> First of all, you can request more than one record at a time - the specification explicitly allows for more than one Question in the message.
Not exactly. You are right that the SPEC (RFC1035) allows more than one query in a packet. But there's the "show me the code" problem: I just tried it out, none of the standard DNS resolution tools offer this, and when I built the packet with a lib and sent it, Wireshark showed that I sent a correct query with two questions in it, but the name server simply sent back a "format error" - it doesn't support this feature. And that was a BIND server - the king of all name servers. If that one doesn't support it, you're lost.
> Second, the server will frequently return other records that it thinks will be helpful or will be requested shortly. For example, if the original request maps to a CNAME, the mapping could be followed and the correct A record returned (this is called additional section processing). In fact, the AAAA spec requires that queries that trigger additional section processing (e.g. query for NS or MX records) must look for AAAA as well as A records.
It returns additional packets that are needed to get the job done. But if you ask for an A, no sane name server will chatter "AYou, BTW, I also know a AAAA for this host, am I not cool?". What you get in the additional section is there for a reason, for example required glue if a domain's name server resides in that domain itself - then you get it's A and AAAA delivered because otherwise, name resolution wouldn't work at all.
The AAAA spec you mentioned demands the lookup for those queries _require_ additional processing - asking A for a domain does _not_ require that.
> why would there be any more requests than there are now with Windows? After all a single DNS lookup should easily get the AAAA and A address in one shot, unless I am misunderstanding the protocol.
I think you are: you can only request one record type at a time. So you ask either A or AAAA; and given that the rule of thumb is to prefer IPv6 if present, first goes your AAAA and then your A question. What you _could_ do is ask for the type ANY, which will make the server return everything it happens to know. But then you have no guarantee the info is exhaustive: the server will only give back those records that it already has in its cache; it will not ask the authoritative name server. So then you might miss something.
What generates a lot more DNS traffic than AAAA records is the fact that the world has forgotten that URLs terminate with a trailing dot. If you leave it out, it's a _relative_ URL and the resolver on your machine has to trial-and-error if you perhaps meant it with a dot.
Example: you type www.foo.com in your browser. Your resolver is configured to append bar.org. to relative URLs. Then you'll generate a completely useless request for www.foo.com.bar.org. just to find out it doesn't exist, and then guess the domain www.foo.com. is meant. That depends on your search order and cleverness of your resolver of course, you might as well be lucky and it works out.
What I never really understood is why 802.1X connections on Windows Mobile 5 claim to require a client certficate. PEAP works fine without, and on XP the supplicant doesn't complain at all. WTF? If anyone knows how to convince the thing to do PEAP without client certs, I'd be happy!
> Anyone running a DNS server can hijack *.cm for their customers.
This is true and alright. They can decide for *their* customers.
> If enough folks do this (easier at root level)
Easier (technically): yes. Alright (politically): no. Mandating stuff at the root level decides *for the whole world*. Speaking with the "customer" phrasing from before: Do you think the whole world is a customer of the US DoWhatever? It isn't, so leave the world alone.
> then the owners of *.cm will hopefully see the light and play by the rules, if they want to be part of the global internet.
And now you tell me where to draw the line. Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe from a very strange US-centric point of view you could say also those countries should be blocked and then "will hopefully see the light and play by the rules, if they want to be part of the global internet"? Thanks, but no thanks.
> Also, anti-spammers could do the same thing, btw (block all *.cm and treat as spam unless it's in your address book)
Except of course countries geographically close to.cm, where there's a high probability people not knowing each other by address book communicate with each other.
> As for the US controlling root, I'm not sure how I feel about it. Should they block *.cm, since they're not playing by the rules I would have no issue with it. Stopping *.xxx from coming into existance, however, is idiotic.
Whose rules, exactly? What a country does with its domain space should be its very own thing. Who should be the ueberguy deciding about the good's and the bad's?
Oh yes? So, the one party controlling root (i.e. the U.S.A.) decides for the whole world that.cm is bad? Thank you, but I'd rather keep the right to decide about that for myself and not deliver it do a foreign government.
If such a thing was tried at ICANN there would be quite a big blow. Even without such doubtful decisions, the discussion about the U.S.A. wrt the DNS authority is quite heated. You will not want to go down such a road.
Ya know, lately I got a few files with a file extension "m3p". No music, was supposed to contain design studies made by $WHATEVER CAD program. I tried to find out how to open it, asked google for "filetype m3p", and all I got was links to mp3 sites and clever hints: if you don't want your mp3 files on webservers to be deleted, rename them to m3p. Great.
Actually, it was pretty much impossible to find about that extension because you get just dragged to mp3 hits all over. Finally, I asked the guy who mailed those files instead.
Damn. The RSS feed made me think this might be about hybrid _cars_, not hard drives. I was already dreaming of making clever comments about how cool it is to own a Toyota Prius. Now I make whiny comments about getting it wrong instead. Damn. Mod me down for futility and insignificance.
Sure. It's so easy to get military secrets. Just ask Slashdot.
PRN(P1) = 437
PRN(P2) = 17
(Now this will forever be indexed in Google and morons all around the world will be excited when googling for this *evilgrin*)
Networks are changing their setups right about now. A series of traceroute6's from just a few minutes ago shows (note the disappearance of the 3ffe address at hop 15, and the new routing path afterwards):
swinter@aragorn ~ $/usr/sbin/traceroute6 www.kame.net traceroute to www.kame.net (2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085) from 2001:a18:1:8:205:5dff:fea1:c541, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
1 fwint-1.restena.lu (2001:a18:1:8::1) 1.308 ms 0.203 ms 1.282 ms
2 gate-1.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:800::1) 1.066 ms 0.962 ms 2.024 ms
3 gate-2-v8.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:200::2) 1.787 ms 2.768 ms 2.682 ms
4 gate-2-v27.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:107::1) 3.773 ms 3.205 ms 3.024 ms
5 gate-1-v33.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:10a::1) 4.273 ms 2.85 ms 3.973 ms
6 restena.rt1.lux.lu.geant2.net (2001:798:20:10aa::1) 3.271 ms 3.149 ms 4.166 ms
7 2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1 (2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1) 7.957 ms 8.184 ms 9.086 ms
8 abilene-gw.rt1.fra.de.geant2.net (2001:798:14:10aa::e) 103.26 ms 103.369 ms 102.861 ms
9 nycmng-washng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1518::1) 112.948 ms 105.242 ms 108.61 ms 10 chinng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f15::1) 137.817 ms 124.527 ms 123.776 ms 11 iplsng-chinng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f12::2) 131.448 ms 137.687 ms 127.681 ms 12 kscyng-iplsng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1213::2) 135.977 ms 146.231 ms 142.167 ms 13 dnvrng-kscyng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1013::1) 146.69 ms 146.515 ms 146.526 ms 14 snvang-dnvrng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1017::2) 174.782 ms 171.421 ms 183.414 ms 15 3ffe:80a::b2 (3ffe:80a::b2) 312.12 ms 312.369 ms 312.872 ms 16 hitachi1.otemachi.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:4401::3) 312.544 ms 317.784 ms 312.253 ms 17 ve-4.nec2.yagami.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:1c04:230:13ff:feae:5b) 315.371 ms 314.195 ms 322.631 ms 18 lo0.alaxala1.k2.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:4800::7800:1) 313.097 ms 316.308 ms 317.586 ms 19 orange.kame.net (2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085) 312.409 ms 312.538 ms 313.941 ms
swinter@aragorn ~ $/usr/sbin/traceroute6 www.kame.net traceroute to www.kame.net (2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085) from 2001:a18:1:8:205:5dff:fea1:c541, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
1 fwint-1.restena.lu (2001:a18:1:8::1) 1.314 ms 0.868 ms 1.257 ms
2 gate-1.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:800::1) 1.688 ms 0.973 ms 2.072 ms
3 gate-2-v8.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:200::2) 2.723 ms 2.96 ms 1.942 ms
4 gate-2-v27.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:107::1) 2.189 ms 3.258 ms 3.003 ms
5 gate-1-v33.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:10a::1) 3.014 ms 3.92 ms 2.814 ms
6 restena.rt1.lux.lu.geant2.net (2001:798:20:10aa::1) 3.55 ms 4.289 ms 3.124 ms
7 2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1 (2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1) 8.03 ms 8.276 ms 8.432 ms
8 abilene-gw.rt1.fra.de.geant2.net (2001:798:14:10aa::e) 104.804 ms 103.79 ms 142.273 ms
9 nycmng-washng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1518::1) 108.557 ms 103.712 ms 103.23 ms 10 chinng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f15::1) 123.748 ms 127.777 ms 122.562 ms 11 2001:400:2005:7::1 (2001:400:2005:7::1) 123.113 ms 128.574 ms 134.733 ms 12 2001:400:2005::2 (2001:400:2005::2) 130.627 ms 134.921 ms 123.079 ms 13 chicr1-10ge-chislmr1.es.net (2001:400:0:a6::1) 123.652 ms 124.411 ms 123.919 ms 14 snv2sdn1-oc192-chicr1.es.net (2001:400:0:54::1) 172.982 ms 171.455 ms 172.394 ms 15 snv2mr1-snv2sdn1.es.net (2001:400:0:97::1) 171.831 ms 172.539 ms 172.444 ms 16 snv1mr1-snv2mr1.es.net (2001:400:0:95::1) 171.445 ms 172.94 ms 176.18 ms 17 snvcr1-snv1mr1.es.net (2001:400:0:9d::2) 171.435 ms 183.06 ms 171.105 ms 18 snvrt1-ge0-snvcr1.es.net (2001:400:0:61::2) 172.712 ms 172.569 ms 172.758 ms 19 2001:200:0:4410::1 (2001:200:0:4410::1) 302.266 ms 301.313 m
FreeRADIUS is among the rejected applicants for SoC, but there are some interesting projects in there anyway. For a list, take a look here: http://www.freeradius.org/summerofcode/
One example is a TLS security layer and TCP/SCTP transport for RADIUS messages ("RadSec"), which is a leap ahead in authentication protocols.
> For installing IPv6 under Windows: You go to Microsoft Research and install the > stack. Unless it's already on the CD - it is, for some versions of Windows.
The MS Research stack is completely obsolete. Windows XP comes with built-in IPv6 support, it's just turned off by default. Open a shell (or, cmd.exe for the Windows trolls that don't know what a shell is) and enter "ipv6 install". That's it.
> Curious how Jobs being buddhist, he is responsible for such slavering of desire > (according to the above, amongst the 'ignorant') in the products he works to > create. I wonder if he tries to reconcile this in some consumerist branch of > Buddhism.
He is afraid of not being re-born because he is a too nice guy. Selling all this desire-pleasing stuff is his re-life insurance.
Actually, there is a growing market when IPv4 address get short. ISPs can make a whole lot of money by making special offers that give you a static IP, or even a (ridiculously small) subnet like/30. The shorter IP addresses get, the more money can be made out of the shortage.
So, I am very sure that there are ISPs that are quite happy with the situation as it is now.
The problem is: ISPs are the ones that need to set things up for IPv6, and if they have no incentive, it won't happen.
Actually, there is a growing market when IPv4 address get short. ISPs can make a whole lot of money by making special offers that give you a static IP, or even a (ridiculously small) subnet like/30. The shorter IP addresses get, the more money can be made out of the shortage. So, I am very sure that there are ISPs that are quite happy with the situation as it is now. The problem is: ISPs are the ones that need to set things up for IPv6, and if they have no incentive, it won't happen.
> Tell me what your favorite MTA can do that mine [sendmail] can't.
Yeah, that would be interesting to hear. AFAIK, sendmail is Turing-complete, so your question actually boils down to:
"Show me a computational problem that cannot be solved by a Turing machine" which would make many many computer scientists lose their hair.
This is not just a theory. It is a well-proven fact since centuries. And there is even more than one proof for it. Ever since Euler's proof other mathematicans have had a fun time (for what they think is fun) finding approx. ten elementary independent proofs for it.
Why some people like finding big primes? No idea. Probably because they think they are cool then.
You know, there is a *slight* difference between the girls that send you spam and girls you meet outside your computer in the real life (if you do).
Most of those real life girls definitely dont like being caught on camera, partly because they are afraid of seeing themselves sometime later on "bangbus" or something.
Of course, you can dream of those spam-sluts giving you a blowjob for free in your car while you film them. But that is, well, a dream (at least I hope so... if not, you are a damn lucky bastard).
Slashdot Mirror
Finding *without* searching. Just zap through the internet! Just like here: http://www.webjumping.com/
I'm scared.
That's why I said in my post that it depends on your resolver's configuration what will actually happen. Luckily, most resolvers have a rule like:
more than two dots in the relative URL ? try literal question first : try appending domain suffix first
But there's no guarantee for that - I've seen lots of ill-formed domain queries with strange domain suffixes. I work at a ccTLD registry.
> First of all, you can request more than one record at a time - the specification explicitly allows for more than one Question in the message. Not exactly. You are right that the SPEC (RFC1035) allows more than one query in a packet. But there's the "show me the code" problem: I just tried it out, none of the standard DNS resolution tools offer this, and when I built the packet with a lib and sent it, Wireshark showed that I sent a correct query with two questions in it, but the name server simply sent back a "format error" - it doesn't support this feature. And that was a BIND server - the king of all name servers. If that one doesn't support it, you're lost. > Second, the server will frequently return other records that it thinks will be helpful or will be requested shortly. For example, if the original request maps to a CNAME, the mapping could be followed and the correct A record returned (this is called additional section processing). In fact, the AAAA spec requires that queries that trigger additional section processing (e.g. query for NS or MX records) must look for AAAA as well as A records. It returns additional packets that are needed to get the job done. But if you ask for an A, no sane name server will chatter "AYou, BTW, I also know a AAAA for this host, am I not cool?". What you get in the additional section is there for a reason, for example required glue if a domain's name server resides in that domain itself - then you get it's A and AAAA delivered because otherwise, name resolution wouldn't work at all. The AAAA spec you mentioned demands the lookup for those queries _require_ additional processing - asking A for a domain does _not_ require that.
> why would there be any more requests than there are now with Windows? After all a single DNS lookup should easily get the AAAA and A address in one shot, unless I am misunderstanding the protocol.
I think you are: you can only request one record type at a time. So you ask either A or AAAA; and given that the rule of thumb is to prefer IPv6 if present, first goes your AAAA and then your A question.
What you _could_ do is ask for the type ANY, which will make the server return everything it happens to know. But then you have no guarantee the info is exhaustive: the server will only give back those records that it already has in its cache; it will not ask the authoritative name server. So then you might miss something.
What generates a lot more DNS traffic than AAAA records is the fact that the world has forgotten that URLs terminate with a trailing dot. If you leave it out, it's a _relative_ URL and the resolver on your machine has to trial-and-error if you perhaps meant it with a dot.
Example: you type www.foo.com in your browser. Your resolver is configured to append bar.org. to relative URLs. Then you'll generate a completely useless request for www.foo.com.bar.org. just to find out it doesn't exist, and then guess the domain www.foo.com. is meant. That depends on your search order and cleverness of your resolver of course, you might as well be lucky and it works out.
WiBother?
What I never really understood is why 802.1X connections on Windows Mobile 5 claim to require a client certficate. PEAP works fine without, and on XP the supplicant doesn't complain at all. WTF? If anyone knows how to convince the thing to do PEAP without client certs, I'd be happy!
> Anyone running a DNS server can hijack *.cm for their customers.
This is true and alright. They can decide for *their* customers.
> If enough folks do this (easier at root level)
Easier (technically): yes. Alright (politically): no. Mandating stuff at the root level decides *for the whole world*. Speaking with the "customer" phrasing from before: Do you think the whole world is a customer of the US DoWhatever? It isn't, so leave the world alone.
> then the owners of *.cm will hopefully see the light and play by the rules, if they want to be part of the global internet.
And now you tell me where to draw the line. Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe from a very strange US-centric point of view you could say also those countries should be blocked and then "will hopefully see the light and play by the rules, if they want to be part of the global internet"? Thanks, but no thanks.
> Also, anti-spammers could do the same thing, btw (block all *.cm and treat as spam unless it's in your address book)
Except of course countries geographically close to .cm, where there's a high probability people not knowing each other by address book communicate with each other.
> As for the US controlling root, I'm not sure how I feel about it. Should they block *.cm, since they're not playing by the rules I would have no issue with it. Stopping *.xxx from coming into existance, however, is idiotic.
Whose rules, exactly? What a country does with its domain space should be its very own thing. Who should be the ueberguy deciding about the good's and the bad's?
Oh yes? So, the one party controlling root (i.e. the U.S.A.) decides for the whole world that .cm is bad? Thank you, but I'd rather keep the right to decide about that for myself and not deliver it do a foreign government.
If such a thing was tried at ICANN there would be quite a big blow. Even without such doubtful decisions, the discussion about the U.S.A. wrt the DNS authority is quite heated. You will not want to go down such a road.
Ya know, lately I got a few files with a file extension "m3p". No music, was supposed to contain design studies made by $WHATEVER CAD program. I tried to find out how to open it, asked google for "filetype m3p", and all I got was links to mp3 sites and clever hints: if you don't want your mp3 files on webservers to be deleted, rename them to m3p. Great. Actually, it was pretty much impossible to find about that extension because you get just dragged to mp3 hits all over. Finally, I asked the guy who mailed those files instead.
Damn. The RSS feed made me think this might be about hybrid _cars_, not hard drives. I was already dreaming of making clever comments about how cool it is to own a Toyota Prius. Now I make whiny comments about getting it wrong instead. Damn. Mod me down for futility and insignificance.
Sure. It's so easy to get military secrets. Just ask Slashdot. PRN(P1) = 437 PRN(P2) = 17 (Now this will forever be indexed in Google and morons all around the world will be excited when googling for this *evilgrin*)
I'd mod you Insightful if only I had modpoints.
Networks are changing their setups right about now. A series of traceroute6's from just a few minutes ago shows (note the disappearance of the 3ffe address at hop 15, and the new routing path afterwards):
/usr/sbin/traceroute6 www.kame.net
/usr/sbin/traceroute6 www.kame.net
swinter@aragorn ~ $
traceroute to www.kame.net (2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085) from 2001:a18:1:8:205:5dff:fea1:c541, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
1 fwint-1.restena.lu (2001:a18:1:8::1) 1.308 ms 0.203 ms 1.282 ms
2 gate-1.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:800::1) 1.066 ms 0.962 ms 2.024 ms
3 gate-2-v8.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:200::2) 1.787 ms 2.768 ms 2.682 ms
4 gate-2-v27.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:107::1) 3.773 ms 3.205 ms 3.024 ms
5 gate-1-v33.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:10a::1) 4.273 ms 2.85 ms 3.973 ms
6 restena.rt1.lux.lu.geant2.net (2001:798:20:10aa::1) 3.271 ms 3.149 ms 4.166 ms
7 2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1 (2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1) 7.957 ms 8.184 ms 9.086 ms
8 abilene-gw.rt1.fra.de.geant2.net (2001:798:14:10aa::e) 103.26 ms 103.369 ms 102.861 ms
9 nycmng-washng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1518::1) 112.948 ms 105.242 ms 108.61 ms
10 chinng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f15::1) 137.817 ms 124.527 ms 123.776 ms
11 iplsng-chinng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f12::2) 131.448 ms 137.687 ms 127.681 ms
12 kscyng-iplsng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1213::2) 135.977 ms 146.231 ms 142.167 ms
13 dnvrng-kscyng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1013::1) 146.69 ms 146.515 ms 146.526 ms
14 snvang-dnvrng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1017::2) 174.782 ms 171.421 ms 183.414 ms
15 3ffe:80a::b2 (3ffe:80a::b2) 312.12 ms 312.369 ms 312.872 ms
16 hitachi1.otemachi.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:4401::3) 312.544 ms 317.784 ms 312.253 ms
17 ve-4.nec2.yagami.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:1c04:230:13ff:feae:5b) 315.371 ms 314.195 ms 322.631 ms
18 lo0.alaxala1.k2.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:4800::7800:1) 313.097 ms 316.308 ms 317.586 ms
19 orange.kame.net (2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085) 312.409 ms 312.538 ms 313.941 ms
swinter@aragorn ~ $
traceroute to www.kame.net (2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085) from 2001:a18:1:8:205:5dff:fea1:c541, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
1 fwint-1.restena.lu (2001:a18:1:8::1) 1.314 ms 0.868 ms 1.257 ms
2 gate-1.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:800::1) 1.688 ms 0.973 ms 2.072 ms
3 gate-2-v8.rest.restena.lu (2001:a18:0:200::2) 2.723 ms 2.96 ms 1.942 ms
4 gate-2-v27.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:107::1) 2.189 ms 3.258 ms 3.003 ms
5 gate-1-v33.bce.restena.lu (2001:a18:ff:10a::1) 3.014 ms 3.92 ms 2.814 ms
6 restena.rt1.lux.lu.geant2.net (2001:798:20:10aa::1) 3.55 ms 4.289 ms 3.124 ms
7 2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1 (2001:798:cc:1401:2001::1) 8.03 ms 8.276 ms 8.432 ms
8 abilene-gw.rt1.fra.de.geant2.net (2001:798:14:10aa::e) 104.804 ms 103.79 ms 142.273 ms
9 nycmng-washng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1518::1) 108.557 ms 103.712 ms 103.23 ms
10 chinng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f15::1) 123.748 ms 127.777 ms 122.562 ms
11 2001:400:2005:7::1 (2001:400:2005:7::1) 123.113 ms 128.574 ms 134.733 ms
12 2001:400:2005::2 (2001:400:2005::2) 130.627 ms 134.921 ms 123.079 ms
13 chicr1-10ge-chislmr1.es.net (2001:400:0:a6::1) 123.652 ms 124.411 ms 123.919 ms
14 snv2sdn1-oc192-chicr1.es.net (2001:400:0:54::1) 172.982 ms 171.455 ms 172.394 ms
15 snv2mr1-snv2sdn1.es.net (2001:400:0:97::1) 171.831 ms 172.539 ms 172.444 ms
16 snv1mr1-snv2mr1.es.net (2001:400:0:95::1) 171.445 ms 172.94 ms 176.18 ms
17 snvcr1-snv1mr1.es.net (2001:400:0:9d::2) 171.435 ms 183.06 ms 171.105 ms
18 snvrt1-ge0-snvcr1.es.net (2001:400:0:61::2) 172.712 ms 172.569 ms 172.758 ms
19 2001:200:0:4410::1 (2001:200:0:4410::1) 302.266 ms 301.313 m
Does this mean we'll IPv6 real soon now?
FreeRADIUS is among the rejected applicants for SoC, but there are some interesting projects in there anyway. For a list, take a look here: http://www.freeradius.org/summerofcode/ One example is a TLS security layer and TCP/SCTP transport for RADIUS messages ("RadSec"), which is a leap ahead in authentication protocols.
> For installing IPv6 under Windows: You go to Microsoft Research and install the
> stack. Unless it's already on the CD - it is, for some versions of Windows.
The MS Research stack is completely obsolete. Windows XP comes with built-in IPv6 support, it's just turned off by default. Open a shell (or, cmd.exe for the Windows trolls that don't know what a shell is) and enter
"ipv6 install". That's it.
> Curious how Jobs being buddhist, he is responsible for such slavering of desire
> (according to the above, amongst the 'ignorant') in the products he works to
> create. I wonder if he tries to reconcile this in some consumerist branch of
> Buddhism.
He is afraid of not being re-born because he is a too nice guy. Selling all this desire-pleasing stuff is his re-life insurance.
Actually, there is a growing market when IPv4 address get short. ISPs can make a whole lot of money by making special offers that give you a static IP, or even a (ridiculously small) subnet like /30. The shorter IP addresses get, the more money can be made out of the shortage.
So, I am very sure that there are ISPs that are quite happy with the situation as it is now.
The problem is: ISPs are the ones that need to set things up for IPv6, and if they have no incentive, it won't happen.
Actually, there is a growing market when IPv4 address get short. ISPs can make a whole lot of money by making special offers that give you a static IP, or even a (ridiculously small) subnet like /30. The shorter IP addresses get, the more money can be made out of the shortage.
So, I am very sure that there are ISPs that are quite happy with the situation as it is now.
The problem is: ISPs are the ones that need to set things up for IPv6, and if they have no incentive, it won't happen.
> Tell me what your favorite MTA can do that mine [sendmail] can't. Yeah, that would be interesting to hear. AFAIK, sendmail is Turing-complete, so your question actually boils down to: "Show me a computational problem that cannot be solved by a Turing machine" which would make many many computer scientists lose their hair.
This is not just a theory. It is a well-proven fact since centuries. And there is even more than one proof for it. Ever since Euler's proof other mathematicans have had a fun time (for what they think is fun) finding approx. ten elementary independent proofs for it. Why some people like finding big primes? No idea. Probably because they think they are cool then.
You know, there is a *slight* difference between the girls that send you spam and girls you meet outside your computer in the real life (if you do). Most of those real life girls definitely dont like being caught on camera, partly because they are afraid of seeing themselves sometime later on "bangbus" or something. Of course, you can dream of those spam-sluts giving you a blowjob for free in your car while you film them. But that is, well, a dream (at least I hope so... if not, you are a damn lucky bastard).
Damn, you wont ever convince a girl to do a blowjob in your car when she sees a camera.