covered any of this in a geography class, so I could be wrong.
Not that I want to disagree with you on this subject, but there's a difference between a cataloging of unrelated information and information which relates to each other.
A language is not "nothing but a listing of words an how they're used", a language is an idea which is described in a specification and/or implementation. That idea satisfies that "minimum amount of creativity" you need in order to copyright something.
Otherwise, a novel would just be a "narration of fictitious characters and things they did to each other as they resided in the author's mind", and would thus be similarly uncopyrightable.
Where there's a hotel capable with 500 rooms, there's likely to be a cable ISP within easy reach. The larger the hotel, the more cheap bandwidth is geographically handy.
There were too many active radios, and the spectrum was too crowded. They even switched to a four-channel layout instead of the three-channel. (We informally use a five-channel model in my apartment building, what with all the various tennants' APs and routers finding the least crowded piece of spectrum in their immediate area.
My god you are a moron. It's 11, as in the current version number not the year it will be released.
Doh. So it is. I've simply been misreading the various blog posts about it for quite some time.
Notice how it is 2012 and the beta was just released.
I'm a C++ developer. Remember C++0x?
It will almost certainly be called 2012 when it is out but it isn't called that yet because the RTM date hasn't been announced. Visual Studio 2011 simply does not exist in any way and will never exist.
Probably correct; you're right about the version number. I grew accustomed to VS2010's being VS10.
So you knew it was released and then made an intentionally misleading statement because of splitting hairs over the name. What a dick move.
No. It's not called Visual Studio 2012. It's called Visual Studio 2011 Beta. The person I was replying to used the term "VS2012", and that's the term I responded to. No misleading statement was intended. If he meant the VS2011 beta, that's the product he should have referenced. We're (presumably) computer programmers talking about computer programming, for crying out loud; accuracy and precision count.
I'm well aware of the product currently called "Visual Studio 11 Beta". And is even called such in all the per-version MSDN API docs. If they rename it when they RTM, so be it. If not, then not.
Don't assume you know my problem domain, because you quite clearly don't. You obviously don't even know the kind of user my UI faces, or that VS2012 isn't even in public beta yet.
Your lack of knowledge shown in your judgement is beyond laughable; it's pitiable. Hell, it shows you didn't even bother to read the comment you replied to. You didn't pick up on that I noted I'd love to set a minimum of Vista, and you didn't pick up that my requirements are driven by my customers.
Either that, or you're just another troll. I hope it's the latter, because I'm tired of encountering the alternative.
And most people who work with it would like for it to die. Which Microsoft has actually been working at facilitating in various ways, between the whole.NET ecosystem and now the ability to write Metro apps in C++ against WinRT, leaving the C API out of the picture completely.
Microsoft has made it entirely possible for many people who work with it to move on to different frameworks, but has responded to developer pressure to keep MFC alive and maintained. I doubt it's one of their priorities, but it's better than where things sat with the release of VS2008. VS2010 has improved MFC, and it sounds like VS2011 is marginally better, with its first-class support of C++.
And while I'd love to ditch having my code support anything older than Vista, that's just not going to happen any time soon. My code isn't written for the mass market, it's written for specced use cases, which includes things like supporting WinXP and even (at times) Win2K. If you're writing a new application every year, or doing a major refactor of your code every couple years, you can keep with the times and depend on bleeding edge libraries.
If you're working with a large legacy codebase with install sites over a decade old, you're not going to be jumping at Metro quite yet. It probably isn't going to be until Windows 9 before Microsoft stabilizes their new platform enough to be worth porting code forward. Look at 95 vs 98 vs ME, and then XP vs XPSP2 (which really could have been a new operating system...), and then Vista vs Win7. Microsoft tick-tocks between "what fresh hell is this?" and "Whew! That's a relief!".
MFC isn't a program, it's an MVC framework library combined with a C++ wrapper around most of Win32, which itself is mostly organized as OO, even though it has a C API. And when things don't behave the way you expect, you're tracking it down anyhow. Once you've worked with MFC (or any library) for five years, you're going to know parts of it at almost as well as your own code--and, given that the framework represents a hotpath for you across multiple projects, you'll know parts of it better than your own code.
And if the patch is rejected, at least they can tell me why. If it's "WONTFIX", then so be it; I'll leave the workaround in place. Otherwise, I can adapt and apply.
You could be slightly less condescending...I did test that, years ago. Defrag doesn't trigger it.
Frankly, I'm not certain exactly how the third-party DRM code detects disk manipulations. I know that filesystem-level copying and folder virtualization triggers it, while filesystem-level moves do not. I don't know enough about NTFS details to surmise the specific causes of this, but the same 3rd-party tool functions equivalently on VFAT, so...*shrug*
Not when they've got a patient sitting in the room with them, a tight appointment schedule, and they need it fixed now. Typically, in those cases, it's something silly like a borked configuration file, third-party tool, or some external hardware needs to be power cycled.
They really like the assistance when they're under the gun like that. They're happy to pay. And I've even been sent a meat and cheese basket...
Virus detector heuristics suck. They trip on some of our code that doesn't have anything to do with copy protection.
Regarding unique code sequence...you still have non-unique code semantics, at least for anything that started out the same. And in the GP's case of 35k checks, those aren't all going to originate hand-written; semantically, they'll boil down to a more manageable subset of semantic behaviors.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to have multicast routing set up between you and the networks you want multicast to go to...and the clients have to 'subscribe' to your multicast group. They won't hear anything from you until they tell their local multicast router they want to talk to you.
So, yeah, multicast doesn't generally work unless you're on the same subnet. That said, here's a fun one to run under Linux:
ping6 -c2 ff02::1%eth0
Any hosts configured to respond to ICMP6 echo requests will send a reply. I once counted several hundred hosts on my VPS provider's network that way.
Just curious: Where do you fit privacy extensions in that scheme?
Set up an application-layer proxy on a host with both addresses, same as you would with IPv4.
So, set up a machine running Squid, where that machine has IPs from both your upstream ISPs. All your internal clients can use that Squid proxy to get out. SIP? No problem; use a SIP proxy.
Since you're pushing the 'logical, not physical' link angle, you can go one step further and set up a tunnel to another endpoint on the Internet, and use that as another possible route. (i.e. I have IPv6 access because I use a proto41 tunnel from Hurricane Electric)
If you don't want to go that route, have radvd announce both prefixes on your internal network, and allow clients to select which source address they use. Use short 'preferred' lifetimes, and you can have some daemon tweak your radvd configuration whenever you decide you want to favor one prefix over the other.
But, really, an application-layer proxy is your best option.
Tracking ability is going to be driven more by browser request headers than by IP address, anyway.
I expect ISPs will get beyond /64s within a year or two. Being stuck with only a single /64 is BS; I have my home wired and wireless networks on different subnets for pretty simple (but entirely valid) reasons:
Heck, multi-SSID behaviors with varying trust levels are finding their way into consumer routers already (while I'm wardriving, I see a lot of -guest networks coming from residences...even a very non-technical friend of mine has a -guest network that came up by default with their consumer router.), but that can't work if the routers don't have enough address space to work with.
ULA addresses are good for having 'private' address ranges. Don't rely on link-local. As sexy as it sounds, a lot of tools (especially browsers) don't handle them well; they get hung up on the concept that an IP address may be valid only when combined with an interface.
Look up IPv6 privacy extensions.
Also, realize that corporate environments are probably going to push you through an HTTP proxy server...which will then appear to be the origination point for traffic. Your workstations don't need to be exposed.
Look up ULA addresses. You're going to love them.
What makes you think networks are all about hardware?
Nope. The class's name was geography. Once upon a time, they also taught some geology under those classes. That I remember.
Not a heat issue, it's a pressure issue. The fluid rock in the mantle squezes up into magma cavities underneath under the volcanos.
Now, it's possible to have a solid rock cap on top of such a cavity, but that results in massive explosions of smoke and ash (see pictures of cone-type volcanos) rather than long flows of very fluid magma (see pictures of shield-type volcanos).
Granted, it's been a couple decades since I covered any of this in a geography class, so I could be wrong.
I rather hope that as passionate software engineers grow out of their enterprise value range, they'll pursue open source projects.
And if they can't get into management, the world can always use network engineers.
Not that I want to disagree with you on this subject, but there's a difference between a cataloging of unrelated information and information which relates to each other.
A language is not "nothing but a listing of words an how they're used", a language is an idea which is described in a specification and/or implementation. That idea satisfies that "minimum amount of creativity" you need in order to copyright something.
Otherwise, a novel would just be a "narration of fictitious characters and things they did to each other as they resided in the author's mind", and would thus be similarly uncopyrightable.
Where there's a hotel capable with 500 rooms, there's likely to be a cable ISP within easy reach. The larger the hotel, the more cheap bandwidth is geographically handy.
There were too many active radios, and the spectrum was too crowded. They even switched to a four-channel layout instead of the three-channel. (We informally use a five-channel model in my apartment building, what with all the various tennants' APs and routers finding the least crowded piece of spectrum in their immediate area.
My god you are a moron. It's 11, as in the current version number not the year it will be released.
Doh. So it is. I've simply been misreading the various blog posts about it for quite some time.
Notice how it is 2012 and the beta was just released.
I'm a C++ developer. Remember C++0x?
It will almost certainly be called 2012 when it is out but it isn't called that yet because the RTM date hasn't been announced. Visual Studio 2011 simply does not exist in any way and will never exist.
Probably correct; you're right about the version number. I grew accustomed to VS2010's being VS10.
So you knew it was released and then made an intentionally misleading statement because of splitting hairs over the name. What a dick move.
No. It's not called Visual Studio 2012. It's called Visual Studio 2011 Beta. The person I was replying to used the term "VS2012", and that's the term I responded to. No misleading statement was intended. If he meant the VS2011 beta, that's the product he should have referenced. We're (presumably) computer programmers talking about computer programming, for crying out loud; accuracy and precision count.
I'm well aware of the product currently called "Visual Studio 11 Beta". And is even called such in all the per-version MSDN API docs. If they rename it when they RTM, so be it. If not, then not.
Don't assume you know my problem domain, because you quite clearly don't. You obviously don't even know the kind of user my UI faces, or that VS2012 isn't even in public beta yet.
Your lack of knowledge shown in your judgement is beyond laughable; it's pitiable. Hell, it shows you didn't even bother to read the comment you replied to. You didn't pick up on that I noted I'd love to set a minimum of Vista, and you didn't pick up that my requirements are driven by my customers.
Either that, or you're just another troll. I hope it's the latter, because I'm tired of encountering the alternative.
And most people who work with it would like for it to die. Which Microsoft has actually been working at facilitating in various ways, between the whole .NET ecosystem and now the ability to write Metro apps in C++ against WinRT, leaving the C API out of the picture completely.
Microsoft has made it entirely possible for many people who work with it to move on to different frameworks, but has responded to developer pressure to keep MFC alive and maintained. I doubt it's one of their priorities, but it's better than where things sat with the release of VS2008. VS2010 has improved MFC, and it sounds like VS2011 is marginally better, with its first-class support of C++.
And while I'd love to ditch having my code support anything older than Vista, that's just not going to happen any time soon. My code isn't written for the mass market, it's written for specced use cases, which includes things like supporting WinXP and even (at times) Win2K. If you're writing a new application every year, or doing a major refactor of your code every couple years, you can keep with the times and depend on bleeding edge libraries.
If you're working with a large legacy codebase with install sites over a decade old, you're not going to be jumping at Metro quite yet. It probably isn't going to be until Windows 9 before Microsoft stabilizes their new platform enough to be worth porting code forward. Look at 95 vs 98 vs ME, and then XP vs XPSP2 (which really could have been a new operating system...), and then Vista vs Win7. Microsoft tick-tocks between "what fresh hell is this?" and "Whew! That's a relief!".
My apologies; I misspoke. MFC implements a document/view architecture, not a full MVC. WP article is still critically lacking on that point.
MFC isn't a program, it's an MVC framework library combined with a C++ wrapper around most of Win32, which itself is mostly organized as OO, even though it has a C API. And when things don't behave the way you expect, you're tracking it down anyhow. Once you've worked with MFC (or any library) for five years, you're going to know parts of it at almost as well as your own code--and, given that the framework represents a hotpath for you across multiple projects, you'll know parts of it better than your own code.
And if the patch is rejected, at least they can tell me why. If it's "WONTFIX", then so be it; I'll leave the workaround in place. Otherwise, I can adapt and apply.
...my job would be easier. I have the source code. I hit the bugs. Sometimes it's even obvious how to fix them...
You could be slightly less condescending...I did test that, years ago. Defrag doesn't trigger it.
Frankly, I'm not certain exactly how the third-party DRM code detects disk manipulations. I know that filesystem-level copying and folder virtualization triggers it, while filesystem-level moves do not. I don't know enough about NTFS details to surmise the specific causes of this, but the same 3rd-party tool functions equivalently on VFAT, so...*shrug*
Not when they've got a patient sitting in the room with them, a tight appointment schedule, and they need it fixed now. Typically, in those cases, it's something silly like a borked configuration file, third-party tool, or some external hardware needs to be power cycled.
They really like the assistance when they're under the gun like that. They're happy to pay. And I've even been sent a meat and cheese basket...
Virus detector heuristics suck. They trip on some of our code that doesn't have anything to do with copy protection.
Regarding unique code sequence...you still have non-unique code semantics, at least for anything that started out the same. And in the GP's case of 35k checks, those aren't all going to originate hand-written; semantically, they'll boil down to a more manageable subset of semantic behaviors.