The rotting elephant in the room is NOT the "security" of NAT, its the legal issues specifically that the *.A.A will be able to argue that "IP address equals person" thus letting them sue pretty much anybody for anything. You put up a vid of your kid dancing to a corporate media conglomerate owned song? Enjoy your lawsuit.
With the increasing demands around the world for ISP logging that ship has sailed whether IPv6 is involved or not. It would be nice if you had a point, and I would agree with you if the *AA was not reaching the point where they could just go to an ISP and ask who was connected to what address at which time - without a warrant.
This of course isn't even bringing up how badly corporate has fucked IT for the last decade which means all the older networking gurus have all bailed, leaving a bunch of kids that won't know how to diagnose
Hence the attitude of NAT always being there instead of having to get a new book to explain that nasty new NAT hack at one point:)
we have the environmental disaster as you have literally tens of millions of routers and modems that simply cannot handle IP V6 so all of that will have to be trashed
Already almost finished. Those recent "cable TV" boxes connect to the internet and there were more of them than remaining IPv4 numbers, so they went IPv6, as with iPhones etc (using LTE with IPv6), so if you wanted those people to get to where you are on the internet it sometimes means new hardware.
but the other part of NAT is that it also acts as a layer-3 transparent proxy between the devices you place behind it and the outside world
Which you can still have with IPv6 so you can have a web proxy everyone has to go through on port 80 but nice point to point videoconferencing etc that does not have to go through the nasty hack of NAT and not find the other end without a third party that is not behind NAT.
but if you have to open the port for your video conferencing app then it's no more convenient than forwarding a port for NAT.
Until you've got two people on your network that want to do video conferencing to the outside world at once. NAT is a nasty hack that should not be confused with firewalls and the summary above is wrong anyway since you can have NAT on IPv6 if you want it. Transparent web proxies can be set up on IPv6 using NAT for example - the network address gets translated to the machine acting as a proxy.
There was a paper a few years ago (and an article about that on slashdot) about a simple NAT traversal hack to map everything on an IPv4 network behind the gateway. NAT doesn't really provide anything in the way of security on it's own. Because it's found on devices that do other things to actually provide security some people attribute that security to NAT and not the filtering software found with it. As for people finding out an IPv6 address behind the firewall - good luck guessing if they are using something like a MAC address to fill in the last portion of the IPv6 address as some are doing.
Just as well that naive approach is on the old stuff that doesn't do IPv6 at all. Get the cheapest Chinese router you can find new and you'll see even that does reasonable firewalling by default. An expensive gold plated Cisco pushed by the sleazy salesman who is playing golf with your boss to seal the deal on the other hand may be a different story, but all other new hardware from the cheap consumer stuff up does the job as if it's 2016 with a wild untrusted internet and not 1990.
Yes, and the summary is also incorrect because you can have NAT in IPv6 if you really want it (eg. for a web proxy). It's just not needed for the main use of NAT which provides more numbers at the cost of breaking the internet in many annoying little ways. Many people here such as the above poster will already know this, but NAT is the reason why internet telephony was so damned hard and became the domain of things like Skype that provided a midpoint instead of very easy point to point communication like we used to have. Also as things like Facebook with hundreds of linked objects per page become popular it's not hard to hit the limit of connections per port on the gateway that is doing the Network Address Translation - have a dozen people hitting Facebook at once behind one IP address and watch their web browsers slow down once per minute no matter what bandwidth you have.
The most amusing thing there was a targeted advertisement for Walmart telling me to go to a local store that doesn't exist:) The future is now and advertisers know too damn much about us.
Besides, I don't know enough about the topic to know if Gore is wrong, do you? Remember all those "future shock" predictions about world starvation? Those sort of numbers would have been correct if Mao hadn't died and China hadn't got their shit together, not to mention the "green revolution" in agriculture that gave us our current levels of production. Maybe Gore would have been correct without the reduction in pollution the economic hassles of 2008+ had not happened. Maybe he's still correct, the "experts" that make fun of him seem to be economists and nothing to do with anything even loosely connected to physics.
Some people actually like that sort of thing. Others see it a s a duty. I'm not one but I work with a guy that did volunteer. He's probably the "smart" one because his work can be shifted onto other people enough to not have to come in on weekends when things go to shit, and he could be away for a few weeks without losing his job.
In 1990 a guy I know who had just started as a lawyer was told that he'd be replaced by a computer in a couple of years. The guy telling him was a non-lawyer that thought doing an MBA was as hard as it gets. It's 2015 and AI is not breathing down lawyers neck as yet.
Since AI is currently just a fancy name for lookup tables there are limited roles it can fit into until someone writes some lookup tables to cover a wide range of situations or AI develops a bit more in other directions.
It gets many angry so I'd say pure clickbait. It's a worry really that when the girls among us get bullied there are so many people that see a reaction against the bullies as an external threat to band together against. I suppose it's a symptom of so few girls in IT.
His "equality" means "special protected class who is above criticism or assessment of merit"
If it was so ridiculous you could just lazily attack him on those grounds instead of doing the hard work of a reasoned argument. Why the weak namecalling bullshit? If you have strong views exercise them instead of some pathetic game of make-believe and strawman attack.
People find that stuff out and the bullying happens obviously instead of your very contrived fake guess and "bro" shit. Why do you feel threatened by my simple statement about the bullies above?
In a lot of places that was part two which is why it stuck. Many of the mothers of the women who went into the workplace in WWII were in the workplace in the 1920s due to the effects of WWI, and they encouraged their children. It was more in some places than others.
miners are treated like shit and those industries are bursting at the seams with women.
In comparison to IT mining is, which is just plain bizzare. I don't know about oil rigs, but there's a higher ratio of women in refineries than in IT. IT is a special case because while the rest of the workforce let more women in IT has been driving them out.
Men DO get treated just as poorly but they're less prone to say anything lest they be labeled as "pussies" or "whiners"
You are not doing it but there's certainly a lot of whiners here upset at bullies being called out as bullies. I'm especially amused by the ones that think IT is a "man's job". It's indoors doing typing. When I went to school it was considered women's work just like book-keeping so no boys were allowed in the typing or book-keeping classes and no girls were allowed in the drafting and metalwork classes.
That high school situation was a fuckup where the instructor intended to use an image of a playboy model's face for the class project, but didn't have the image file and instructed his students to google for it. They didn't just get the face but the whole centerfold. The only backlash from that was a comment in a blog from a girl who said she didn't like the results of that fuckup, which resulted in a story here that resembled a hurricane in a teacup.
How about a dissertation why males have virtually deserted the veterinary field?
I can see how inner city small animal stuff would attract the girls and give you such a strange impression if you never get out of the city, but WTF does such a weird mistake on your part have to do with the topic?
The situation here is some groups of men who are "jerks" are directing their efforts into bullying women and the bullying is being accepted by the software community. It's not that "there are jerks everywhere" - that's a different thing although annoying in itself.
It's a bit of "kick the cat" behaviour sometimes where for instance some geeks that were bullied by althletic types decide to take it out on women - which is both disgusting and pathetic.
The guy who put "Fisking" into the jargon file for political reasons has a lot more problems than that and should not be taken seriously. His entrapment thing is just another symptom.
Your suggested solution involves changing education
It already happened - we kicked the girls out and this shit is the fallout. Where I studied in the 1980s there was a very slight majority of females in first year CS despite a lot of the mostly male engineering students also taking those subjects as a soft option. Around then it became clear that money could be made with computers so the women were squeezed out of the industry. I've seen more women at mine sites than in IT companies - it's weird.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you get that idea? The business I work for has a firewall router that has about a tenth of the CPU power of a smartphone.
Using LTE they've already been there for a couple of years.
With the increasing demands around the world for ISP logging that ship has sailed whether IPv6 is involved or not. It would be nice if you had a point, and I would agree with you if the *AA was not reaching the point where they could just go to an ISP and ask who was connected to what address at which time - without a warrant.
Hence the attitude of NAT always being there instead of having to get a new book to explain that nasty new NAT hack at one point :)
Already almost finished. Those recent "cable TV" boxes connect to the internet and there were more of them than remaining IPv4 numbers, so they went IPv6, as with iPhones etc (using LTE with IPv6), so if you wanted those people to get to where you are on the internet it sometimes means new hardware.
Which you can still have with IPv6 so you can have a web proxy everyone has to go through on port 80 but nice point to point videoconferencing etc that does not have to go through the nasty hack of NAT and not find the other end without a third party that is not behind NAT.
Until you've got two people on your network that want to do video conferencing to the outside world at once.
NAT is a nasty hack that should not be confused with firewalls and the summary above is wrong anyway since you can have NAT on IPv6 if you want it. Transparent web proxies can be set up on IPv6 using NAT for example - the network address gets translated to the machine acting as a proxy.
There was a paper a few years ago (and an article about that on slashdot) about a simple NAT traversal hack to map everything on an IPv4 network behind the gateway. NAT doesn't really provide anything in the way of security on it's own. Because it's found on devices that do other things to actually provide security some people attribute that security to NAT and not the filtering software found with it.
As for people finding out an IPv6 address behind the firewall - good luck guessing if they are using something like a MAC address to fill in the last portion of the IPv6 address as some are doing.
Just as well that naive approach is on the old stuff that doesn't do IPv6 at all.
Get the cheapest Chinese router you can find new and you'll see even that does reasonable firewalling by default.
An expensive gold plated Cisco pushed by the sleazy salesman who is playing golf with your boss to seal the deal on the other hand may be a different story, but all other new hardware from the cheap consumer stuff up does the job as if it's 2016 with a wild untrusted internet and not 1990.
Yes, and the summary is also incorrect because you can have NAT in IPv6 if you really want it (eg. for a web proxy). It's just not needed for the main use of NAT which provides more numbers at the cost of breaking the internet in many annoying little ways.
Many people here such as the above poster will already know this, but NAT is the reason why internet telephony was so damned hard and became the domain of things like Skype that provided a midpoint instead of very easy point to point communication like we used to have.
Also as things like Facebook with hundreds of linked objects per page become popular it's not hard to hit the limit of connections per port on the gateway that is doing the Network Address Translation - have a dozen people hitting Facebook at once behind one IP address and watch their web browsers slow down once per minute no matter what bandwidth you have.
The most amusing thing there was a targeted advertisement for Walmart telling me to go to a local store that doesn't exist :)
The future is now and advertisers know too damn much about us.
Besides, I don't know enough about the topic to know if Gore is wrong, do you? Remember all those "future shock" predictions about world starvation? Those sort of numbers would have been correct if Mao hadn't died and China hadn't got their shit together, not to mention the "green revolution" in agriculture that gave us our current levels of production. Maybe Gore would have been correct without the reduction in pollution the economic hassles of 2008+ had not happened. Maybe he's still correct, the "experts" that make fun of him seem to be economists and nothing to do with anything even loosely connected to physics.
Some people actually like that sort of thing. Others see it a s a duty. I'm not one but I work with a guy that did volunteer. He's probably the "smart" one because his work can be shifted onto other people enough to not have to come in on weekends when things go to shit, and he could be away for a few weeks without losing his job.
In 1990 a guy I know who had just started as a lawyer was told that he'd be replaced by a computer in a couple of years. The guy telling him was a non-lawyer that thought doing an MBA was as hard as it gets. It's 2015 and AI is not breathing down lawyers neck as yet.
Since AI is currently just a fancy name for lookup tables there are limited roles it can fit into until someone writes some lookup tables to cover a wide range of situations or AI develops a bit more in other directions.
High school teachers.
It gets many angry so I'd say pure clickbait.
It's a worry really that when the girls among us get bullied there are so many people that see a reaction against the bullies as an external threat to band together against. I suppose it's a symptom of so few girls in IT.
If it was so ridiculous you could just lazily attack him on those grounds instead of doing the hard work of a reasoned argument. Why the weak namecalling bullshit? If you have strong views exercise them instead of some pathetic game of make-believe and strawman attack.
People find that stuff out and the bullying happens obviously instead of your very contrived fake guess and "bro" shit.
Why do you feel threatened by my simple statement about the bullies above?
In summary it was really just a lot of whining blaming a strawman for some personal issues that were not disclosed - what an utter waste of time.
Yes - there was money in it so women were squeezed out of the profession.
In a lot of places that was part two which is why it stuck. Many of the mothers of the women who went into the workplace in WWII were in the workplace in the 1920s due to the effects of WWI, and they encouraged their children. It was more in some places than others.
He said vocal minority, but don't let reality stop you from posting hundreds of words based on a failure of reading comprehension.
In comparison to IT mining is, which is just plain bizzare. I don't know about oil rigs, but there's a higher ratio of women in refineries than in IT.
IT is a special case because while the rest of the workforce let more women in IT has been driving them out.
You are not doing it but there's certainly a lot of whiners here upset at bullies being called out as bullies.
I'm especially amused by the ones that think IT is a "man's job". It's indoors doing typing. When I went to school it was considered women's work just like book-keeping so no boys were allowed in the typing or book-keeping classes and no girls were allowed in the drafting and metalwork classes.
That high school situation was a fuckup where the instructor intended to use an image of a playboy model's face for the class project, but didn't have the image file and instructed his students to google for it. They didn't just get the face but the whole centerfold. The only backlash from that was a comment in a blog from a girl who said she didn't like the results of that fuckup, which resulted in a story here that resembled a hurricane in a teacup.
I can see how inner city small animal stuff would attract the girls and give you such a strange impression if you never get out of the city, but WTF does such a weird mistake on your part have to do with the topic?
The situation here is some groups of men who are "jerks" are directing their efforts into bullying women and the bullying is being accepted by the software community.
It's not that "there are jerks everywhere" - that's a different thing although annoying in itself.
It's a bit of "kick the cat" behaviour sometimes where for instance some geeks that were bullied by althletic types decide to take it out on women - which is both disgusting and pathetic.
The guy who put "Fisking" into the jargon file for political reasons has a lot more problems than that and should not be taken seriously. His entrapment thing is just another symptom.
It already happened - we kicked the girls out and this shit is the fallout.
Where I studied in the 1980s there was a very slight majority of females in first year CS despite a lot of the mostly male engineering students also taking those subjects as a soft option. Around then it became clear that money could be made with computers so the women were squeezed out of the industry. I've seen more women at mine sites than in IT companies - it's weird.