I wasn't saying the people were dumb, just that the decision was short-sighted. Cerf has said so himself and he was basically the one who made that decision.
Cerf, one of the key designers of the Internet's architecture, predicted that the long-anticipated exhaustion of the 32-bit address space available in the currently used IPv4 system was imminent.
"We're almost out of IPv4 address space. I'm a little embarrassed about that, because I'm the guy who decided 32-bit was enough. My only defence is that choice was made in 1977. I thought it was an experiment," he told attendees.
But it will be. Try explaining to your customers why some people have a fully routable v4 assignment, but yours is hopelessly crippled and will only enjoy spotty connectivity. There isn't enough information about IPv6 in the general marketplace already, there is virtually none about this alternate range of v4 addresses that could potentially work for some people but not others.
Besides, any of those IPv4 bandaid type solutions just delay the impetus to move to IPv6. If you are going to make people check and patch their equipment to support future use addresses, you are going to take away resources that could be focused on moving to v6.
Dual stack will allow people to connect to those who can only get a new v6 address (i.e. a v4 peer will be able to connect to a v6 socket). That is a better solution than making the IPv4 situation even more broken than it already is.
With a v6 address, you can gauge connectivity with a simple question, does your software/hardware support IPv6?
With a semi-reachable v4 address, it would be "does your hardware AND any routers or gateway servers in between your box and the intended destination show up on this huge list of incompatible hardware?".
Sure, and it was also stupid to only use 32 bits for the address.
A lot of dumb decisions were made in the early days of the internet when they didn't know how far reaching those decisions would turn out to be or the problems they would eventually cause.
There is a lot of legacy IPv4 software in networking components will not route packets going to those addresses, since they were designated as future use a long time ago.
Since that software would have to be updated, it might as well just be updated to IPv6.
If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.
We've seen it before.
With this being known fact, the politicians are to blame for enacting the Patriot Act without even reading it just because they needed something to trumpet in the media that would appear patriotic after 9/11.
One of the other design criteria for this vehicle was to serve as a backup to commercial operators for ISS transport in case they encountered unforeseen issues in bringing crew transport systems online.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but that is how the authorization law was written, so they do not have an option to not man rate it.
I agree his track record has been better than NASA's of late, I was just saying that you can't really take something as fact just because he "guaranteed it".
No, this is not Ares V. Ares V was part of constellation which had an alternate manned launcher (Ares I). This is SLS, it will be a manned and cargo launcher.
The problem is that the RS-68 is not man rated. The development cost to modify and certify it as such will be significant.
So, while the per engine cost is lower now, the total cost per engine if it were to be used will not be significantly less unless this new vehicle flies for many years to come.
This is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme- later investors paying for old ones to get out.
Woah woah, hugely wrong comparison there.
A ponzi scheme is where you have the goods of the early investors paid for by the payments of the later ones, it's a scheme that eventually collapses because there are not enough goods (can be investments, money or something else) to go around for everyone.
When you buy a stock and then resell it later, one person is transferring the same good (a stock) to another person for a price. That's no different from you buying something at a store and then later reselling it for a higher price.
When you are talking about the 2nd largest company in the world, no it isn't.
Sure there are some stocks that have a high price just based on hype and not much else (the tech bubble taught us that).
But you do not get to a $300B stock without real metrics showing real growth and success. Apple has that. No other stock in Apple's class is pure hype.
It would be nice if he could mentor a protege. Just so folks would know how things will continue when he's gone.
That's been going on with Tim Cook for years. Tim is in a pretty good position to take over Apple once Steve retires at this point. He already did briefly while Steve was out for surgery.
Well it's a bit more complex than that. Your post makes it sound like the company valuation is totally arbitrary, that's not actually the case. How the company is valued in the future will depend on whether it experiences growth, whether it's products continue to be successful in the marketplace, etc, as well as simply attitudes about it.
Apple has had huge growth over the last 10 years. So people that bought the stock a while ago were betting that the company would be more successful in the future than when they bought it. Apple is both much larger and more successful as a business today than it was 10 years ago. So the increased valuation is clearly based on something.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't saying the people were dumb, just that the decision was short-sighted. Cerf has said so himself and he was basically the one who made that decision.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/245989,cerf-ipv6-crisis-is-imminent.aspx
Cerf, one of the key designers of the Internet's architecture, predicted that the long-anticipated exhaustion of the 32-bit address space available in the currently used IPv4 system was imminent.
"We're almost out of IPv4 address space. I'm a little embarrassed about that, because I'm the guy who decided 32-bit was enough. My only defence is that choice was made in 1977. I thought it was an experiment," he told attendees.
(640k)*4/3*pi ought to be big enough for anyone.
I guess bsg has been off the air too long for people to get that reference. :)
Support is no harder because you try v6 first.
But it will be. Try explaining to your customers why some people have a fully routable v4 assignment, but yours is hopelessly crippled and will only enjoy spotty connectivity. There isn't enough information about IPv6 in the general marketplace already, there is virtually none about this alternate range of v4 addresses that could potentially work for some people but not others.
Besides, any of those IPv4 bandaid type solutions just delay the impetus to move to IPv6. If you are going to make people check and patch their equipment to support future use addresses, you are going to take away resources that could be focused on moving to v6.
Dual stack will allow people to connect to those who can only get a new v6 address (i.e. a v4 peer will be able to connect to a v6 socket). That is a better solution than making the IPv4 situation even more broken than it already is.
Well for one, support would be a nightmare.
With a v6 address, you can gauge connectivity with a simple question, does your software/hardware support IPv6?
With a semi-reachable v4 address, it would be "does your hardware AND any routers or gateway servers in between your box and the intended destination show up on this huge list of incompatible hardware?".
Sure, and it was also stupid to only use 32 bits for the address.
A lot of dumb decisions were made in the early days of the internet when they didn't know how far reaching those decisions would turn out to be or the problems they would eventually cause.
There is a lot of legacy IPv4 software in networking components will not route packets going to those addresses, since they were designated as future use a long time ago.
Since that software would have to be updated, it might as well just be updated to IPv6.
"final distribution of five /8 blocks"
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times.
You do NOT talk about the final five!
If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.
We've seen it before.
With this being known fact, the politicians are to blame for enacting the Patriot Act without even reading it just because they needed something to trumpet in the media that would appear patriotic after 9/11.
sourceforge.net
The only thing ridiculous was that hilarious character Bachmann. Absolute train wreck of a response.
My fellow Americans. I dun goofed!"
I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise, but, I just realized how batshit crazy they are.
One of the other design criteria for this vehicle was to serve as a backup to commercial operators for ISS transport in case they encountered unforeseen issues in bringing crew transport systems online.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but that is how the authorization law was written, so they do not have an option to not man rate it.
Well this vehicle has enough mass that it could also be used for BEO, the spacex one could not.
A NASA HLV without solids is a non-starter, mostly due to Orrin Hatch's influence on the Commerce committee.
I agree his track record has been better than NASA's of late, I was just saying that you can't really take something as fact just because he "guaranteed it".
You do if it will carry people. This will. Part of the goal is for this to be a launcher for Orion.
Elon's guarantees are somewhat suspect given the scheduling and cost overruns of Falcon 9.
No, this is not Ares V. Ares V was part of constellation which had an alternate manned launcher (Ares I). This is SLS, it will be a manned and cargo launcher.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/nasa-report-favors-sd-hlv-sls-complains-cant-afford-2016/
The problem is that the RS-68 is not man rated. The development cost to modify and certify it as such will be significant.
So, while the per engine cost is lower now, the total cost per engine if it were to be used will not be significantly less unless this new vehicle flies for many years to come.
This is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme- later investors paying for old ones to get out.
Woah woah, hugely wrong comparison there.
A ponzi scheme is where you have the goods of the early investors paid for by the payments of the later ones, it's a scheme that eventually collapses because there are not enough goods (can be investments, money or something else) to go around for everyone.
When you buy a stock and then resell it later, one person is transferring the same good (a stock) to another person for a price. That's no different from you buying something at a store and then later reselling it for a higher price.
Nothing at all to do with a ponzi scheme.
Actually, it is totally arbitrary.
When you are talking about the 2nd largest company in the world, no it isn't.
Sure there are some stocks that have a high price just based on hype and not much else (the tech bubble taught us that).
But you do not get to a $300B stock without real metrics showing real growth and success. Apple has that. No other stock in Apple's class is pure hype.
It would be nice if he could mentor a protege. Just so folks would know how things will continue when he's gone.
That's been going on with Tim Cook for years. Tim is in a pretty good position to take over Apple once Steve retires at this point. He already did briefly while Steve was out for surgery.
Well it's a bit more complex than that. Your post makes it sound like the company valuation is totally arbitrary, that's not actually the case. How the company is valued in the future will depend on whether it experiences growth, whether it's products continue to be successful in the marketplace, etc, as well as simply attitudes about it.
Apple has had huge growth over the last 10 years. So people that bought the stock a while ago were betting that the company would be more successful in the future than when they bought it. Apple is both much larger and more successful as a business today than it was 10 years ago. So the increased valuation is clearly based on something.