seems like that's what they said in 1995, and vint and randy and brander and bound all went off and did this IPv6 thing because we couldn't keep the inetnet running with just IPv4.
Stop being dishonest.
IPV6 isn't in the past tense. It doesn't exist yet. Until a migration plan exists the protocol called IPV6 is as incompatible with the Internet as IPX is- less so perhaps because more network administrators understand IPX than understand IPV6.
Failing to understand this, and taking as gospel from such dishonest people as Randy Bush that IPV6 is "the next version of IPV4" makes people think that:
There is a problem, but we have a solution!
That solution is, start over!
Anyone who even mouthed starting over is a bit hasty is labelled an obstructionist. When asked how are we going to use our PI blocks, they said "we don't need PI blocks yet. We only needed them because of problems X,Y,Z which don't exist on IPV6". When asked how are we going to embed legacy clients, they said "we'll use NAT" and if asked how do we get to that magic moment when people can start disconnecting IPV4 services, the answer is "we just have to start over."
If these people were truly the force that was responsible for the Internet that we all use, then it was probably an accident. These people are obviously incompetent. These people thought DNAME and A6 records were a good idea. They don't get it: their migration plan is as poorly thought out as MX record transition, and here's news: There are functioning sites that still don't have MX records.
If IPV6 is truly necessary, then I think that we need competent answers to these questions. The IETF needs to step up and provide a migration plan. No migration plan? Stop whining.
Nice try - Curran is chairman of ARIN since beginning & no one to be lying. ARIN's going through 3-4/8's a year but the total registries (RIPE, APNIC, etc) has been closer to 10 a year which is what he said http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
You're missing something really important: The total registries aren't using 16 million new addresses a year because my BGP tables don't get larger by 16 million entries a year.
Note that ARIN didn't allocate any addresses this year, does this mean nobody in North America set up shop?
John Curran is pointedly dishonest. Paul Vixie is dishonest as well (Remember how BIND9 was rewritten by a team of "all new developers" to be completely security-bug free?) . I don't personally have evidence off-hand of other board members being dishonest, but them being board members clearly doesn't exempt them from being dishonest, or even just plain stupid.
IPV6 is akin to saying "The Internet sucks, lets start over!" and I'm sick and tired of idiots telling me to switch to a new network with no users and no infrastructure, and without being able to leverage any meaningful part of my existing network. My IPV4 PI doesn't help me, and my IPV4 connectivity is useless. IPV6 is a complete reboot without a migration plan, and it probably isn't even necessary.
I think you've got most of them right there, but there's one important missing element:
Is IPV6 the right thing?
IPV6 is equivalent to saying "The Internet was wrong, so we're starting over" and that's a mighty big thing. I don't think there's anyone who could be considered smart enough- that could see every possible consequence and decide correctly that starting over is what we infact need.
The address space is shrinking - say the IPV6 proponents. We must act now! Repent from this Internet and let us create another!
Of course, the only proof they offer that the address space is shrinking is that they themselves are allocating it, yet another reason I'm suspicious of them. Oh, and the fact they've been saying we'll be gone in just a few years for over 10 years. Oh, and the fact that IPV6 isn't ready. Oh, and the fact that there's no migration plan.
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time accepting the concept of address space exhaustion. I can understand being opposed to specific elements of certain proposals, but you seem to be opposed to the entire concept of there being a problem. Perhaps you should spent more time learning about the situation instead of simply being an obstructionist.
I'm sorry you feel so inadequate about yourself that you need to be dishonest and condescending.
Fact is, while IPV4's address space may become exhausted, it's not clear it'll cause any problems to end-users. It's certainly clear that there doesn't exist any realistic solution to the IPV4 address space exhaustion and the IPNG group charged with solving the problem suggests switching the entire Internet to IPX.
IPV4 multihomed sites still don't have any migration plan; the closest thing is "start over".
Anyone who thinks the Internet is so broken we just need to "start over" just plain stupid, and I'm sorry if you are stupid, but from here on you're deliberately tricking people that "we've got a great plan," when there is presently no plan.
Now you consider me an obstructionist, but consider how I must view you: You believe that there is going to be huge problems when IPV4's address space becomes exhausted, and yet you don't have a plan to fix it. Moreover, you support a group of people who have been trumpeting the same idea for over ten years, under the banner of "we'll need it in two-to-four-years", and yet have still failed to answer basic questions about migration.
You're right: I don't believe the IPV6 people- that's true. I think that people will simply conserve IPV4 addresses and that we'll continue to do application-level routing: Layer-four switches will become more popular, NAT will become more popular and so on. I don't see any reason to believe that the growth of the Internet will be any way impeded. I've been working on the Internet for far too long to believe otherwise.
Now, stop being stupid. If you still think there's a problem fix it. Design some real migration plans. Not "how to join IPV6" plans, but "what do I do with all these PI sites" plans. IPV6 is old news, and its still not ready. If you really believe it's the best shot, then make it ready.
That is exactly the kind of bullshit that makes people plead for a mandated switchover.
I argue for a mandated switchover. Start with the largest networks (by AS peers) and move downward. Give smaller networks a longer grace period, and charge large networks a hefty fine for slowing down progress.
We will run out of IPv4 addresses.
So what? Then IPV4 addresses will simply be for networks or service frontends. We could use SRV records and extend addressing by 16 bits easily.
People who stick their head into the sand on this issue are the ones who will cause the biggest problems when, not if, the supply of IPv4 addresses does run out.
You're an idiot. The biggest problems are being caused by the IPv6 group. They say "switch to IPv6 before it's too late!" only nobody will go first because IPv6 doesn't do anything.
There's no point in switching early, but if you buy IPv4 only hardware now and are not working on switch-over plans now while there's still time, it's going to bite you.
You really think the problem is hardware?
Addressing is a social problem, not a technological one, and the IPV6 group doesn't have any social skills. They say "switch" but they don't say how. They say 4in6, but that "it's not really a standard". In short, if they're actually trying to solve the address exhaustion problem, then they're complete idiots. If they're not, then why the fuck are you parroting for them?
Here's an idea: reserve IPV4 addresses for peering addresses. Build your address extension system as a new encapsulation protocol under IP and discontinue port assignments. Mandate SRV (or NSRV?) records that can indicate the use of this protocol, and you'll get incremental deployment.
Or, you can convince everyone to drop what they're doing and throw money in the toilet for a few years.
Wake up and smell the coffee, you need to start thinking about deploying IPv6 now, or experience extreme pain in 3-4 years when you find yourself up against a wall because you can't get IPv4 addresses, and/or can't get to services that are starting to deploy *only* on IPv6 because that's all they can get.
Are you simple?
Nobody is going to deploy IPV6 if they can't get IPV4 addresses. The price of IPV4 addresses will simply go up. This will cause smaller networks to go out of business. The IPV6 committee is being steered by large companies, so guess what they want: More or less competition?
When are the IPV6 apologists going to wake up and smell the coffee and start thinking about how they're going to convince nearly 40,000 network administrators to stop what they're doing and add support for the 40-or-so million other networks administrators to migrate as painlessly as possible.
I have been thinking about IPV6 for over ten years. It'd be easier to switch everyone to IPX than it would be to IPV6. At least more administrators understand IPX, and it's just as different from IPV4. So what possible reason could there be to switch to the IPV6 network that nobody is using than to switch to the IPX network that nobody is using?
Try looking at IANA's numbers instead and you'll see that the allocation of ~10/8's per year is about right. So far this year, RIPE (covering Europe) has gotten 4 new blocks and APNIC (covering Asia) has gotten 5.
And yet ARIN allocated none this year?
16 million addresses assigned to the toplevel registries isn't the same thing as 16 million addresses being used. Most of those blocks aren't assigned to any BGP host yet- heck, most of the addresses "allocated" in 2004 and 2005 aren't on any BGP host yet. APNIC, ARIN, and all the RIRs publish separate allocation lists. Sum them, and see if you can still use IANA's numbers to measure how bad address exhaustion actually is.
I don't think the rate at which addresses are running out matters. The end result is exactly the same anyway, so might as well try switching earlier, rather than after all hell breaks loose.
You sound like him too.
The problem with that argument is threefold:
My providers charge extra for IPV6 access.
I can't do PI routing without duplicating all my IPv4 efforts (IPV4 and IPV6 are less compatible than IPV4 and IPX)
My computers are too slow. I have 3GHZ systems with 100% load running databases that I was able to replace with a simple mmap'd file for my IP->DNS cache. The result is I can use a 486/66 for my reverse logfile cache now for over 60 million entries per day. If I can't use an mmap'd file (because my IP addresses are now larger than my entire hard disk), I'd need a database again, and I'm afraid I've grown since then.
Nobody is IPV6-only, so there is no financial benefit to being an early adopter, and I do not have money to through down the garbage disposal even if I wanted to.
IPV6 is stupid anyway, so I'm betting that if we actually did run out of IPV4 addresses, we'd probably continue on using NAT and other routing tricks (maybe we'd PI some old/8's). What we won't be doing is switching everything on the Internet to IPV6. Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't have to manage a large, mission-critical network on a shoestring budget, or lives in a fantasy-world where their definitions of "large", "mission-critical", and/or "shoestring budget" are woefully misaligned.
IPV6 still has lots of problems preventing adoption and rather than address those issues proponents of IPV6 insist "well, it's better than nothing and that's what we'll have in a few more years..."
I don't think we're going to be able to do a clean cutover to IPv6 until most hardware/software vendors start shipping systems that require both IPv4 and IPv6 configuration to complete installation.
That's nice. We're going to need two things bigger than that:
A way to upconvert IPV4 and ASN routing information so that I don't have to call my upstreams and ask them for permission to use IPV6 addressing and routing. A good start would be to make it mandatory to ASN holders at the end of a year. They can have an extension so long as any of their upstreams aren't ready (to protect smaller networks) but peer groups get penalized - say 500,000$USD for the first year.
Something actually interesting that's IPV6 only so that end users will actually want.
Right now, users want to be on the Internet that Google is on. Small sites cannot add support for both networks because it's cost prohibitive. Make it cheaper for small companies to switch and more expensive for large companies not to if you need to force the issue. At this point, it'll probably be easier to come up with something interesting.
I know John Curran as a troll on the PPML who brings up "IPV6 internet cutoff" every so often. He ignores all of the reasons why IPV6 isn't ready, and loudly proclaims people on *this Internet* (ipv4) are just holding back progress of his *other internet* (ipv6) which nobody is on.
He suggests charging people more for IPV4 allocations will speed IPV6 adoption and has no idea what an idiotic statement that is. He admits he doesn't care if raising the price of IPV4 allocations will simply drive smaller networks "out of business" as "they should be on IPV6 anyway". Meanwhile Google can afford it and nobody gives a shit about IPV6- they just want to use the same internet that Google is on.
He lies and says we're running out of addresses at a rate of 10-15/8's per year. ARIN says we're going through about 3-4 a year (see the ipv4-allocation-assignments- this stuff is public even to nonmembers)
He has no migration plan besides "just replace all your hardware and software". It's about as stupid as the HDTV plan, which since I cannot record HDTV without buying illegal hardware, I'm not buying either.
Seriously, does anyone think an actual migration plan for something as big as - replace the entire Internet- would be authored by a single person that nobody outside of ARIN and IANA working bodies have heard of?
Just because an argument's ancient doesn't mean it's not still valid. Plus, after all, the number of distributions has been rising for a long time. Maybe the argument carries more weight now than it used to.
Or maybe it's an argument raised by trolls and ignorants.
Distribution is, by definition, how something is distributed, and every OEM distributing Windows does it differently. Some store the windows install files in C:\I386, while others use a hidden boot partition with recovery software. Some load the drivers on a CD, some use a RunOnce handler to bring everything in. Some simply replace EXPLORER with some kiosky-thing that sells you adware.
In reality, of the biggest Linux distributions, they are less different from eachother, than say, the biggest Windows distributions are from each other. That is to say that Dell's distribution has more differences than Lenovo's distribution than divides Fedora and Ubuntu.
Yes, there are fringe Linux distributions- and I'll believe that their numbers reach 300, but to count them, you also have to include the Windows Mobile and Windows Media distributions- as most of these other distributions are designed to fill a particular need.
Its been my experience that people that bring up the "too many linux distros" argument don't understand Linux or Windows well enough to adequately comment on this.
Fact is: People don't make Linux distributions to confuse you, they make linux distributions to solve some problem that is caused by the way another distribution operates. Fedora's package database grows quite large and wastes a lot of space that an embedded system-on-flash Linux simply can't afford. Meanwhile, enterprise users can't afford to break things so upgrades have to be stable, and that means QA (and that means: binary packages).
Fact is: People do make Windows distributions to confuse you: Dell had enterprise training programs and it makes zero business sense to train you for HP's machines, hence their training is mostly worthless for other systems.
I strongly suspect the only reason this argument is "coming up again" is because of somebody who are heavily invested in Windows, just went in panic-mode. They're trying to slow down Windows's demise so that it doesn't hurt them quite so much. Same reason advisers often pump a dying stock.
About 85% of the population considers themselves Christian
Oddly enough, about 85% of the population thinks that 90% of those who self-identify as christian aren't.
People can refer to themselves as christian only when they want to confuse people about what they believe, because those who call themselves christian believe wildly different things.
Christians are in the minority. The batshit loony always have been. Some believe in a zombie overlord that eats sins, and others believe in a definition of "love" that turns women's heads into salt. The guy who thinks wrapping his feet in wax paper prevents satan from controlling him isn't any less crazy- just necessarily less functional.
This country wasn't founded by christians, but by humanists. The only thing that christians have in common is hate; some hate jews, some hate women, some hate other people that call themselves christian. Christians couldn't create something as awesome as America: only destroy it.
Now that's not entirely true: There are a few people who call themselves christian who think that all they're doing is believing in something, and that how can that be bad? They are in the super minority: They're crazy enough to have an irrational belief, but not so crazy that they feel like hurting other people who lack that irrational belief.
From my experience, what he wanted is what the license says.
Then your experience is limited. Most license disputes are questioning what the terms state, not whether they have been upheld. The CDA was enacted for exactly this reason- so that license disputes could be handled by mediator.
Judges do not usually expect people to be infallible, which is why they do infact hear arguments from people, instead of from Noah Webster.
This is the problem. I don't see it as slowing a computer down.
Uh no. Tivo S1 community software supported network streaming that could easily saturate a 10mbit/sec link. Tivo's own software for the S2 barely approaches 1mbit/sec.
Of course when I buy something, I usually buy it for it's intended purpose.
Well good for you. You're a sucker: I fix my own car, I fix my own computer, and I fix my own dinner.
There are laws preventing Ford from making countermeasures that disable my car if I try and work on it. Why is TiVO allowed to sell a DVR with similar countermeasures?
There's some confusion on that last point, and that's why the FSF is so important: They're the only ones that are fighting to change that. They're cowards, so they fight by simply working to replace all of the software out there with software without countermeasures.
I'm okay if you want to buy a car that you can't fix yourself, and I'm okay if you want to dine on hot pockets for the rest of your life. But I don't see why you think it's important that I accept a car that I can't fix myself!
So, If I used Kwrite and changed it for the better but didn't share my changed, I was leaching it.
Uh no. US Copyright law doesn't stipulate terms of use. The GPL doesn't affect use- nor does any other software license. They can only stipulate redistribution terms; Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988) was a supreme court decision that Federal copyright law preempts state law, and the cases of Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992), and Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989), are all federal cases where the US government held that even though the software says on it "you may not reverse engineer or alter it", you still have those rights, as a consumer.
So only someone who wasn't familiar with copyright law could consider your definition of "leaching" meaningful in the slightest. The GPL only talks about redistribution because its a right you don't have, but that the GPL can grant to you, not because redistribution is the only thing important to the FSF.
RMS isn't the only person who knows what it mean.
No, he really is. He's tried stating what the FSF stands for many times.
This isn't the same thing as knowing what Linus meant, when he adopted the GPL. RMS didn't know that- and was completely wrong about that when he brought it up.
Plenty of people have written about it's intentions as well as RMS.
So what? RMS wrote the GPL with the intention of preserving software user's freedom- whatever that means. He admits the GPL2 doesn't do that, which means that the GPL2 isn't an adequate representation of his intentions.
The GPL doesn't have intentions separate from RMS. He wrote it. When someone who writes software grants redistribution rights to others, they have their own intentions- those intentions may be exactly what the GPL2 says, like Linus. Or they may actually be interested in eliminating non-Free software entirely, like RMS. The GPL2 doesn't do that, maybe the GPL3 will.
What I see is RMS changing his mind and representing the intentions differently.
I hope not. If so, then you're completely hopeless.
As far as Tivo goes, lets get something streight, leaching isn't a bad term with free software. It has always been ok to leach the programs,
No, it just never happened often enough to cause serious problems.
If you honestly believe this, I think you didn't understand the GPL in the first place. The intent has always be so that the code remains free and that you can change it if necessary.
Read that last sentence you wrote again.
On my a TiVO, I cannot change the code if necessary. I have to wait for TiVO to change the code "if necessary", and TiVO and I have very different ideas on what is necessary. I for one would like to be able to transfer shows between my bedroom and my livingroom at faster than realtime as I could with the Series1. This isn't that important to TiVO so they won't fix the problem.
Not to control hardware and make sure you can run your own stuff on the hardware which is something that has always been explicitly held outside the scope of the license.
You're either dishonest or an idiot. The point was that RMS got his hands on a printer (a piece of hardware) that he couldn't fix a bug with. That's right, the point of the GPL always has been about the hardware.
The fact that nobody used encrypted bootloaders until recently is why the GPL doesn't mention hardware: It didn't need to. I mean, who in their right mind would slow down their computers to 1/10th their speed on purpose. And who still would expect consumers to put up with it?
Well, look, RMS was wrong. I was wrong. Lots of people were wrong. So the GPL is getting revised.
Now you understand what the GPL2 says. So does Linus. So do a lot of people. And if your goals is to prevent your software from being marginalized then the GPL2 is a good way to do it. But the only person who knows what was meant by the GPL is RMS, and that's because he wrote it, and he says it was to stop consumers from being hurt.
A lot of people adopted his license because we want what he wants. But others, adopted his license because they want what the license said.
We can argue about whether TiVO is right or wrong if you want to, but you're patently wrong that the intent of the GPL was. Even Linus knows that.
because no one will invest effort in hardware that they are reposible for on...
This isn't about responsibility. Hardware manufacturers already disclaim as much responsibility as they possibly can.
This is about what companies call "perceived value". So long as customers "perceive" the value of a home router to be 50$, it will cost 50$. Even if - from the consumer's perspective - the difference between it and the 600$ router is code that other people wrote, it will still cost 50$.
If it does or if some court finds that it does then that will be the eventual end of the GPL,
If customers demand the rights afforded to them under the GPL, the GPL will become the norm. We consumers are not merely at the whim and mercy of corporations
Morality is a vague and indefined term that is used arebitrarily by people who feel that have something to gain.
Morality is a oft dismissed term by people who cannot think and who cannot render coherency. Everyone else knows that morality is a concern with the distinction between Right and Wrong.
If I purchase an accounting package, that I then need to use over the course of several years, and then suddenly and without warning, the company I bought it from goes out of business, and then just as suddenly some knucklehead decides to change daylight savings time. I should be able to- either by hiring a programmer, or by my own ability be able to modify the accounting package to account for this.
What possible perverted individual could you find that should suggest that I not have such a right? What kind of sick tool could have honesty and state that I do not have the right to keep my business running?
The legal system already agreed that I have the Right to do this, so companies - in order to protect perceived value started technologically restricting my Right.
No one like limits, civilization IS limits. Without them you would have a lot more to worry about than which vendor's license or copyright you would like to "morally" violate. Limits are necessary for civilization, civilization makes things practical. Balance is the key. Balance is compromise. Balance is in flux over time. Compromise is when all sides are equally unhappy. Chaos is when one side refused to be the least bit unhappy about anything... ever.
Sorry, you're wrong. You're probably stupid and ugly as well. I've already demonstrated that civilization agrees that I have a right to make these changes, and that the law protects me. I've also indicated examples of companies attempting to circumvent my rights, and also areas where they've managed to confuse enough people to confuse morality.
Of course nobody believes I shouldn't be able to modify the software in question. That's how we know what I'm describing is the Moral Right. But companies say they need to restrict that right, in order to protect other rights.
The question isn't whether I have the right to do what I want, because I already have those rights. The question is whether their rights are more important than my rights.
I realize that your travel in third-world countries makes you believe you understand Copyright, but it doesn't. Google the cases I listed before you try and suggest unilaterally that my
response makes no sense. . You don't understand Copyright, and you don't understand Law well enough to say that my response doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to you but that's obvious from your responses.
I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux. OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point. The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.
The GPL is designed to encourage the production of more Free software because all software should be free anyway, not because some developers think their own software should be free. This isn't about altruism, but about a more deep sense of right and wrong.
When you buy a book, you wouldn't think anyone could suggest that you don't have the right to read it, or mark passages with a yellow hilighter, would you? Really?
And yet, somehow the Right of Copy which is applied to books, it all made sense. People could read good books, and write better ones. Copyright produced new works by providing a limited monopoly on a work, in an effort to make the wonders in these books more accessible to all.
Now, copyright applied to software somehow means something else: They get to copyright something that we can't enjoy- the code itself. They keep the code secret and unusable, and thus they have usurped rights that copyright never was meant to grant.
This is wrong. Disney got copyright extended perpetually so that nothing of theirs enter the public domain. They built their empire on the public domain- the Cinderella, and the Jungle Book. They convinced Congress- and apparently you- that copyright is about doing something it was never meant to.
The FSF is probably the only group really challenging Copyright at all. They're staying limited to software- which as mysterious as software is to laypeople, makes it seem like they're taking an extreme position.
The FSF is a champion of this often neglected freedom, and its time people stop fighting them on it. I understand corporations wanting to maximize their profits fighting this. I understands corporations lobbying congress to change the laws to be better for them, but we need to fight the corporate lobbyists, and not the FSF.
The problem is that the CODE is GPL'd you have the source and can do what you want with it. The hardware is not GPL'd.
If I buy something, it's mine. Its no longer Apples, or Microsofts, or yours or anyone elses, but mine. It doesn't require the hardware be GPLed or not to do this- I bought records that I can listen to without them being GPLed, and I bought a TI/4A/99 that I can put software on without it being GPLed.
Everyone in the world knew it wasn't up to the company what I did with it once it was mine. It was even protected under law that way. Eventually, some assholes got the idea that they could suck more money out of people.
Fortunately, the courts disagreed. They said this was a resonable expectation to make changes to what you buy (780 F. Supp 1283 [ND Cal 1991]) and that unless you sign a piece of paper they cannot legally restrict you (847 F.2d 255 [5th Cir. 1998]).
So they stopped legally restricting you, and started technologically restricting you.
Meanwhile, you seem to think that Apple can somehow make an operating system by themselves. They can't. They need people to donate time and programming expertise. I've been more than happy to provide that under the terms that they share some of the load.
So long as Apple decides to play nicely, Apple gets good quality code, a large QA base, free testing and development, and most importantly, more people buying their products.
Now, they found a way to avoid sharing that load, and they immediately start trying to technologically restrict me again, and you think this means anything less than Apple is a bunch of crooks?
In conclusion: you're completely and totally wrong. Not just technically about this having something to do with the GPL, but also morally. You probably eat babies. I'm surprised you can even sleep at night. If you don't believe me, let me borrow a vernacular from one of the most despised minds of our century: Go fuck yourself.
However, to suggest making IPv4 applications IPv6 *compatible* is extremely difficult is a bit overboard.
No, it's certainly more sane to ask tens of thousands of programmers to rewrite code, hundreds of thousands of network administrators to reconfigure millions of otherwise working systems, and convince tens of millions of users join a new network with nothing on it.
Really, IPV6 was invented by impractical morons. If they wanted to solve problems, they could mandate SRV for all new protocols- quit assigning port numbers. They could popularize UPNP and/or STUN. They could add cookies to ICMP messages so they could be tunneled easier.
On the plus side, once we've got IPv6, we probably won't go much further, given that it provides billions (literally) of IP addresses to every living person on Earth.
The same could be said about IPX. It is already here, better tested, and better understood than IPV6, and nobody would be duped into thinking we were talking about anything except completely replacing the Internet.
Even if it's a pure network app, it's not hellish to migrate. Plus, IPv6 has less hacks than IPv4 like breaing from NATs etc. that generally make applications far more difficult to write.
You're wrong. IPV6 address parsing is extremely complicated, and the fact that its space is so large means that people who used sparse bitmaps for storage need to completely rewrite their data structures. This usually means programs will run slower and be harder to debug.
The main problem being that a load of applications assumed that IPv4 would exist forever and just placed raw IPv4-specific network calls throughout their application, rather than using a generic connection oriented API or whatever in general.
That's because there still isn't a generic connection oriented API. It's 2007, and UNIX still doesn't have a dial() function. You'd think that if the IPV6 people were serious about solving problems, they'd start with some low hanging fruit.
The hardware is the big issue here. Being that chips have been specifically engineered to work with IPv4.
That's a load of crap. Hardware is not the big issue. The problem is a social one: How do you convince people to completely replace the internet with something that is not the internet? The IETF has been ducking that question for over 10 years and I don't suspect they'll answer it any time soon. There are sites on the Internet that publish MX records, when are they going to go away?
Migration is 100% of the problem. We could've been migrating to IPX: it has greater deployment than IPV6 does. If IPV6 doesn't offer anything to solve the migration problem then it simply doesn't offer anything at all.
bzzt. gethostbyname() is ipv4 only. Only getaddrinfo() and friends are multi-protocol, but even they will only ask for AAAA records if you ask them to.
Put options inet6 in/etc/resolv.conf and trace your favorite programs.
Next time, leave out the sound effects: It makes you look like an idiot.
This is why so many apps have to be rewritten to support ipv6, and why there's still no ipv6 squid (an app like that needs major surgery to handle a new addressing scheme).
Apps need to be rewritten because ipv6 is a completely different network protocol. The same difficulties are run into porting to Appletalk or IPX, and the IETF is either completely oblivious to this, or is simply dishonest.
What if you're trying to migrate to IPv6 but still have "classic" IPv4 devices on the network?
What if you're trying to migrate to IPX, but still have "classic" IPv4 devices on the network?
IPv6 is a completely different protocol that nobody uses. It should be turned off by default.
My understanding on Linux/OSX is that enabling IPv6 doesn't change anything about the way IPv4 applications function,
If you have IPv6 interfaces, gethostbyname() will look for IPv6 addresses first. This makes DNS lookups slower for real users.
despite using a different addressing sceme.
Correction: Despite using a completely different network protocol and network. IPv6 is not compatible with IPv4, and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Why would this be any different for Vista?
Vista and XP block ICMP by default. As a result, this breaks path MTU discovery and error reporting. Since ICMP is necessary in alot of the IPV6/IPV4 mixed networks, this causes breakage.
Windows users do not know how to participate on a real public network like the Internet, and it seems they do not know how to participate on the fantasy public network that uses IPV6.
This is indicative of a layering problem...
It's bad engineering.
IPv4 applications need to be rewritten, their databases need to be changed, and they need new knowledge about how this network is supposed to function. What does a multicast address look like? What does the broadcast address look like? What's a network address look like? Nobody knows yet because nobody uses IPv6.
The IETF thinks that if they "just" convince all the application authors to change their software and "just" convince all the network administrators to install new hardware and reconfigure existing running systems that work fine, and convince all end users of the internet to replace their hardware and software that they can "fix" the Internet. I'd suggest anyone who thinks that is feasible is a fool.
Yes please check dmesg | grep ERROR. Try saying that to someone who doesnt know what a shell is.
Okay, now with the mouse, move it into the corner of the screen where it says "Start" and click on it by pressing the mouse button. Then move it up to where it says All Programs, okay, it just says Programs, well go in there, then find Admini-no, click the mouse button when the arrow is pointing at Programs, then move the pointer to where it says Administrative Tools, then click the mouse button and move it to where it says Computer Management then click the mouse button again. Then when the window comes up that says Computer Management click on the plus next to the item labelled "System Tools" on the left side, under where it says "Computer Management and Local in parenthesis", then click on the folder item labelled Event Viewer, then click on the item that says Security on the right, and Click it twice real fast. Okay, now do you see anything that says E100B? Okay scroll down. No the window on the right, click on the little arrow at the bottom. Okay, found it? Okay, does it have a Red X? Okay, no a white x on a red circle? Okay, go ahead and scroll some more until you find one. Okay, you found it? Okay double click on it, and read the description. IP could not open the registry key? No, click cancel, you're looking for the white x on the red circle that says E100B in the "source" column. Now scroll down, okay found it? Okay double click on it. Click twice real fast, okay, now read me the description, Installation ready? Okay, try clicking the little up arrow button. At the top right of the window, okay, read me the description. The removable storage service hung? Okay, click the down arrow, and read me the description. Okay, now click the down arrow again and read me the description. Okay, Intel PRO/100, got it. Now look at the bottom where it says data, and on the second row, over on the right, hwere it goes 13 00 04 40, tell me what it says right after that."
If you still think this is funny, remember that Microsoft Technical Support is hiring!
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, IIS Gaining on Apache cost Americans $7 billion over the past two years.
Do your patriotic duty: Install Apache.
IPV6 isn't in the past tense. It doesn't exist yet. Until a migration plan exists the protocol called IPV6 is as incompatible with the Internet as IPX is- less so perhaps because more network administrators understand IPX than understand IPV6.
Failing to understand this, and taking as gospel from such dishonest people as Randy Bush that IPV6 is "the next version of IPV4" makes people think that:
- There is a problem, but we have a solution!
- That solution is, start over!
Anyone who even mouthed starting over is a bit hasty is labelled an obstructionist. When asked how are we going to use our PI blocks, they said "we don't need PI blocks yet. We only needed them because of problems X,Y,Z which don't exist on IPV6". When asked how are we going to embed legacy clients, they said "we'll use NAT" and if asked how do we get to that magic moment when people can start disconnecting IPV4 services, the answer is "we just have to start over."If these people were truly the force that was responsible for the Internet that we all use, then it was probably an accident. These people are obviously incompetent. These people thought DNAME and A6 records were a good idea. They don't get it: their migration plan is as poorly thought out as MX record transition, and here's news: There are functioning sites that still don't have MX records.
If IPV6 is truly necessary, then I think that we need competent answers to these questions. The IETF needs to step up and provide a migration plan. No migration plan? Stop whining.
Note that ARIN didn't allocate any addresses this year, does this mean nobody in North America set up shop?
John Curran is pointedly dishonest. Paul Vixie is dishonest as well (Remember how BIND9 was rewritten by a team of "all new developers" to be completely security-bug free?) . I don't personally have evidence off-hand of other board members being dishonest, but them being board members clearly doesn't exempt them from being dishonest, or even just plain stupid.
IPV6 is akin to saying "The Internet sucks, lets start over!" and I'm sick and tired of idiots telling me to switch to a new network with no users and no infrastructure, and without being able to leverage any meaningful part of my existing network. My IPV4 PI doesn't help me, and my IPV4 connectivity is useless. IPV6 is a complete reboot without a migration plan, and it probably isn't even necessary.
I think you've got most of them right there, but there's one important missing element:
Is IPV6 the right thing?
IPV6 is equivalent to saying "The Internet was wrong, so we're starting over" and that's a mighty big thing. I don't think there's anyone who could be considered smart enough- that could see every possible consequence and decide correctly that starting over is what we infact need.
The address space is shrinking - say the IPV6 proponents. We must act now! Repent from this Internet and let us create another!
Of course, the only proof they offer that the address space is shrinking is that they themselves are allocating it, yet another reason I'm suspicious of them. Oh, and the fact they've been saying we'll be gone in just a few years for over 10 years. Oh, and the fact that IPV6 isn't ready. Oh, and the fact that there's no migration plan.
slashdot.org has no AAAA record
Liar.
Err, the ALA/FCC case you're referring to applies to software decoders like GNU/Radio devices. Not hardware decoders.
Fact is, while IPV4's address space may become exhausted, it's not clear it'll cause any problems to end-users. It's certainly clear that there doesn't exist any realistic solution to the IPV4 address space exhaustion and the IPNG group charged with solving the problem suggests switching the entire Internet to IPX.
IPV4 multihomed sites still don't have any migration plan; the closest thing is "start over".
Anyone who thinks the Internet is so broken we just need to "start over" just plain stupid, and I'm sorry if you are stupid, but from here on you're deliberately tricking people that "we've got a great plan," when there is presently no plan.
Now you consider me an obstructionist, but consider how I must view you: You believe that there is going to be huge problems when IPV4's address space becomes exhausted, and yet you don't have a plan to fix it. Moreover, you support a group of people who have been trumpeting the same idea for over ten years, under the banner of "we'll need it in two-to-four-years", and yet have still failed to answer basic questions about migration.
You're right: I don't believe the IPV6 people- that's true. I think that people will simply conserve IPV4 addresses and that we'll continue to do application-level routing: Layer-four switches will become more popular, NAT will become more popular and so on. I don't see any reason to believe that the growth of the Internet will be any way impeded. I've been working on the Internet for far too long to believe otherwise.
Now, stop being stupid. If you still think there's a problem fix it. Design some real migration plans. Not "how to join IPV6" plans, but "what do I do with all these PI sites" plans. IPV6 is old news, and its still not ready. If you really believe it's the best shot, then make it ready.
Addressing is a social problem, not a technological one, and the IPV6 group doesn't have any social skills. They say "switch" but they don't say how. They say 4in6, but that "it's not really a standard". In short, if they're actually trying to solve the address exhaustion problem, then they're complete idiots. If they're not, then why the fuck are you parroting for them?
Here's an idea: reserve IPV4 addresses for peering addresses. Build your address extension system as a new encapsulation protocol under IP and discontinue port assignments. Mandate SRV (or NSRV?) records that can indicate the use of this protocol, and you'll get incremental deployment.
Or, you can convince everyone to drop what they're doing and throw money in the toilet for a few years.
Nobody is going to deploy IPV6 if they can't get IPV4 addresses. The price of IPV4 addresses will simply go up. This will cause smaller networks to go out of business. The IPV6 committee is being steered by large companies, so guess what they want: More or less competition?
When are the IPV6 apologists going to wake up and smell the coffee and start thinking about how they're going to convince nearly 40,000 network administrators to stop what they're doing and add support for the 40-or-so million other networks administrators to migrate as painlessly as possible.
I have been thinking about IPV6 for over ten years. It'd be easier to switch everyone to IPX than it would be to IPV6. At least more administrators understand IPX, and it's just as different from IPV4. So what possible reason could there be to switch to the IPV6 network that nobody is using than to switch to the IPX network that nobody is using?
16 million addresses assigned to the toplevel registries isn't the same thing as 16 million addresses being used. Most of those blocks aren't assigned to any BGP host yet- heck, most of the addresses "allocated" in 2004 and 2005 aren't on any BGP host yet. APNIC, ARIN, and all the RIRs publish separate allocation lists. Sum them, and see if you can still use IANA's numbers to measure how bad address exhaustion actually is.
I think not.
The problem with that argument is threefold:
Nobody is IPV6-only, so there is no financial benefit to being an early adopter, and I do not have money to through down the garbage disposal even if I wanted to.
IPV6 is stupid anyway, so I'm betting that if we actually did run out of IPV4 addresses, we'd probably continue on using NAT and other routing tricks (maybe we'd PI some old
IPV6 still has lots of problems preventing adoption and rather than address those issues proponents of IPV6 insist "well, it's better than nothing and that's what we'll have in a few more years..."
Right now, users want to be on the Internet that Google is on. Small sites cannot add support for both networks because it's cost prohibitive. Make it cheaper for small companies to switch and more expensive for large companies not to if you need to force the issue. At this point, it'll probably be easier to come up with something interesting.
Oh and John Curran is an idiot.
I know John Curran as a troll on the PPML who brings up "IPV6 internet cutoff" every so often. He ignores all of the reasons why IPV6 isn't ready, and loudly proclaims people on *this Internet* (ipv4) are just holding back progress of his *other internet* (ipv6) which nobody is on.
/8's per year. ARIN says we're going through about 3-4 a year (see the ipv4-allocation-assignments- this stuff is public even to nonmembers)
He suggests charging people more for IPV4 allocations will speed IPV6 adoption and has no idea what an idiotic statement that is. He admits he doesn't care if raising the price of IPV4 allocations will simply drive smaller networks "out of business" as "they should be on IPV6 anyway". Meanwhile Google can afford it and nobody gives a shit about IPV6- they just want to use the same internet that Google is on.
He lies and says we're running out of addresses at a rate of 10-15
He has no migration plan besides "just replace all your hardware and software". It's about as stupid as the HDTV plan, which since I cannot record HDTV without buying illegal hardware, I'm not buying either.
Seriously, does anyone think an actual migration plan for something as big as - replace the entire Internet- would be authored by a single person that nobody outside of ARIN and IANA working bodies have heard of?
He's an idiot and an asshole.
Distribution is, by definition, how something is distributed, and every OEM distributing Windows does it differently. Some store the windows install files in C:\I386, while others use a hidden boot partition with recovery software. Some load the drivers on a CD, some use a RunOnce handler to bring everything in. Some simply replace EXPLORER with some kiosky-thing that sells you adware.
In reality, of the biggest Linux distributions, they are less different from eachother, than say, the biggest Windows distributions are from each other. That is to say that Dell's distribution has more differences than Lenovo's distribution than divides Fedora and Ubuntu.
Yes, there are fringe Linux distributions- and I'll believe that their numbers reach 300, but to count them, you also have to include the Windows Mobile and Windows Media distributions- as most of these other distributions are designed to fill a particular need.
Its been my experience that people that bring up the "too many linux distros" argument don't understand Linux or Windows well enough to adequately comment on this.
Fact is: People don't make Linux distributions to confuse you, they make linux distributions to solve some problem that is caused by the way another distribution operates. Fedora's package database grows quite large and wastes a lot of space that an embedded system-on-flash Linux simply can't afford. Meanwhile, enterprise users can't afford to break things so upgrades have to be stable, and that means QA (and that means: binary packages).
Fact is: People do make Windows distributions to confuse you: Dell had enterprise training programs and it makes zero business sense to train you for HP's machines, hence their training is mostly worthless for other systems.
I strongly suspect the only reason this argument is "coming up again" is because of somebody who are heavily invested in Windows, just went in panic-mode. They're trying to slow down Windows's demise so that it doesn't hurt them quite so much. Same reason advisers often pump a dying stock.
People can refer to themselves as christian only when they want to confuse people about what they believe, because those who call themselves christian believe wildly different things.
Christians are in the minority. The batshit loony always have been. Some believe in a zombie overlord that eats sins, and others believe in a definition of "love" that turns women's heads into salt. The guy who thinks wrapping his feet in wax paper prevents satan from controlling him isn't any less crazy- just necessarily less functional.
This country wasn't founded by christians, but by humanists. The only thing that christians have in common is hate; some hate jews, some hate women, some hate other people that call themselves christian. Christians couldn't create something as awesome as America: only destroy it.
Now that's not entirely true: There are a few people who call themselves christian who think that all they're doing is believing in something, and that how can that be bad? They are in the super minority: They're crazy enough to have an irrational belief, but not so crazy that they feel like hurting other people who lack that irrational belief.
Judges do not usually expect people to be infallible, which is why they do infact hear arguments from people, instead of from Noah Webster.Uh no. Tivo S1 community software supported network streaming that could easily saturate a 10mbit/sec link. Tivo's own software for the S2 barely approaches 1mbit/sec.Well good for you. You're a sucker: I fix my own car, I fix my own computer, and I fix my own dinner.
There are laws preventing Ford from making countermeasures that disable my car if I try and work on it. Why is TiVO allowed to sell a DVR with similar countermeasures?
There's some confusion on that last point, and that's why the FSF is so important: They're the only ones that are fighting to change that. They're cowards, so they fight by simply working to replace all of the software out there with software without countermeasures.
I'm okay if you want to buy a car that you can't fix yourself, and I'm okay if you want to dine on hot pockets for the rest of your life. But I don't see why you think it's important that I accept a car that I can't fix myself!Uh no. US Copyright law doesn't stipulate terms of use. The GPL doesn't affect use- nor does any other software license. They can only stipulate redistribution terms; Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988) was a supreme court decision that Federal copyright law preempts state law, and the cases of Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992), and Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989), are all federal cases where the US government held that even though the software says on it "you may not reverse engineer or alter it", you still have those rights, as a consumer.
So only someone who wasn't familiar with copyright law could consider your definition of "leaching" meaningful in the slightest. The GPL only talks about redistribution because its a right you don't have, but that the GPL can grant to you, not because redistribution is the only thing important to the FSF.No, he really is. He's tried stating what the FSF stands for many times.
This isn't the same thing as knowing what Linus meant, when he adopted the GPL. RMS didn't know that- and was completely wrong about that when he brought it up.So what? RMS wrote the GPL with the intention of preserving software user's freedom- whatever that means. He admits the GPL2 doesn't do that, which means that the GPL2 isn't an adequate representation of his intentions.
The GPL doesn't have intentions separate from RMS. He wrote it. When someone who writes software grants redistribution rights to others, they have their own intentions- those intentions may be exactly what the GPL2 says, like Linus. Or they may actually be interested in eliminating non-Free software entirely, like RMS. The GPL2 doesn't do that, maybe the GPL3 will.I hope not. If so, then you're completely hopeless.
I hope that Vista is working out for you.
On my a TiVO, I cannot change the code if necessary. I have to wait for TiVO to change the code "if necessary", and TiVO and I have very different ideas on what is necessary. I for one would like to be able to transfer shows between my bedroom and my livingroom at faster than realtime as I could with the Series1. This isn't that important to TiVO so they won't fix the problem.You're either dishonest or an idiot. The point was that RMS got his hands on a printer (a piece of hardware) that he couldn't fix a bug with. That's right, the point of the GPL always has been about the hardware.
The fact that nobody used encrypted bootloaders until recently is why the GPL doesn't mention hardware: It didn't need to. I mean, who in their right mind would slow down their computers to 1/10th their speed on purpose. And who still would expect consumers to put up with it?
Well, look, RMS was wrong. I was wrong. Lots of people were wrong. So the GPL is getting revised.
Now you understand what the GPL2 says. So does Linus. So do a lot of people. And if your goals is to prevent your
software from being marginalized then the GPL2 is a good way to do it. But the only person who knows what was meant by the GPL is RMS, and that's because he wrote it, and he says it was to stop consumers from being hurt.
A lot of people adopted his license because we want what he wants. But others, adopted his license because they want what the license said.
We can argue about whether TiVO is right or wrong if you want to, but you're patently wrong that the intent of the GPL was. Even Linus knows that.
This is about what companies call "perceived value". So long as customers "perceive" the value of a home router to be 50$, it will cost 50$. Even if - from the consumer's perspective - the difference between it and the 600$ router is code that other people wrote, it will still cost 50$.If customers demand the rights afforded to them under the GPL, the GPL will become the norm. We consumers are not merely at the whim and mercy of corporationsMorality is a oft dismissed term by people who cannot think and who cannot render coherency. Everyone else knows that morality is a concern with the distinction between Right and Wrong.
If I purchase an accounting package, that I then need to use over the course of several years, and then suddenly and without warning, the company I bought it from goes out of business, and then just as suddenly some knucklehead decides to change daylight savings time. I should be able to- either by hiring a programmer, or by my own ability be able to modify the accounting package to account for this.
What possible perverted individual could you find that should suggest that I not have such a right? What kind of sick tool could have honesty and state that I do not have the right to keep my business running?
The legal system already agreed that I have the Right to do this, so companies - in order to protect perceived value started technologically restricting my Right.Sorry, you're wrong. You're probably stupid and ugly as well. I've already demonstrated that civilization agrees that I have a right to make these changes, and that the law protects me. I've also indicated examples of companies attempting to circumvent my rights, and also areas where they've managed to confuse enough people to confuse morality.
Of course nobody believes I shouldn't be able to modify the software in question. That's how we know what I'm describing is the Moral Right. But companies say they need to restrict that right, in order to protect other rights.
The question isn't whether I have the right to do what I want, because I already have those rights. The question is whether their rights are more important than my rights.
I realize that your travel in third-world countries makes you believe you understand Copyright, but it doesn't. Google the cases I listed before you try and suggest unilaterally that my response makes no sense. . You don't understand Copyright, and you don't understand Law well enough to say that my response doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to you but that's obvious from your responses.
When you buy a book, you wouldn't think anyone could suggest that you don't have the right to read it, or mark passages with a yellow hilighter, would you? Really?
And yet, somehow the Right of Copy which is applied to books, it all made sense. People could read good books, and write better ones. Copyright produced new works by providing a limited monopoly on a work, in an effort to make the wonders in these books more accessible to all.
Now, copyright applied to software somehow means something else: They get to copyright something that we can't enjoy- the code itself. They keep the code secret and unusable, and thus they have usurped rights that copyright never was meant to grant.
This is wrong. Disney got copyright extended perpetually so that nothing of theirs enter the public domain. They built their empire on the public domain- the Cinderella, and the Jungle Book. They convinced Congress- and apparently you- that copyright is about doing something it was never meant to.
The FSF is probably the only group really challenging Copyright at all. They're staying limited to software- which as mysterious as software is to laypeople, makes it seem like they're taking an extreme position.
The FSF is a champion of this often neglected freedom, and its time people stop fighting them on it. I understand corporations wanting to maximize their profits fighting this. I understands corporations lobbying congress to change the laws to be better for them, but we need to fight the corporate lobbyists, and not the FSF.
Everyone in the world knew it wasn't up to the company what I did with it once it was mine. It was even protected under law that way. Eventually, some assholes got the idea that they could suck more money out of people.
Fortunately, the courts disagreed. They said this was a resonable expectation to make changes to what you buy (780 F. Supp 1283 [ND Cal 1991]) and that unless you sign a piece of paper they cannot legally restrict you (847 F.2d 255 [5th Cir. 1998]).
So they stopped legally restricting you, and started technologically restricting you.
Meanwhile, you seem to think that Apple can somehow make an operating system by themselves. They can't. They need people to donate time and programming expertise. I've been more than happy to provide that under the terms that they share some of the load.
So long as Apple decides to play nicely, Apple gets good quality code, a large QA base, free testing and development, and most importantly, more people buying their products.
Now, they found a way to avoid sharing that load, and they immediately start trying to technologically restrict me again, and you think this means anything less than Apple is a bunch of crooks?
In conclusion: you're completely and totally wrong. Not just technically about this having something to do with the GPL, but also morally. You probably eat babies. I'm surprised you can even sleep at night. If you don't believe me, let me borrow a vernacular from one of the most despised minds of our century: Go fuck yourself.
Really, IPV6 was invented by impractical morons. If they wanted to solve problems, they could mandate SRV for all new protocols- quit assigning port numbers. They could popularize UPNP and/or STUN. They could add cookies to ICMP messages so they could be tunneled easier.The same could be said about IPX. It is already here, better tested, and better understood than IPV6, and nobody would be duped into thinking we were talking about anything except completely replacing the Internet.You're wrong. IPV6 address parsing is extremely complicated, and the fact that its space is so large means that people who used sparse bitmaps for storage need to completely rewrite their data structures. This usually means programs will run slower and be harder to debug.That's because there still isn't a generic connection oriented API. It's 2007, and UNIX still doesn't have a dial() function. You'd think that if the IPV6 people were serious about solving problems, they'd start with some low hanging fruit.That's a load of crap. Hardware is not the big issue. The problem is a social one: How do you convince people to completely replace the internet with something that is not the internet? The IETF has been ducking that question for over 10 years and I don't suspect they'll answer it any time soon. There are sites on the Internet that publish MX records, when are they going to go away?
Migration is 100% of the problem. We could've been migrating to IPX: it has greater deployment than IPV6 does. If IPV6 doesn't offer anything to solve the migration problem then it simply doesn't offer anything at all .
Next time, leave out the sound effects: It makes you look like an idiot.Apps need to be rewritten because ipv6 is a completely different network protocol. The same difficulties are run into porting to Appletalk or IPX, and the IETF is either completely oblivious to this, or is simply dishonest.
IPv6 is a completely different protocol that nobody uses. It should be turned off by default.If you have IPv6 interfaces, gethostbyname() will look for IPv6 addresses first. This makes DNS lookups slower for real users.Correction: Despite using a completely different network protocol and network. IPv6 is not compatible with IPv4, and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.Vista and XP block ICMP by default. As a result, this breaks path MTU discovery and error reporting. Since ICMP is necessary in alot of the IPV6/IPV4 mixed networks, this causes breakage.
Windows users do not know how to participate on a real public network like the Internet, and it seems they do not know how to participate on the fantasy public network that uses IPV6.It's bad engineering.
IPv4 applications need to be rewritten, their databases need to be changed, and they need new knowledge about how this network is supposed to function. What does a multicast address look like? What does the broadcast address look like? What's a network address look like? Nobody knows yet because nobody uses IPv6.
The IETF thinks that if they "just" convince all the application authors to change their software and "just" convince all the network administrators to install new hardware and reconfigure existing running systems that work fine, and convince all end users of the internet to replace their hardware and software that they can "fix" the Internet. I'd suggest anyone who thinks that is feasible is a fool.
If you still think this is funny, remember that Microsoft Technical Support is hiring!