To me the biggest question is the software support, andriod is ok for phones/tablets but for desktop and embedded uses I want decent support for regular linux and I want complete kernel source so that there is a chance of support in the long term.
The native IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling (protocol 41) is neither TCP nor UDP so most NAT implementations just ignore it which drops it. Some routers can permanently forward protocol 41 to a single private address (maybe through a DMZ setting) but that is only a solution if you already have a routable IPv4 address.
Indeed, this is the technical explanation for why "protocol 41 tunnels" are NAT unfriendly.
HE only offer "protocol 41" tunnels while the other providers I mentioned also offer NAT friendly UDP based tunnels (AIUI using two different tunneling protocols:/).
By the way, these propagation effects are the reason why (counter intuitively) SATA and USB can more easily be made faster than older-style parallel connections. Once you get into the 100 megabit range, interference and the precise arrival time of the parallel bits becomes very hard to control. If it's a bit stream, even though it's several orders of magnitude faster, it's just easier to predict and control.
Then you have the likes of PCIe which make multiple serial links with indepdendent bit timing control then have a block of logic that synchronises and combines the bitstreams to make a higher bandwidth link.
Yes it's sad. RIPE have run out of IPv4 addreses while many internet resources are only availble on IPv4. So growing ISPs have no real choice but to deploy mechanisms that allow users to access those resources while using less than one IPv4 address per user. The only real question is which such mechasmism to deploy (each has it's pros and cons).
Because otherwise, they will just end up running out of ports when they have a larger number of people simultaneously using their services.
You do know that NATs can have more than one IP on the WAN side right?
Yes there is a limit to the customer to IP ratio that can be achived but unless an ISP is growing very quickly ISP level NAT should give them enough breathing room for the forseeable future.
SSL requires unique IP addresses on webservers. More sites use SSL.
Right now this is mostly true, however IPv6 is not the only "soloution". The other "soloution" is "SNI" where the browser indicates to the server which site it is requesting so the correct certificate can be served.
Most browser/OS combinations currently support SNI. The main exceptions being internet explorer on windows XP, the stock browser on andriod 2.x and the stock browser on blackberry. I expect all of these to decline significantly over the next few years.
Windows XP has an IPv6 stack but it's disabled by default which means it may as well not exist. Windows 7 has an IPv6 stack with teredo and 6to4 support included but 6to4 only works on pretty open networks and teredo is automatically disabled if the computer thinks it's on a "managed network" (supposedly this is triggered by seeing a domain controller but i'm pretty sure i've seen it triggered by seeing a samba server that was not acting as a domain controller). So there will be a substatial number of win7 boxes out there that can't access IPv6 resources for the forseeable future.
In short while neither IPv6 or SNI is a usable option for public SSL websites right now I belive the evidence points to SNI becoming a usable option before IPv6 does. Of course one could do both, IPv4+SNI and IPv6 but I belive that would only marginally increase the number of users who could connect without a certificate warning over using IPv4+SNI alone.
So users are supposed to divert their internet traffic from taking the most "direct" route to it's destination to routing via a third party who is not committed to providing them with any particular quality of service and who could drop the service at any time?
Sure *I* did that on one of my machines because I want to test that my software works with IPv6 but it's not something i'm going to advise users in general to do.
Even if you can actually get a workable VPS for $5 per month now (i've never seen prices that low myself) how long do you think such bottom of the barrel VPSs will continue to come with a public IPv4 address as the providers start feeling the address space squeeze?
The UK now has a lot of "local loop unbundling" going on. BT openreach still own the physical copper cables but other providers then operate their own ADSL equipment. Afaict there are three major LLU networks, O2/BE, sky/easynet and talktalk/tiscali/pipex/aol .
FTTC is complicating this though as BT operate all the equpiment for that and there has been some controversy over how they have been selling it.
Googles numbers basically tell you the proportion of clients that "preffer" IPv6 which while interesting isn't really a very useful number for making descisions.
The important numbers are
1: what proportion of clients can access v6 only servers. 2: what proportion of popular servers can be accessed by v6 only clients.
Note that the tunnel technology HE uses does not get on well with NAT. It can SOMETIMES be made to work with consumer NAT boxes but good f*cking luck making it work with ISP based NAT.
So if you are stuck behind IPv4 nat and want an IPv6 tunnel you have to look elsewhere, for example sixxs or freenet6.
Depends on what proportion of customers actually use those applications, whether those are customers the ISP actually wants to keep and whether the customers have any other decent options.
Also remember ISPs don't have to put every user onto ISP level NAT, just a sufficiant propotion of them to allow for expansion.
But many more did not and it wasn't just ISPs. There is plenty of blame to go arround.
MS added IPv6 support in windows XP but didn't enable it by default until windows vista (which was a flop for other reasons) so there are still lots of machines arround that even if placed on a dual stack network will not get IPv6 access by default.
Home router vendors didn't add IPv6 support until pretty recently and even when they did it was often only half baked.
Vendors of serious routers often made products with half baked IPv6 support (such as doing IPv6 forwarding in software while doing IPv4 forwarding in hardware)
ISPs didn't bother to deploy native IPv6 or ISP managed IPv6 tunnels to their customers until way too late and didn't take generic transition mechanisms like teredo and 6to4 seriously either*.
*Traffic destined to 2001:0::/32, 2002::/16 and 192.88.99.0/24 should not have to leave the ISP to reach a suitable relay server, sadly it usually does even if the ISPs backbone is dual stack.
Afaict the plan was that everyone would get dual stack, then once IPv4 only hosts/services became negligable v6 only hosts and services could be introduced. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. There was little immediate value in having IPv6 and as such most companies did not work on deploying it. As a result IPv4 addresses have pretty much run out while many services (including the website we are discussing this on) are still V4 only.
Therefore any growing ISP will have no choice but to deploy a mechanism to allow access to services on the IPv4 internet while using less than one IPv4 address per customer. That mechanism may be conventional IPv4 NAT, NAT64, DS-LITE, port based IP sharing or some other mechanism but whatever it is it will be needed and it will have implications on what users can do with their internet service. They may or may not choose to also provide access to the IPv6 internet.
Dual-stack deployment with NAT'd IPv4 alongside with IPv6 is the only viable short-term option for consumer ISPs.
NAT'd IPv4 alone is also a "viable" option:(.
From a quick search it seems plusnet have run an IPv6 trial in the past but are not currently offering any IPv6 service:/ Hopefully they fix that before they start rolling out ISP level NAT for real.
Normally the browser plug-in is a totally different independent install from Java itself
The standard windows 32-bit JRE installer includes the browser plugin and will install it by default. So any user of java on windows who hasn't decided explicitly that they don't want the plugin is likely to end up with it.
Google Fiber isn't available to business at this time, which means that if you're not at a home address, you can't get it. I'm just not sure why that is
I suspect the problem is figuring out how to price it and what terms to offer.
For home users they just make it unmetered, ban using it to run servers (a ban which I suspect will be selectively enforced) and operate on the understanding that the vast majority of users (hell even the vast majority of hoarder-pirates) won't come anywhere close to maxing out a gigabit connection on a long term basis but buisnesses will want the ability to run servers and one buisness premisis could contain tens or even hundreds of users. So some form of metered billing seems inevitable.
*Of course while this works for now if some new application comes along that can actually use up that bandwidth they could be in a world of hurt just like the traditional ISPs were when bittorrent showed up and their infrastructure couldn't cope..
Some imperfections are likely in ripping of an imperfect CD with non-paraniod ripping software. Different people ripping different copies of the CD and getting the exact same imperfections is far less likely.
So If someone turns up with a file that is identical to an imperfect copy that is widely distributed on the pirate networks then they most likely have a pirate copy.
"Magically" is right; unless you've got a never-released track, how could the RIAA possibly know it was illegal?
One way would be the mp3 being explicitly tagged with details of a pirate group. Another would be an imperfection (skip or similar) that is highly unlikely to happen in a random re-ripping but is very commonly seen in pirate copies. A civil court doesn't need absoloute proof, only the "balance of probabilities".
Having said that I think actual legal action is unlikely on this, too much work for too little reward, I could possiblly see the music industry trying to pressurise theese services into banning people who upload known-pirate files though.
There isn't much point in putting video on a SSD anyway. Hard drives are more than capable of sequential streaming at typical video bitrates.
I see two main usecases for this.
1: laptop users who like to keep a lot of stuff on their laptop. This lets them have the speed benefits of SSD without sacrificing too much on the total storage or sacrificing the optical drive. 2: gamers who like to keep a LOT of large games installed at once.
16 bits = NLA ID identifiers within carriers / ISPs
Assuming you are reffering to rfc2374 then that should be 24 bits.
However it doesn't really matter anyway rfc3587 says that the TLA/NLA structure defined in rfc2374 has been made historic.
The early designers of IPv6 seemed to think the internet was a heirachical network but it never was and probablly never will be. The internet is a collection of ISPs and other companies whose relationships are in a constant state of flux. No large company wants to be stuck with a single provider on pain of readdressing, nor do they want to give multiple IP addresses to each end system with a horriblly complex dns system (which has also been relegated to historic status) to manage them.
So in practice IPv6 is routed the same way IPv4 is, autonomous systems declare what prefixes they can reach over BGP and core routers build up a big table of where to send stuff.
Look a little more into the subject, and you will see that 6to4 does not offer backward compatibility in any way, shape or form. It is simply a way for IPv6 "islands" to communicate over an IPv4 network.
Note that the "island" can be as small as one host.
The real problems with 6to4 are
1: it doesn't work behind NAT (even with manually configured port forwards) meaning a large proportion of internet hosts can't use it. 2: ISPs haven't taken it seriously leading to inefficient routing. If 6to4 was considered a requirement for a dual stack core router then it would be far more reliable than it is today.
Teredo fixes 1 but it's pretty fragile because it works against the nat rather than working with it and also has the problem of not being taken seriousy by ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
To me the biggest question is the software support, andriod is ok for phones/tablets but for desktop and embedded uses I want decent support for regular linux and I want complete kernel source so that there is a chance of support in the long term.
The Pi has that, last I checked the APC did not.
Afaict that is a dumb design flaw in a kernel-userspace interface not a flaw in the hardware itself.
The native IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling (protocol 41) is neither TCP nor UDP so most NAT implementations just ignore it which drops it. Some routers can permanently forward protocol 41 to a single private address (maybe through a DMZ setting) but that is only a solution if you already have a routable IPv4 address.
Indeed, this is the technical explanation for why "protocol 41 tunnels" are NAT unfriendly.
HE only offer "protocol 41" tunnels while the other providers I mentioned also offer NAT friendly UDP based tunnels (AIUI using two different tunneling protocols :/).
By the way, these propagation effects are the reason why (counter intuitively) SATA and USB can more easily be made faster than older-style parallel connections. Once you get into the 100 megabit range, interference and the precise arrival time of the parallel bits becomes very hard to control. If it's a bit stream, even though it's several orders of magnitude faster, it's just easier to predict and control.
Then you have the likes of PCIe which make multiple serial links with indepdendent bit timing control then have a block of logic that synchronises and combines the bitstreams to make a higher bandwidth link.
Note: for now this is only an opt-in trial.
Yes it's sad. RIPE have run out of IPv4 addreses while many internet resources are only availble on IPv4. So growing ISPs have no real choice but to deploy mechanisms that allow users to access those resources while using less than one IPv4 address per user. The only real question is which such mechasmism to deploy (each has it's pros and cons).
Because otherwise, they will just end up running out of ports when they have a larger number of people simultaneously using their services.
You do know that NATs can have more than one IP on the WAN side right?
Yes there is a limit to the customer to IP ratio that can be achived but unless an ISP is growing very quickly ISP level NAT should give them enough breathing room for the forseeable future.
SSL requires unique IP addresses on webservers. More sites use SSL.
Right now this is mostly true, however IPv6 is not the only "soloution". The other "soloution" is "SNI" where the browser indicates to the server which site it is requesting so the correct certificate can be served.
Most browser/OS combinations currently support SNI. The main exceptions being internet explorer on windows XP, the stock browser on andriod 2.x and the stock browser on blackberry. I expect all of these to decline significantly over the next few years.
Windows XP has an IPv6 stack but it's disabled by default which means it may as well not exist. Windows 7 has an IPv6 stack with teredo and 6to4 support included but 6to4 only works on pretty open networks and teredo is automatically disabled if the computer thinks it's on a "managed network" (supposedly this is triggered by seeing a domain controller but i'm pretty sure i've seen it triggered by seeing a samba server that was not acting as a domain controller). So there will be a substatial number of win7 boxes out there that can't access IPv6 resources for the forseeable future.
In short while neither IPv6 or SNI is a usable option for public SSL websites right now I belive the evidence points to SNI becoming a usable option before IPv6 does. Of course one could do both, IPv4+SNI and IPv6 but I belive that would only marginally increase the number of users who could connect without a certificate warning over using IPv4+SNI alone.
So users are supposed to divert their internet traffic from taking the most "direct" route to it's destination to routing via a third party who is not committed to providing them with any particular quality of service and who could drop the service at any time?
Sure *I* did that on one of my machines because I want to test that my software works with IPv6 but it's not something i'm going to advise users in general to do.
Even if you can actually get a workable VPS for $5 per month now (i've never seen prices that low myself) how long do you think such bottom of the barrel VPSs will continue to come with a public IPv4 address as the providers start feeling the address space squeeze?
The UK now has a lot of "local loop unbundling" going on. BT openreach still own the physical copper cables but other providers then operate their own ADSL equipment. Afaict there are three major LLU networks, O2/BE, sky/easynet and talktalk/tiscali/pipex/aol .
FTTC is complicating this though as BT operate all the equpiment for that and there has been some controversy over how they have been selling it.
Googles numbers basically tell you the proportion of clients that "preffer" IPv6 which while interesting isn't really a very useful number for making descisions.
The important numbers are
1: what proportion of clients can access v6 only servers.
2: what proportion of popular servers can be accessed by v6 only clients.
Free tunnels from he.net
Note that the tunnel technology HE uses does not get on well with NAT. It can SOMETIMES be made to work with consumer NAT boxes but good f*cking luck making it work with ISP based NAT.
So if you are stuck behind IPv4 nat and want an IPv6 tunnel you have to look elsewhere, for example sixxs or freenet6.
Depends on what proportion of customers actually use those applications, whether those are customers the ISP actually wants to keep and whether the customers have any other decent options.
Also remember ISPs don't have to put every user onto ISP level NAT, just a sufficiant propotion of them to allow for expansion.
Some of us did.
But many more did not and it wasn't just ISPs. There is plenty of blame to go arround.
MS added IPv6 support in windows XP but didn't enable it by default until windows vista (which was a flop for other reasons) so there are still lots of machines arround that even if placed on a dual stack network will not get IPv6 access by default.
Home router vendors didn't add IPv6 support until pretty recently and even when they did it was often only half baked.
Vendors of serious routers often made products with half baked IPv6 support (such as doing IPv6 forwarding in software while doing IPv4 forwarding in hardware)
ISPs didn't bother to deploy native IPv6 or ISP managed IPv6 tunnels to their customers until way too late and didn't take generic transition mechanisms like teredo and 6to4 seriously either*.
*Traffic destined to 2001:0::/32, 2002::/16 and 192.88.99.0/24 should not have to leave the ISP to reach a suitable relay server, sadly it usually does even if the ISPs backbone is dual stack.
Because everyone sat on their hands for too long.
Afaict the plan was that everyone would get dual stack, then once IPv4 only hosts/services became negligable v6 only hosts and services could be introduced. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. There was little immediate value in having IPv6 and as such most companies did not work on deploying it. As a result IPv4 addresses have pretty much run out while many services (including the website we are discussing this on) are still V4 only.
Therefore any growing ISP will have no choice but to deploy a mechanism to allow access to services on the IPv4 internet while using less than one IPv4 address per customer. That mechanism may be conventional IPv4 NAT, NAT64, DS-LITE, port based IP sharing or some other mechanism but whatever it is it will be needed and it will have implications on what users can do with their internet service. They may or may not choose to also provide access to the IPv6 internet.
Dual-stack deployment with NAT'd IPv4 alongside with IPv6 is the only viable short-term option for consumer ISPs.
NAT'd IPv4 alone is also a "viable" option :(.
From a quick search it seems plusnet have run an IPv6 trial in the past but are not currently offering any IPv6 service :/ Hopefully they fix that before they start rolling out ISP level NAT for real.
Normally the browser plug-in is a totally different independent install from Java itself
The standard windows 32-bit JRE installer includes the browser plugin and will install it by default. So any user of java on windows who hasn't decided explicitly that they don't want the plugin is likely to end up with it.
Google Fiber isn't available to business at this time, which means that if you're not at a home address, you can't get it. I'm just not sure why that is
I suspect the problem is figuring out how to price it and what terms to offer.
For home users they just make it unmetered, ban using it to run servers (a ban which I suspect will be selectively enforced) and operate on the understanding that the vast majority of users (hell even the vast majority of hoarder-pirates) won't come anywhere close to maxing out a gigabit connection on a long term basis but buisnesses will want the ability to run servers and one buisness premisis could contain tens or even hundreds of users. So some form of metered billing seems inevitable.
*Of course while this works for now if some new application comes along that can actually use up that bandwidth they could be in a world of hurt just like the traditional ISPs were when bittorrent showed up and their infrastructure couldn't cope..
Some imperfections are likely in ripping of an imperfect CD with non-paraniod ripping software. Different people ripping different copies of the CD and getting the exact same imperfections is far less likely.
So If someone turns up with a file that is identical to an imperfect copy that is widely distributed on the pirate networks then they most likely have a pirate copy.
"Magically" is right; unless you've got a never-released track, how could the RIAA possibly know it was illegal?
One way would be the mp3 being explicitly tagged with details of a pirate group. Another would be an imperfection (skip or similar) that is highly unlikely to happen in a random re-ripping but is very commonly seen in pirate copies. A civil court doesn't need absoloute proof, only the "balance of probabilities".
Having said that I think actual legal action is unlikely on this, too much work for too little reward, I could possiblly see the music industry trying to pressurise theese services into banning people who upload known-pirate files though.
Note that this "jailbreak" allows the user to trick the kernel into disabling the signature requirements for desktop apps.
It does not let them directly mess with the kernel itself or load an alternate OS.
There isn't much point in putting video on a SSD anyway. Hard drives are more than capable of sequential streaming at typical video bitrates.
I see two main usecases for this.
1: laptop users who like to keep a lot of stuff on their laptop. This lets them have the speed benefits of SSD without sacrificing too much on the total storage or sacrificing the optical drive.
2: gamers who like to keep a LOT of large games installed at once.
pretty small compared to total IPv4 traffic now.
Grr that shuold have said compared to total IPv6 traffic now
16 bits = NLA ID identifiers within carriers / ISPs
Assuming you are reffering to rfc2374 then that should be 24 bits.
However it doesn't really matter anyway rfc3587 says that the TLA/NLA structure defined in rfc2374 has been made historic.
The early designers of IPv6 seemed to think the internet was a heirachical network but it never was and probablly never will be. The internet is a collection of ISPs and other companies whose relationships are in a constant state of flux. No large company wants to be stuck with a single provider on pain of readdressing, nor do they want to give multiple IP addresses to each end system with a horriblly complex dns system (which has also been relegated to historic status) to manage them.
So in practice IPv6 is routed the same way IPv4 is, autonomous systems declare what prefixes they can reach over BGP and core routers build up a big table of where to send stuff.
Look a little more into the subject, and you will see that 6to4 does not offer backward compatibility in any way, shape or form. It is simply a way for IPv6 "islands" to communicate over an IPv4 network.
Note that the "island" can be as small as one host.
The real problems with 6to4 are
1: it doesn't work behind NAT (even with manually configured port forwards) meaning a large proportion of internet hosts can't use it.
2: ISPs haven't taken it seriously leading to inefficient routing. If 6to4 was considered a requirement for a dual stack core router then it would be far more reliable than it is today.
Teredo fixes 1 but it's pretty fragile because it works against the nat rather than working with it and also has the problem of not being taken seriousy by ISPs.