Feel free to download the user manual for the TP-Link C1200 mentioned, and point out where one can configure actual routing (not NATted) between multiple subnets. It does support static routes, but not interfaces on multiple networks, AFAICT.
Whether or not the Google device's behavior is technically correct/allowed (it is) or polite/proper/necessary (it isn't), a network device should not crash because of it.
This issue is these cheap "routers." Here's more detail.
First, the issue 'taint got nuttin' to do with routing. The Google devices are sending lots of mcast traffic which affects WiFi. That's strictly a WiFi AP/bridging function. Second, although it may clog WiFi for a while, there's no excuse for an AP to crash because of it.
Third, people need to stop calling these things routers. That's like saying Dr. Dre is a Doctor. They don't route multicast, they don't do routing protocols. Most won't even route between networks, they'll only do some forms of NAT. They're cheap, home, multifunction (most of them have internal switches and/or APs) NAT gateways, not routers. In this case, it's an AP issue, not a router issue.
I'm not sure what a "A cheap enterprise-grade 4-5 port router" is. Any modern enterprise router will do wirespeed to at least 10G. There may be some SOHO ones which still use a CPU to do forwarding and where pps is still the bottleneck. There are certainly firewalls which do cpu forwarding. But none of them will crap out when packets arrive faster than they can forward them - they'll just drop some.
So, unless their router does mcast routing (nope, it doesn't), they should just be dropping those. And if the switch part of it can't reliably flood multicast packets, they should simply give up and quit the business.
Maximum sized packets are normally 1500 or less because that's the standard Enet MTU. So, TP-Link "routers" can crap out when you send 200 MB through them? Time to buy a competitor's product.
"The mining cartels were in favor of increasing block size. It's the bitcoin developers and owners that were against it."
Uh, no. It's the miners who control whether the blockchain forks to support larger blocks (or some other method of more transactions per block) are successful. It's the miners who have kept that from happening.
"Some differences between crytpocurrencies and tulips include: 1.) unable to simply grow unlimited crypto tokens for a small fraction of the current price,"
You're wrong. Where do you think Etherium, dogecoin, Litecoin, Ripple, etc., etc. came from? Anyone can take the bitcoin app, change a few bytes, and grow unlimited tokens at very low cost. No different than tulips.
" a non-debase-able currency where people control their money instead of a government/banker"
The mining cartels are the new government/banker. Transaction fees, collusion to prevent an increase in block size. And you think it's "non-debase-able." That's humorous. Buy a 6 pack of beer with BTC, and let us know the real cost. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
"Chances are the authentication GUI prompt is more meant to prevent nefarious processes"
I disagree with that as a limit. It's to remind the user that they're about to make a change which may have significant impact (the bug doesn't change that). It requires that a non-admin user get an admin to approve changes (but apparently doesn't change that). It prevents "drive-bys", where someone steps away without locking their PC and a walk up ne'er-do-well tries to make system changes.
If a password weren't considered important for an admin level user, they simply wouldn't ask for one. Would you consider a sudoer being able to issue privileged commands without doing sudo to be "not a big deal?"
"The money to be made isn't in the coins themselves, but the transaction fees. Even if the coins are worthless, enough trading volume will generate some sizeable revenue."
Because some fraction of worthless has value? Sell at a loss and make it up in volume?
Whoosh. The conversation is about "streaming devices." e.g. Roku, Firestick, Chromecast, Plex, Kodi, etc. Good luck playing an interactive game on one. (Roku tried, briefly).
There's no expectation when you purchase game X that it will play anywhere except on the specific platform you bought it for. Because they're coded to proprietary hardware, games are made for a specific platform from day one (with the recognition that they may also be available for other platforms). There's no expectation of cross-platform compatibility for games. Movies are not so created, there are standardized containers and encoders can allow them to be viewed across a wide range of devices. Apple is walling them into their garden, not the content producers. There _is_ a reasonable expectation that when you pay for a movie, there are a range of devices it can be played on. Apple is unique in that world, one can stream a movie from Amazon or Netflix (or Vudu, Hulu, HBO Now, etc.) on a wide range of devices.
Beyond which, if the original questioner had any investment in content from Apple, he wouldn't be asking about other streaming devices, so the GP's point is moot.
Context. Try to focus. The discussion is about entertainment videos, which are available from multiple sources, on multiple formats, the vast majority of which can be played back on devices from many different manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confused, and are the only one who brought up the time domain.
Feel free to download the user manual for the TP-Link C1200 mentioned, and point out where one can configure actual routing (not NATted) between multiple subnets. It does support static routes, but not interfaces on multiple networks, AFAICT.
Whether or not the Google device's behavior is technically correct/allowed (it is) or polite/proper/necessary (it isn't), a network device should not crash because of it.
This issue is these cheap "routers." Here's more detail.
First, the issue 'taint got nuttin' to do with routing. The Google devices are sending lots of mcast traffic which affects WiFi. That's strictly a WiFi AP/bridging function. Second, although it may clog WiFi for a while, there's no excuse for an AP to crash because of it.
Third, people need to stop calling these things routers. That's like saying Dr. Dre is a Doctor. They don't route multicast, they don't do routing protocols. Most won't even route between networks, they'll only do some forms of NAT. They're cheap, home, multifunction (most of them have internal switches and/or APs) NAT gateways, not routers. In this case, it's an AP issue, not a router issue.
I'm not sure what a "A cheap enterprise-grade 4-5 port router" is. Any modern enterprise router will do wirespeed to at least 10G. There may be some SOHO ones which still use a CPU to do forwarding and where pps is still the bottleneck. There are certainly firewalls which do cpu forwarding. But none of them will crap out when packets arrive faster than they can forward them - they'll just drop some.
So, unless their router does mcast routing (nope, it doesn't), they should just be dropping those. And if the switch part of it can't reliably flood multicast packets, they should simply give up and quit the business.
"that could exceed over 100,000 packets,"
Maximum sized packets are normally 1500 or less because that's the standard Enet MTU. So, TP-Link "routers" can crap out when you send 200 MB through them? Time to buy a competitor's product.
"The mining cartels were in favor of increasing block size. It's the bitcoin developers and owners that were against it."
Uh, no. It's the miners who control whether the blockchain forks to support larger blocks (or some other method of more transactions per block) are successful. It's the miners who have kept that from happening.
"Some differences between crytpocurrencies and tulips include: 1.) unable to simply grow unlimited crypto tokens for a small fraction of the current price,"
You're wrong. Where do you think Etherium, dogecoin, Litecoin, Ripple, etc., etc. came from? Anyone can take the bitcoin app, change a few bytes, and grow unlimited tokens at very low cost. No different than tulips.
" a non-debase-able currency where people control their money instead of a government/banker"
The mining cartels are the new government/banker. Transaction fees, collusion to prevent an increase in block size. And you think it's "non-debase-able." That's humorous. Buy a 6 pack of beer with BTC, and let us know the real cost. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
You're wrong. He killed the guy, as he was the proximate cause of the death.
Good for you. If you're going to die, why suffer?
Welcome to earlier today!
This isn't news, it's "olds."
"Chances are the authentication GUI prompt is more meant to prevent nefarious processes"
I disagree with that as a limit. It's to remind the user that they're about to make a change which may have significant impact (the bug doesn't change that). It requires that a non-admin user get an admin to approve changes (but apparently doesn't change that). It prevents "drive-bys", where someone steps away without locking their PC and a walk up ne'er-do-well tries to make system changes.
If a password weren't considered important for an admin level user, they simply wouldn't ask for one. Would you consider a sudoer being able to issue privileged commands without doing sudo to be "not a big deal?"
You're confusing transaction fees (moving coins between wallets) and exchange fees (trading dollars for coins).
Maybe that can be fixed.
Whoosh. Fees are in the coin of the realm. So if the coin is worthless, so is the fee.
"The money to be made isn't in the coins themselves, but the transaction fees. Even if the coins are worthless, enough trading volume will generate some sizeable revenue."
Because some fraction of worthless has value? Sell at a loss and make it up in volume?
Can't wait to see what develops.
"No one at Microsoft intentionally ruined any machines, "
If you think that's true, explain Windows 10.
Your best just isn't good enough. Open source Windoze, and then competent others can help.
"As of this weekend, that word no longer means what you think it does."
You joke. He's obviously smarter, because he knows what "covfefe" means, and you don't.
"Droids, or whatever they were called were lackluster in support, the apps were trash and the app stores were trash."
The IOS "pull my finger" app is _so_ much better than the Droid one that it's not even fair to compare them.
Whoosh. The conversation is about "streaming devices." e.g. Roku, Firestick, Chromecast, Plex, Kodi, etc. Good luck playing an interactive game on one. (Roku tried, briefly).
There's no expectation when you purchase game X that it will play anywhere except on the specific platform you bought it for. Because they're coded to proprietary hardware, games are made for a specific platform from day one (with the recognition that they may also be available for other platforms). There's no expectation of cross-platform compatibility for games. Movies are not so created, there are standardized containers and encoders can allow them to be viewed across a wide range of devices. Apple is walling them into their garden, not the content producers. There _is_ a reasonable expectation that when you pay for a movie, there are a range of devices it can be played on. Apple is unique in that world, one can stream a movie from Amazon or Netflix (or Vudu, Hulu, HBO Now, etc.) on a wide range of devices.
Beyond which, if the original questioner had any investment in content from Apple, he wouldn't be asking about other streaming devices, so the GP's point is moot.
Context. Try to focus. The discussion is about entertainment videos, which are available from multiple sources, on multiple formats, the vast majority of which can be played back on devices from many different manufacturers.
Take your strawman, and go fuck him.
"So I can use a Roku to watch purchased TV shows or movies from iTunes?
No, but only an idiot would buy content from a place which locked playback to the devices of a single vendor.