I know that this is completely offtopic...but I find our seatbelt and helmet laws patently absurd. Your example here is poor, since your view is not universally accepted. It comes down to the argument of who owns your body -- you or the goverment.
[Equally OT. Sosumi.] I'd be happy to waive your obligation to use a helmet or a seatbelt if you'd waive all right to draw on public resources for medical treatment after an incident in which those devices are relevant.
Isn't not even an exploit, I mean, come'on people, get a clue here. There's a huge difference between a DoS and an Exploit.
Come on, AC, get a dictionary here. It's a way to exploit (verb) a software bug to cause an effect. True, the effect is not The Big 0ne, but the word exploit (noun, new usage) still applies.
You can't send a packet to a box behind a NAT unless it's part of a connection initiated by the machine behind the NAT. This makes it immune to all sorts of potential attacks from outside machines. NATs don't fix browser bugs or email worms, but they do prevent quite a few remote exploits.
And I can say the very same words about a firewall which does not munge the addresses.
Lastly, routing will be simplified because the IPv6 information header on each packet is far more flexible and can contain more detailed information than an IPv4 header.... Currently, most routers need to maintain as many as 48,000 different routes in their routing tables just to effectively route data that passes through them. IPv6 reduces this number by at least 75%.
This, too, is just flat out wrong. The only way this works is if you have a "clean slate" and parcel out IP addresses in a country/provider hierarchal fashion.
No, it's pretty much right. It would be perfectly right if it said "can reduce." IPv6 did have a clean slate, and has room for multiple levels of hierarchy aboce the site level.
Want to move providers? You get new IP's, out of their block.
Exactly. And autoconfiguration and router renumbering go part of the way to solving your prefix-change problem. (Yes, there's still more to do.)
Now, quick show of hands... how many of you want to run your systems off a single homed, single provider only network?
At home, sure. At work, I've got my own AS number. OK, so I'm a bad example for this point.
Yea, you don't have to change a thing. Not any of your software, or nothin'. Of course, you do need a whole new IP stack to talk IPv6, but that's pretty minor right? Windows folks can make this change by simply cracking open their registries and changing the IP Version key from 4 to 6. Ta da!
No need to work that hard. It's already in Windows. Yes, some apps may have been written with IPv4 dependencies. Just as some may have been written with US-ASCII dependencies. That doesn't mean it isn't high time to make some revisions if the whole world is going to play.
Faster routing? How's that? Does it make sense to anyone that looking up a 128 bit address is going to be faster than looking up a 32 bit address? There's more to look up.
Oh for crying out loud, take out a loan and put a down payment on a clue!
Furthermore, all routers worth their salt use hardware accelerated forwarding engines these days. [...]
The catch is, most of these hardware lookup engines are hard wired for IPv4, and can't easily be extended to IPv6,
And the depreciation period on these routers is what, 3 years?
NAT is a solution, and it may be usefull in IPv6 networks as well as IPv4 for security reasons,...
NAT is not security
NAT is not security
NAT is not security
Imagine two boxes which pass certain packets and drop others. Suppose they pass exactly the same packets, but box #1 fiddles with the IP addresses on packets it passes.
How is use of box #1, the NAT, more secure than using box #2?
Last time I looked at IPv6, it seemed there was no way to multi-home hosts to two or more ISPs. [...] Anyone familiar with this problem or know if any progress has been made?
Sure there was. You either do the same as in IPv4 (announce the prefix to two providers, with all the breakage that entails), or you give the host two different addresses, one from each provider's space. "Then a miracle occurs" if you want failover of existing sessions in the case of one path dying.
Last time I looked at the IETF, they were giviing up on the miracle.
there will now be enough IPv6 addresses available for each person on the planet to have 10 of their very own.
I might be mistaken, but I thought I'd heard that IPv6 provides more than enough IP addresses to have one for every atom in the universe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think there was an exponent on that 10 which didn't make it into the HTML transcription. The right exponent would be about 27.
But counting how many addresses per particle or atom or gram is not actually interesting. (Press coverage notwithstanding.) It's what you can do with all that elbow room, like autoconfiguration and perhaps location-independent endpoint identifiers. (Which we almost but not really got.)
I thought it amazing that the designers of IP carved out a 32-bit address rather than 16. When there was just a couple of universities on the internet, who woulda though 4 billion addresses would eventually be needed?
Recall that they were superseding NCP, which used 8-bit addresses, and were building a network on which multiple hosts attached to a given router. Two bytes might handle that much, but local networks were popping up also. Four bytes seemed plenty, but it was not exactly prescient.
Damn. We tried to make it unmistakably explicit that every customer, from single cell phone on up to a university, would get at least a/48 allocation. (Although that allocation might be dynamic.)
Want to revive draft-thaler-ipngwg-multilink-subnets?
Non-photo license fraud in New Jersey is entirely unheard of--even though the document could be photocopied on a color copier. The fact is, the non-photo license is completely worthless for fraud (can't write checks with it, can't buy alcohol with it, can't take money out of bank account with it.)
That would all be true of a photo-only (or photo plus description, but still no name and address) license. The person depicted would be certified to drive, but not be associated with any bank account or have any particular age.
(So how does a barely-21 kid in New Jersey buy booze?)
I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID.
We call those non-photo drivers licenses...
You have got that exactly wrong.
The license you're talking about says, "There exists a John Smith of 22 Mockingbird Lane who is licensed to drive," but doesn't help the cop know whether you are that person. Hence it doesn't say whether you are licensed to drive, unless you establish your claim to that name and address. That's less privacy for you, and less security, too, since your license is more worth stealing.
Hmmn, if I put a signal on one particular pair of points, then wiggle the chip with a micromanipulator, I can rapidly find the best alignment of the pair. Repeat this for a second pair and I've located it in two dimensions. Now all the points are aligned and I can lock it down.
"And then a miracle occurs." - S. Harris
Can you describe this "lock it down" step in a way that clearly does not cause any motion of the chip?
The solution to these problems are simple: you make the transmitters low enough power that they dont interfere with each other.
TANSTAAFL. Lower transmitter power means more sensistive receivers, which means more sensitivity to the "wrong" transmitter as well as the "right" one.
From the Sun document I believe that the total power of each individual transmitter was on the order of 1-10 picojoules.
Er, check those units. Picowatts, perhaps?
That is precisely the reason alignment is such a prime concern - if the chips shift you have the wrong transmitters talking to the wrong receiver.
I'm imagining/speculating a learning cycle, sort of a lower-level POST, during which each chip learns which path leads to what neighboring I/O channel. Press the big reset button and get a really deep reset!
There are damn few large businesses that can handle a large change, let alone a fundamental change. Those that survive change (GE, e.g.) are generally so massive that they can lose some divisions' whole business model and carry on.
Well, we seem to be in 2/3 agreement, and the remaining 1/3 is viewpoint. I have to close by quoting Bob Wald on the subject:
Even in flat spacetime, there is far from universal agreement as to the meaning of entropy - particularly in quantum theory - and as to the nature of the second law of thermodynamics. The situation in general relativity is considerably murkier
Referring to black hole evaporation, jreberry says:
"proven several different ways"? Ummm sure. And it was also proven in many different ways that the world was flat.
Cite two of those ways, please. Then compare to the ways in which black hole evaporation is derived:
Pure quantum mechanics in curved spacetime
this was the original derivation in 1974
Thermodynamics
by consideration of a box containing a mixture of black holes and radiation
Path integrals
This is the "Feynman" formulation of QM as a sum of amplitudes over all paths. In this case, the paths run from the singularity to infinity and the emission of particles is related to the absorption of particles.
Science is always wrong. We just think it's right until we discover something new. This goes for all science, but especially something as intangible as a black hole.
Always wrong? There have always been things which were not understood, were incompletely understood, or misunderstood (that is, wrong). But some things are right, and modern-days scientists generally have a pretty good handle on when their collective understanding is incomplete or absent. Science is self-correcting - which can't be said of every human activity.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm ... could that be the reason I said "First Lady"?
Well, this year we have the choice an African-American First Lady!
(I mean, how much more African-American can one get than a naturalized US citizen born in Africa?)
!Firewall sí, NAT no!
(Where's the damned ¡ ?)
There is one.
It's called, "Building any sizable network outside North America."
It is really that simple.
NAT is not security
NAT is not security
NAT is not security
Imagine two boxes which pass certain packets and drop others. Suppose they pass exactly the same packets, but box #1 fiddles with the IP addresses on packets it passes.
How is use of box #1, the NAT, more secure than using box #2?
Sure there was. You either do the same as in IPv4 (announce the prefix to two providers, with all the breakage that entails), or you give the host two different addresses, one from each provider's space. "Then a miracle occurs" if you want failover of existing sessions in the case of one path dying.
Last time I looked at the IETF, they were giviing up on the miracle.
You're not thinking globally!
But counting how many addresses per particle or atom or gram is not actually interesting. (Press coverage notwithstanding.) It's what you can do with all that elbow room, like autoconfiguration and perhaps location-independent endpoint identifiers. (Which we almost but not really got.)
Recall that they were superseding NCP, which used 8-bit addresses, and were building a network on which multiple hosts attached to a given router. Two bytes might handle that much, but local networks were popping up also. Four bytes seemed plenty, but it was not exactly prescient.
Damn. We tried to make it unmistakably explicit that every customer, from single cell phone on up to a university, would get at least a /48 allocation. (Although that allocation might be dynamic.)
Want to revive draft-thaler-ipngwg-multilink-subnets?
You're thinking of APL. Perl would take you at least 16 characters.
Maybe what we have here is just the impending lapse of the Clay Math. Inst.'s required two years of scrutiny...
That would all be true of a photo-only (or photo plus description, but still no name and address) license. The person depicted would be certified to drive, but not be associated with any bank account or have any particular age.
(So how does a barely-21 kid in New Jersey buy booze?)
You have got that exactly wrong.
The license you're talking about says, "There exists a John Smith of 22 Mockingbird Lane who is licensed to drive," but doesn't help the cop know whether you are that person. Hence it doesn't say whether you are licensed to drive, unless you establish your claim to that name and address. That's less privacy for you, and less security, too, since your license is more worth stealing.
In my book, neither these machines nor the ones we see on "Robot Wars" are robots. They are just radio-controlled toys.
The cars in the DARPA Grand Challenge, though - those were robots.
And as it dries, it shrinks, expands, cracks ...
"And then a miracle occurs." - S. Harris
Can you describe this "lock it down" step in a way that clearly does not cause any motion of the chip?
TANSTAAFL. Lower transmitter power means more sensistive receivers, which means more sensitivity to the "wrong" transmitter as well as the "right" one.
Er, check those units. Picowatts, perhaps?
I'm imagining/speculating a learning cycle, sort of a lower-level POST, during which each chip learns which path leads to what neighboring I/O channel. Press the big reset button and get a really deep reset!
May Ted have better luck ...
There are damn few large businesses that can handle a large change, let alone a fundamental change. Those that survive change (GE, e.g.) are generally so massive that they can lose some divisions' whole business model and carry on.