And for those that think DHCP is not necessary - it has many benefits.... some network security - can't operate on the network without a valid address.
DHCP does nothing for your network security. It's a voluntary protocol. Anyone who wishes to join the network can simply choose any available address and configure their interface to use it statically. They will then be invisible to your DHCP-based "tracking" system.
It is possible to control access to a network securely (or by MAC address, if that's what you really want), but not through DHCP. One of those secure mechanisms is IPsec, which is mandated in IPv6.
Exceeding the size of a traditional socket addr was a monumentally bad idea, it greatly increased the scope of what had to be rewritten, and even today many programs do not work because they have not been converted to use interfaces that support larger socket addrs.
As I said, this problem is common to any extended address format. Adding more addresses means programs need to be updated to handle a new address format. You can't fit any more addresses into 32 bits than already exist.
It does matter whether the user is required to manage two network stacks or one.
I'll grant you this, but there is nothing about IPv6 that mandates managing two network stacks separately; that is simply how the UIs have been designed. One could create tools for unified IPv4 and IPv6 management. Assuming you bump the protocol version for your modified packets (as opposed to leaving routers and peers guessing whether a given packet is invalid IPv4 or valid IPv4.1) you could easily end up with separate tools for IPv4 and IPv5 anyway. Moreover, dual stacks are only required during the transition—in the long term there will only be one stack, IPv6.
There is nothing to prevent anyone from designing an IPv6 stack that also handles IPv4, either, by translating IPv4 packets to/from IPv6 format (with::a.b.c.d compatibility addresses). It simply wasn't considered to be worth the effort compared to separate stacks.
It does matter that the new address format is unfamiliar and in no way an extension of the familiar format.
Now you're really grasping at straws. Who exactly does it matter to? How many people do you think deal directly in IP addresses, particularly now that we have mDNS? For those who do, what difference does it make whether the address is a dotted-quad (or "dotted-quint"(?)) or hexadecimal numbers separated by colons? Obviously people prefer what they're familiar with, but IPv6 addresses will become familiar soon enough for anyone who has to work with them.
Before someone else points this out: no, that doesn't add up.:) 8N1 should be ten bits, not 11. To get 11 bits you would have to add parity or an extra stop bit, neither of which are common options.
Actually, the number of bits sent in RS-232 depends on the number of data bits, the number of stop bits and whether parity is enabled. The most common format, 8N1, sends one start bit + eight data bits + one stop bit + no parity = 11 bits per byte, but other arrangements are possible.
For example, the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 1 is 1/2^32, and the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 33 is 1/2^33.
I think the latter should also be 1/2^32. In both cases there are two possibilities out of 2^33, the former being "010101...0" and "101010...1" and the latter being "000000...0" and "111111...1".
My thesis is that, in order to 'save the internet' by extending the range of routable addresses we must begin by admitting IPv6 has failed, which ought to be clear to all but the most tenacious IPv6 diehards by now.
One small problem: IPv6 hasn't failed. It works right now. Even without support from your ISP, or even the core routers, you can set up a 6to4 tunnel on your client or Internet gateway and migrate to IPv6 at your convenience. All you need is a single routeable IPv4 address. Alternatively, your ISP could provide an IPv6 gateway alongside private (NAT'd) IPv4 addresses.
The great saving of the proposal in this thread is that interoperability with the existing internet is never lost. Clients could migrate to this hypothetical extended IPv4 addressing scheme at their convenience, as routes open up due to routers being upgraded.
The great savings of (dual-stack) IPv6 is that interoperability with the existing Internet is never lost. Clients can migrate to IPv6 at their convenience, and with 6to4 tunneling they don't even need to wait for routers to be upgraded.
Seriously, what is your real problem with IPv6? Any variation on extended IP addresses will require just as much support from applications as IPv6. Programs which expect to receive a dotted quad, and often as not store it as a 32-bit integer, will not be able to handle five- or six-byte addresses without modification. Clients with extended addresses will not be able to receive replies from stock servers, and vice-versa. DNS and DHCP, among numerous other protocols embedding IP addresses, will have to be updated. In short, most of the things which would be broken by IPv6 would be broken by any change to the IP address format, your proposal included.
Aggression, of which taxes are one example, is wrong; ergo taxes are wrong, no matter how low. Any amount of taxes which does not result in less aggression (including the taxes) than there could reasonably be estimated to exist in an alternative system with less taxes is too high. In my opinion, the minimum degree of aggression possible is zero, i.e. no taxes or other aggression.
The level of taxation tolerated elsewhere is completely irrelevant.
What income should a government earn other than through taxation?
Many services currently funded through taxes can be made opt-in, funded directly by those who benefit from them. "Social welfare" programs can be funded through voluntary donations. Governments can also invest in ordinary private organizations (with appropriate safeguards against conflict-of-interest) to earn profits with which to fund other areas.
Regarding income taxes specifically, the U.S. government got along just fine without them for most of its history. Combined with a much more reasonable budget, a significant portion of the revenues came from tariffs on foreign trade. Of course, this still counts as stolen money. In my opinion if it can't be funded and implemented without aggression it shouldn't be done at all (in which case we're not really taking about a "government").
[Corporations] have no liabilities and their money comes from consumers who have no interest in or concern with [their] political affiliations.... Unions are different, since they're groups of individuals who get together and pool their money for their common interests.
What exactly do you think corporations are? That's right: "groups of individuals who get together and pool their money for their common interests". These individuals are known as "shareholders".
Consumers are to corporations as employers are to unions: a source of money via trade (goods or labor) with little in common politically. It's the shareholders / union members who determine how to use their pooled resources. At least being a shareholder is actually voluntary, unlike unions, which one can sometimes be compelled to join as a condition of employment (all too often by law) despite disagreement with the union's political policies.
Corporations are too powerful and our government gets controlled by them. To counteract this we should allow companies to become more powerful, less restricted and take powers away from the government, reel it in.
The corporations aren't "too powerful" in their own right; they simply have too much influence over the government, given the amount of power the government has over everyone else (which is another problem quite apart from corporate influence). There are two aspects to solving this issue. One is to reduce the power of governments, which simultaneously limits the power available for corporations to influence. The other is to reduce the influence corporations have over the government. Both are worthwhile goals.
Almost as good as the teapartiers. "Can you believe the government is in so much debt??? Obama needs to cut taxes across the board NOW!"
You missed an "..." in your "quote". Public debt and high taxes are both very real problems, a fact acknowledged (to varying degrees) by both major political parties. Obviously the only way to solve either problem without making the other worse is to spend less, which is also a goal of the "Tea Party".
Basic financial management for governments is no different from financial management for individuals: first, earn a productive income (i.e. not stolen from others); second, maintain your capital investments (needs); third, plan for the future (pay down debts, save & invest); fourth, consume (satisfy wants). Taxes are a symptom of failing the first step. Debt and degrading infrastructure are symptoms of erroneously prioritizing consumption.
You have decided to use violent revolution to overthrow the government. Now you have two problems.
Exactly. Violent revolutions are a triumph of mob aggression over organized aggression. Assuming the revolution is successful, you're still left with aggression, which will become more organized over time until you're back where you started.
To defeat organized aggression you have to start from the other end. The first step is to ignore the aggressor: reject its claims of legitimacy and stop responding reflectively to its power. When the aggressor responds according to its nature, as it must inevitably do, only then can you respond proportionally in self-defense. If your defense is ultimately successful then the result is a triumph over aggression itself (at least for a time—"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", etc.).
The software itself may be legal in such cases, but it remains illegal to discuss how to create such software, or to distribute such software to others, which means it's still illegal unless you can break the encryption and write the software all by yourself. How many people do you think are capable of that?
The one thing that might have helped would have been adding a port lookup to DNS so multiple v6 servers could map their listening ports to a single v4 address.
I believe this is what DNS SRV records are for. Unfortunately, most applications ignore them. They are actively supported for a few protocols, however.
Redundant or not, you can't put anything other than a valid checksum in the IP checksum field without breaking every device which has to examine (and thus validate) the IP header. That includes every single router. If you're going to drop backward-compatibility anyway, why not fix the other problems with IPv4 at the same time?
IPv6 certainly isn't perfect. However, implementing any of the alternatives proposed in this thread would cost nearly as much, without addressing the long-term issue: non-hierarchical address allocation and the resulting exponential growth of routing tables. IPv6 provides enough address bits that a small number of known prefixes should always be enough to identify the next step in the route; high-level IPv4 routing, by contrast, requires knowledge of over 150,000 disorganized subnets[1].
True, there is no checksum in the IPv6 header. However, IPv6 mandates changes to the upper-layer TCP and UDP protocols in exchange. The UDP checksum, optional in IPv4, was made mandatory, and both protocols are required to include the full IPv6 source and destination addresses within their checksums.
Improved link-level data integrity did play a part in justifying the lack of IPv6 checksums, but was clearly not deemed sufficient by itself. Ergo, the checksum is not redundant in IPv4, at least not without further changes.
Actually, the IP checksum isn't as redundant as you think. It provides end-to-end protection for the IP packet; the ethernet checksum is link-level, and changes every time the packet it forwarded (due to different MAC addresses, if nothing else). You need both to deal with the possibility of malfunctioning routers.
Agreed, but my point is that my likelihood of receiving revenue is higher on the platform where piracy is harder.
Believe that if you wish, but in my opinion anyone willing to pay for your app on a closed platform would most likely be willing to do so on any platform; those unwilling to do so would just go without. Either way, your revenues are unaffected.
"Free" is an easy sell. Everyone likes to get something for nothing, even if they have no real use for it. However, raise the price by as little as one cent and people will start to think twice before pulling out the credit card.
You are over-simplifying by assuming that you will get the same number of installs on both platforms. As the GP stated, all that really matters is the revenue you can reasonably expect from a given platform, not the percentage for which you are paid. Moreover, even if a given platform has a lower percentage of paying users, it still makes sense to port to that platform provided the increase in overall revenue exceeds the economic cost of porting the software.
The only downside to porting the software would be the risk that the port could cannibalize sales on other platforms, which is unlikely unless many of your potential customers already own multiple devices. (Who's going to spend hundreds of dollars on a second smartphone just to make it easier to get a few $1 apps for free?)
I always thought "activist judge" meant someone who ignores law and/or MAKES law (promotes self to a legislator, not just a judge).
That is basically what it means. However, ignoring the way the law has been interpreted in the past, and ruling in a manner which is inconsistent with past judgments, effectively is ignoring and/or making law. It is a rare judge that is willing to blatantly disregard the written law—although there obviously are a few—but activism can also consist of more subtle changes to interpretation of the law which are within the scope of the text, but would contradict prior rulings.
The term is frequently misused, but it really only applies to rulings which go against traditional jurisprudence. A common trait is that applying the logic behind the new ruling would require former cases to be decided differently than they were.
Of course, almost no one bothers to contest a ruling they agree with. Only those negatively impacted by the decision have a strong incentive to look for weaknesses.
Any taking of property without permission is theft. The only differences between taxes and government-recognized theft is the perpetrator. Legal, yes—they would hardly choose outlaw their own actions—but absolutely not justified.
Statism is pathetic in general and this particular form of double-standard is among its most stupid ones. Grow up.
That protects you from eavesdropping, but not other ways in which URLs may be disclosed. For example, the HTTP referrer headers under discussion. They can also end up in bookmarks, or copied into e-mails, etc. The point of using HTTP POST or cookies, similarly, is not to protect against eavesdropping, but rather that such data is less likely to be exposed. URLs tend to be treated as public information.
I did say it wasn't an ideal solution, partly because of proxies. However, unless you plan to protect the (POST- or cookie-based) session ID from eavesdropping with end-to-end encryption it would be highly irresponsible not to take some kind of precaution against session hijacking. Personally I consider these "proxy farms" to be a broken configuration, and I would not expect any session-oriented website to function properly with my IP address changing at random. If you must support them, however—and are unable to use HTTPS everywhere—then at least recognize that any site which relies on the session ID without at least checking the identify of the sender cannot be said to be secure against session hijacking.
Slashdot Mirror
And for those that think DHCP is not necessary - it has many benefits. ... some network security - can't operate on the network without a valid address.
DHCP does nothing for your network security. It's a voluntary protocol. Anyone who wishes to join the network can simply choose any available address and configure their interface to use it statically. They will then be invisible to your DHCP-based "tracking" system.
It is possible to control access to a network securely (or by MAC address, if that's what you really want), but not through DHCP. One of those secure mechanisms is IPsec, which is mandated in IPv6.
Exceeding the size of a traditional socket addr was a monumentally bad idea, it greatly increased the scope of what had to be rewritten, and even today many programs do not work because they have not been converted to use interfaces that support larger socket addrs.
As I said, this problem is common to any extended address format. Adding more addresses means programs need to be updated to handle a new address format. You can't fit any more addresses into 32 bits than already exist.
It does matter whether the user is required to manage two network stacks or one.
I'll grant you this, but there is nothing about IPv6 that mandates managing two network stacks separately; that is simply how the UIs have been designed. One could create tools for unified IPv4 and IPv6 management. Assuming you bump the protocol version for your modified packets (as opposed to leaving routers and peers guessing whether a given packet is invalid IPv4 or valid IPv4.1) you could easily end up with separate tools for IPv4 and IPv5 anyway. Moreover, dual stacks are only required during the transition—in the long term there will only be one stack, IPv6.
There is nothing to prevent anyone from designing an IPv6 stack that also handles IPv4, either, by translating IPv4 packets to/from IPv6 format (with ::a.b.c.d compatibility addresses). It simply wasn't considered to be worth the effort compared to separate stacks.
It does matter that the new address format is unfamiliar and in no way an extension of the familiar format.
Now you're really grasping at straws. Who exactly does it matter to? How many people do you think deal directly in IP addresses, particularly now that we have mDNS? For those who do, what difference does it make whether the address is a dotted-quad (or "dotted-quint"(?)) or hexadecimal numbers separated by colons? Obviously people prefer what they're familiar with, but IPv6 addresses will become familiar soon enough for anyone who has to work with them.
Before someone else points this out: no, that doesn't add up. :) 8N1 should be ten bits, not 11. To get 11 bits you would have to add parity or an extra stop bit, neither of which are common options.
Actually, the number of bits sent in RS-232 depends on the number of data bits, the number of stop bits and whether parity is enabled. The most common format, 8N1, sends one start bit + eight data bits + one stop bit + no parity = 11 bits per byte, but other arrangements are possible.
For example, the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 1 is 1/2^32, and the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 33 is 1/2^33.
I think the latter should also be 1/2^32. In both cases there are two possibilities out of 2^33, the former being "010101...0" and "101010...1" and the latter being "000000...0" and "111111...1".
My thesis is that, in order to 'save the internet' by extending the range of routable addresses we must begin by admitting IPv6 has failed, which ought to be clear to all but the most tenacious IPv6 diehards by now.
One small problem: IPv6 hasn't failed. It works right now. Even without support from your ISP, or even the core routers, you can set up a 6to4 tunnel on your client or Internet gateway and migrate to IPv6 at your convenience. All you need is a single routeable IPv4 address. Alternatively, your ISP could provide an IPv6 gateway alongside private (NAT'd) IPv4 addresses.
The great saving of the proposal in this thread is that interoperability with the existing internet is never lost. Clients could migrate to this hypothetical extended IPv4 addressing scheme at their convenience, as routes open up due to routers being upgraded.
The great savings of (dual-stack) IPv6 is that interoperability with the existing Internet is never lost. Clients can migrate to IPv6 at their convenience, and with 6to4 tunneling they don't even need to wait for routers to be upgraded.
Seriously, what is your real problem with IPv6? Any variation on extended IP addresses will require just as much support from applications as IPv6. Programs which expect to receive a dotted quad, and often as not store it as a 32-bit integer, will not be able to handle five- or six-byte addresses without modification. Clients with extended addresses will not be able to receive replies from stock servers, and vice-versa. DNS and DHCP, among numerous other protocols embedding IP addresses, will have to be updated. In short, most of the things which would be broken by IPv6 would be broken by any change to the IP address format, your proposal included.
Aggression, of which taxes are one example, is wrong; ergo taxes are wrong, no matter how low. Any amount of taxes which does not result in less aggression (including the taxes) than there could reasonably be estimated to exist in an alternative system with less taxes is too high. In my opinion, the minimum degree of aggression possible is zero, i.e. no taxes or other aggression.
The level of taxation tolerated elsewhere is completely irrelevant.
What income should a government earn other than through taxation?
Many services currently funded through taxes can be made opt-in, funded directly by those who benefit from them. "Social welfare" programs can be funded through voluntary donations. Governments can also invest in ordinary private organizations (with appropriate safeguards against conflict-of-interest) to earn profits with which to fund other areas.
Regarding income taxes specifically, the U.S. government got along just fine without them for most of its history. Combined with a much more reasonable budget, a significant portion of the revenues came from tariffs on foreign trade. Of course, this still counts as stolen money. In my opinion if it can't be funded and implemented without aggression it shouldn't be done at all (in which case we're not really taking about a "government").
[Corporations] have no liabilities and their money comes from consumers who have no interest in or concern with [their] political affiliations.... Unions are different, since they're groups of individuals who get together and pool their money for their common interests.
What exactly do you think corporations are? That's right: "groups of individuals who get together and pool their money for their common interests". These individuals are known as "shareholders".
Consumers are to corporations as employers are to unions: a source of money via trade (goods or labor) with little in common politically. It's the shareholders / union members who determine how to use their pooled resources. At least being a shareholder is actually voluntary, unlike unions, which one can sometimes be compelled to join as a condition of employment (all too often by law) despite disagreement with the union's political policies.
Corporations are too powerful and our government gets controlled by them. To counteract this we should allow companies to become more powerful, less restricted and take powers away from the government, reel it in.
The corporations aren't "too powerful" in their own right; they simply have too much influence over the government, given the amount of power the government has over everyone else (which is another problem quite apart from corporate influence). There are two aspects to solving this issue. One is to reduce the power of governments, which simultaneously limits the power available for corporations to influence. The other is to reduce the influence corporations have over the government. Both are worthwhile goals.
Almost as good as the teapartiers. "Can you believe the government is in so much debt??? Obama needs to cut taxes across the board NOW!"
You missed an "..." in your "quote". Public debt and high taxes are both very real problems, a fact acknowledged (to varying degrees) by both major political parties. Obviously the only way to solve either problem without making the other worse is to spend less, which is also a goal of the "Tea Party".
Basic financial management for governments is no different from financial management for individuals: first, earn a productive income (i.e. not stolen from others); second, maintain your capital investments (needs); third, plan for the future (pay down debts, save & invest); fourth, consume (satisfy wants). Taxes are a symptom of failing the first step. Debt and degrading infrastructure are symptoms of erroneously prioritizing consumption.
You have decided to use violent revolution to overthrow the government. Now you have two problems.
Exactly. Violent revolutions are a triumph of mob aggression over organized aggression. Assuming the revolution is successful, you're still left with aggression, which will become more organized over time until you're back where you started.
To defeat organized aggression you have to start from the other end. The first step is to ignore the aggressor: reject its claims of legitimacy and stop responding reflectively to its power. When the aggressor responds according to its nature, as it must inevitably do, only then can you respond proportionally in self-defense. If your defense is ultimately successful then the result is a triumph over aggression itself (at least for a time—"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", etc.).
The software itself may be legal in such cases, but it remains illegal to discuss how to create such software, or to distribute such software to others, which means it's still illegal unless you can break the encryption and write the software all by yourself. How many people do you think are capable of that?
The one thing that might have helped would have been adding a port lookup to DNS so multiple v6 servers could map their listening ports to a single v4 address.
I believe this is what DNS SRV records are for. Unfortunately, most applications ignore them. They are actively supported for a few protocols, however.
Redundant or not, you can't put anything other than a valid checksum in the IP checksum field without breaking every device which has to examine (and thus validate) the IP header. That includes every single router. If you're going to drop backward-compatibility anyway, why not fix the other problems with IPv4 at the same time?
IPv6 certainly isn't perfect. However, implementing any of the alternatives proposed in this thread would cost nearly as much, without addressing the long-term issue: non-hierarchical address allocation and the resulting exponential growth of routing tables. IPv6 provides enough address bits that a small number of known prefixes should always be enough to identify the next step in the route; high-level IPv4 routing, by contrast, requires knowledge of over 150,000 disorganized subnets[1].
[1] The number of "prefixes after maximum aggregation" from "BGP Routing Table Analysis" at the APNIC router <http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-summary>.
True, there is no checksum in the IPv6 header. However, IPv6 mandates changes to the upper-layer TCP and UDP protocols in exchange. The UDP checksum, optional in IPv4, was made mandatory, and both protocols are required to include the full IPv6 source and destination addresses within their checksums.
Improved link-level data integrity did play a part in justifying the lack of IPv6 checksums, but was clearly not deemed sufficient by itself. Ergo, the checksum is not redundant in IPv4, at least not without further changes.
Actually, the IP checksum isn't as redundant as you think. It provides end-to-end protection for the IP packet; the ethernet checksum is link-level, and changes every time the packet it forwarded (due to different MAC addresses, if nothing else). You need both to deal with the possibility of malfunctioning routers.
Your finding validates the GP's comment:
10 km diameter * PI ~= 30 km at the equator
(30 km / rotation) * (1122 rotations / second) ~= 30,000 km / second ~= 10% * c
Perhaps you were thinking of rotations per microsecond?
Agreed, but my point is that my likelihood of receiving revenue is higher on the platform where piracy is harder.
Believe that if you wish, but in my opinion anyone willing to pay for your app on a closed platform would most likely be willing to do so on any platform; those unwilling to do so would just go without. Either way, your revenues are unaffected.
"Free" is an easy sell. Everyone likes to get something for nothing, even if they have no real use for it. However, raise the price by as little as one cent and people will start to think twice before pulling out the credit card.
You are over-simplifying by assuming that you will get the same number of installs on both platforms. As the GP stated, all that really matters is the revenue you can reasonably expect from a given platform, not the percentage for which you are paid. Moreover, even if a given platform has a lower percentage of paying users, it still makes sense to port to that platform provided the increase in overall revenue exceeds the economic cost of porting the software.
The only downside to porting the software would be the risk that the port could cannibalize sales on other platforms, which is unlikely unless many of your potential customers already own multiple devices. (Who's going to spend hundreds of dollars on a second smartphone just to make it easier to get a few $1 apps for free?)
I always thought "activist judge" meant someone who ignores law and/or MAKES law (promotes self to a legislator, not just a judge).
That is basically what it means. However, ignoring the way the law has been interpreted in the past, and ruling in a manner which is inconsistent with past judgments, effectively is ignoring and/or making law. It is a rare judge that is willing to blatantly disregard the written law—although there obviously are a few—but activism can also consist of more subtle changes to interpretation of the law which are within the scope of the text, but would contradict prior rulings.
The term is frequently misused, but it really only applies to rulings which go against traditional jurisprudence. A common trait is that applying the logic behind the new ruling would require former cases to be decided differently than they were.
Of course, almost no one bothers to contest a ruling they agree with. Only those negatively impacted by the decision have a strong incentive to look for weaknesses.
Any taking of property without permission is theft. The only differences between taxes and government-recognized theft is the perpetrator. Legal, yes—they would hardly choose outlaw their own actions—but absolutely not justified.
Statism is pathetic in general and this particular form of double-standard is among its most stupid ones. Grow up.
The information may have been merely copied, but it is being used to facilitate actual theft in the form of taxes.
That protects you from eavesdropping, but not other ways in which URLs may be disclosed. For example, the HTTP referrer headers under discussion. They can also end up in bookmarks, or copied into e-mails, etc. The point of using HTTP POST or cookies, similarly, is not to protect against eavesdropping, but rather that such data is less likely to be exposed. URLs tend to be treated as public information.
I did say it wasn't an ideal solution, partly because of proxies. However, unless you plan to protect the (POST- or cookie-based) session ID from eavesdropping with end-to-end encryption it would be highly irresponsible not to take some kind of precaution against session hijacking. Personally I consider these "proxy farms" to be a broken configuration, and I would not expect any session-oriented website to function properly with my IP address changing at random. If you must support them, however—and are unable to use HTTPS everywhere—then at least recognize that any site which relies on the session ID without at least checking the identify of the sender cannot be said to be secure against session hijacking.