It's defined as long so will be 32 on 32 and 64 on 64. Changing it to 64 breaks all APIs for legacy programs. Simply compiling as 64bit on 64bit fixes the code it, so it just means migrating from 32 to 64 bit. That just leaves file formats and network protocols to fix.
Nonsense the ABI does not have to break to change the datatype of time_t. It can be patched in the compiler with a switch. The only problem is lack of will.
This problem was fixed in windows compilers long long ago by making time_t 8 bytes instead of 4. If you had been doing something stupid which assumed 4-byte time_t you would have just fixed it and moved on already - end of story.
In the linux world the only way to fix this seems to be to create a 64-bit binary rather than allow 32-bit binaries to be compiled with 8 byte time_t.
This seems unecessarily dangerous to me. We don't have 25 years or anything close unless no app looks to the future to make calculations or schedule events, or deal with expiration of long term contracts, licenses..etc. Not everyone has 64-bit systems.
I don't know what I was thinking to enlist in redhats beta program (AKA fedora).. I never admitted to having a brain.
Starting from Fedora 16.
Put F18 disk in drive and boots new UI. My immediate thought was oh great more ultra modern zombie interface bs.
I was confused do I just click next and continue? Where are all the options/upgrade settings and all of the old raid/enterprise? Will it just be smart enough to work and upgrade my system?
What scares me the most is that I'm 95% sure it would have auto-installed itself had I clicked continue with NO prompting and no scary messages of any kind. I say this cause I later spun up a VM with F18 and when you click continue on the main screen if its not shadowed out thats it.
Then I give up and RTFM check wiki apparently you can't upgrade from anything earlier than 17.
Okie so previous attempts to use the yum repo approach always ended in disaster...burn DVD... upgrade 16->17 from DVD runs flawlessly as ususal.
I'm now running F17. Wiki says I need to install fedup to upgrade to F18... alright do that.
Reboot and the fedup fedora icon keeps blinking on screen as if it is doing something but nothing happens..ever.. I waited an hour and it was not even touching the disks... hit escape to check for any useful hints messages or errors...none...of course.
So much for fedup... fedup with fedup just way too obvious.
Next reboot to F17...hey I know I'll type yum update and ah try again..yea thats it... it downloads tons of patches and I reboot to an instant kernel panic.. apparently a regression..so I spend the next 20 minutes trying to figure out how to change grub to prefer the old kernel version that still works. The files I found had an annoying nack for being auto generated with comments pointing to stuff only relevant for previous versions of grub. In hindsight uninstalling the bad kernel package would have been a lot easier.
So next I try fedup again after clearing out its data and surprise the same problem.
So much for F18 I'll try again with F19 and hope for better luck.
If linux distro folk are looking something actually broken to improve here are a few ideas:
So once installed the UI's look really nice...lol love KDE's windows 7 gadgets knockoff down to the exact behavior and configuration icons.... but still linux fonts suck, low quality, poor selection, too big, too aliased.
Try replacing a failed disk in a raid1 intel matrix fakeraid setup with a drive of a different (larger) size... WTF.. honestly.. its f'in impossible. or mirroring an existing system without reinstalling. Also impossible. In windows it takes 20 seconds and a few clicks of a mouse.
Replace ping with a version that works with both address families like all of the other operating systems and all of the other network utilities.
Please keep at the least the basic x86 libraries by default on 64-bit systems so we can run the same commercial stuff without going thru unecessary hoops.
Oh how I wish it was that simple, there are always issues / considerations when deploying. One of the biggest problems is firewalls which if configured correctly will not simply ignore what they don't understand but start raising alarms (this is a big sticking point for business customers).
I can come up with clever reasons not to do stuff too. Nevermind all the attack hits constantly blanketing the entire global IPv4 address space...red alert defcon 1 when an L3 firewall sees a L2 protocol message it does not expect.
Debugging any issue for users who are used to and understand 192.168.1.1 is going to be quite difficult when faced with IPv6's format
Is 192.168.1.1 a CPE? If so why would it still not be accessible via this address?
Comcast has already deployed IPv6 to half their customer base of 10m+ people and the sky did not fall.
To your second point, I shudder to think of the consequences.
While allot of services remain on IPv4 (bbc.com, cnn.com, amazon.com, twitter.com and ebay.com all lack AAAA records), such a stance requires full dual stack to the customer. At some point you will only have IPv6 to give customers, what then?
You deploy NAT to stretch whatever IPv4 resources you have left.
I've now double checked and what I meant was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64 which would allow customers who are only given an IPv6 address to be able to communicate with the IPv4 internet.
Native dualstack is the safest most compatible deployment method available.
NAT64 causes unecessary breakage. IPv4 only applications can't use it.
If you find yourself with no more IPv4 addresses to hand out then dualstack with an IPv4 NAT (AKA CGN) is the next best option.
As more services move to IPv6 the load on the NAT64 devices will decrease until they can eventually be removed
What about those of us that do not want to participate in these things? At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible
About the same time toilets come "standard" with IP enabled cameras.
Since we are denied any real details other than what some ceo is spewing for public consumption it seems pointless to draw any conclusions at this point.
On the more general problem of service provider entitlements from those who give their customers what they want this seems to me to be all about lack of effective competition, rise of the mega ISP and total ownage of the last mile.
Allowing ISPs to get big, fat and lazy leads to inflated sense of entitlement and piss poor value for consumers.
The french and many others other need to get their shit together and open up the last mile and beyond to effective competition.
This group is where I expect most of the push-back from going towards IPv6 will come from, their networks are small enough to fit in IPv4, the few that have cared have asked what benefit is there to switch for them.
The way it should work most customers also get an IPv6 address and don't know they have it any more than they knew they had an IPv4 address.
The ones who have routers are not being deprived of anything by adding IPv6. They can choose to add IPv6 or ignore it if they elect.
To that point, if I could figure out how to get one of these 6to4 gateways working (completely transparently, and without needing allot of IPv4 space to deal with the temporary mappings)
In my not so humble opinion the time for IPv6 tinkers ameature hour has come and gone. Either deploy IPv6 native or don't do it at all. The best way to piss off customers is to give them a crappy experience. Thankfully the way host policy works on most systems 6to4 is likely to never to get used anyway.
The Western perspective dominating Slashdot is that Turkey is banning "truth," while Europe is banning lies, while the Turkish perspective is just the opposite.
Good god I hope not. The slashdot I know would be just as concerned with the banning of truth as the banning of lies.
I work for an ISP and sadly the reason I see for the stalling of IPv6 is the lack of interest from users, some of the service providers will switch of their own accord but until there is someone to serve on that side its more a token effort rather than a "we need to get this implemented".
Stupid question time...
When was the last time a user called in to signup for access to the "IPv4 Internet"? What percentage of your user base do you reckon even know what IPv4 is let alone IPv6?
Not really, they only put a small amount of adult content out there. I'm sarcastically suggesting they actively move all obviously adult websites to IPv6. Heck, just start charging more for IPv4 DNS records, a LOT more...
Actually, this problem will not be fixed anytime soon. Nobody has the power to force IPv6 adoption.
I betcha google could get basically everyone to switch to IPv6 overnight simply by saying their ranking algorithm will preference those sites accessible via both IPv4 and IPv6.
Have to be careful it is very easy to get IPv4 mapped IPv6 address confused with IPv4 compatible IPv6 addresses. While they sound and look the same they are two separate concepts which solve two distinct problems.
IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses in the fame of::ffff: is used to facilitiate dualstack sockets. When you listen on a dualstack socket and an IPv4 connection is established the address is conveyed at the socket layer as::ffff:x.x.x.x however this address explicitly has no meaning whatsoever outside of this internal use. It is not for example valid to address an IPv4 system by typing::ffff:x.x.x.x into a browser. It is explicitly not allowed.
The IPv4 compatible IPv6 address in the form of::x.x.x.x was intended to allow IPv6 to acess IPv4 thru a nat gateway or whatever. It has been dead for a very long time.
Even those new fangled proxy systems which leverage NAT and DNS to allow IPv6 only hosts access to IPv4 use a different prefix to map IPv4 universe into IPv6 subnets.
With regards to dualstack sockets they are only useful for listeners/server applications. Windows XP does not support them nor do insanely old versions of linux (pre 2.6 era)
The only problem lack of support for IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses means is that instead of getting away with just one socket to listen for IPv4 and IPv6 requests you need to listen on two separate sockets one for each address family.
While not very fair I've always tended to judge languages by their outcomes in terms of usability. From freeware utilities to products from large vendors, to websites using certain three letter extensions there have been certain recurring themes I have noticed throughout the years. Perhaps it is all expectation bias or a reflection of the culture of people who would use certain tools.. I won't pretend to know.
Is it fair to blaim PHP for SQL injection vulnerabilities found in PHP apps?
Is it fair to blame Java when an application outputs a stack trace and keeps on truckin as if nothing just happened?
Is it fair to blame Java when an application is as slow as a drunk snail or consumes mind boggling amounts of memory?
I think in the aggregate it might be possible to make the case for the quality of a programming language based on certain properties of a large sample of resulting programs.
What is the most interesting to me is the disconnect in effort spent by language designers to produce these modern languages and actual resulting outcomes. Why is ancient C(++) still soo popular and what gets used to write all of the core software? Why do we still have operating systems, network stacks and web browsers built in C when we have all of these superior languages with all of their holier than thou ivory tower labled features?
When is a _general purpose_ language going to come along that actually enables people to get amazing results which would not otherwise be feasible without the use of said language?
Who wouldn't cringe if they found out the latest version of their favorite browser had been rewritten in Java or.NET? In my view all TFA is doing is comparing the realitive intelligence of two mentally challenged competitors. I actually like both languages...NET somewhat more than Java. I just tend to not like the resulting program that comes out the other end.
Unless the switch is a managed one and can do things like packet filtering (based on layer 2, 3or 4 information, so for example Windows SMB ports (135-139, 445) are dropped by the switch). It seems that the manufacturer really wanted to write "IPv6 support" in the specs, so they made a bad implementation of it (maybe it runs entirely in software as opposed to hardware acceleration or whatever), the switch stops working properly when ~100PPS of IPv6 is passed. The only way to make it work properly is to instruct it to drop all packets of Ethernet type 0x86DD. One small ISP found this out the hard way.
Sure sounds like outlier, cherry picking, cheap hardware to me. A vendor who just ships shit without basic load testing is a crap vendor who can be assured to produce crap hardware.
While the general point if you expect to see wire speed forwarding performance in routers you need IPv6 aware ASICs is valid.
It is also valid to say if you want the same ARP security features in your switches you will have to buy a new one with RA guard or be prepared to cobble together hand coded filters with duct tape and bailing wire.
Both perfectly obvious and valid observations. 100 PPS on the other hand is nonsense crap scaremongering bullshit that tries to use one example of human stupidity to assert a larger reality which simply does not exist.
A managed 24 port gigabit switch is not cheap.
Apparently some of them are quite cheap in more ways than one.
without a firewall on your router? Seriously, unless you invest deeply, 90% of the consumer grade devices can't do that - my router supports IPv6 in theory
Poking around a few of the standard vendors web sites a few weeks ago they all have SPI/policy settings in their IPv6 enabled CPE/router offerings.
What about switches that die when they have to pass ~100 IPv6 packets per second?
I'm just making the observation hardware devices which inspect only L3 header and shuffle packets using custom ASICSs between interfaces are much cheaper than mostly general purpose software stacks which must inspect higher layers, keep state and execute ALG state machines.
Switches that only forward 100PPS sound like ethernet cables that rust when IPv6 packets move over them.
So, replace those too, but they are not cheap.
They sound cheap.
Replace pretty much all customer routers
Replace them when they die. The half life of these devices is only a few years. There is no need to rush.
explain to the users how to use IPv6 on Windows XP or maybe even 2000.
Why? Whats the point? I can benefit from IPv6 even while others have not deployed it. Who cares? If they want to upgrade they will.. Not everyone has to have IPv6 until very late in the game when people tire and begin to drop IPv4 support in which case it can be assumed number of XP users will be much lower than it currently is.
On install a Linux-based CGN, keep all network infrastructure intact.
If you look earlier you will see me agreeing with the deployment of CGN as necessary and inevitable in the short term. I only disagree with the sentiment this being an acceptable long term solution.
For your protection we have blocked all incoming connections. If you want to run a server please upgrade to business class service.
This is a different issue. NAT requires coordination to enable port forwarding where it is necessary to support an application (not necessarily running servers)... Administrativly locking down is an example of unecessary and poor behavior on the part of the ISP. In this case it is best to upgrade ISPs.
Actually, Server Name Indication allows multiple SSL servers behind a single IP, though support for it is slightly lacking, e.g. No version of IE on XP supports it, nor does the Blackberry browser or Android's stock browser prior to Honeycomb.
So in other words SSL requires unique IP addresses on webservers.
All of what you say is true, but it ignores the reality that well over 99% of the customers are residential customers, or even small businesses who will NEVER run a server on location
Is a telephone a server? I call your address and it rings. You call my address and my phone rings. Few of us operate IVRs and public information services on our phones but we all still benefit from being individually addressable.
I think it is a mistake to confuse "servers" with opportunity cost of maintaining the status quot.
Switching customers to NAT is not only easier than moving to IPv6 (read: cheaper),
Easier and cheaper for whom? The last I checked packet punters cost a whole lot less than packet manglers.
but also provides the carrier an opportunity to introduce a tiered "premium" service at an additional cost, where a customer could get a real IP address if they really need one.
As a consumer that sounds swell. I've got a better idea... we just move to IPv6 and do away with the artifical scarcity bullshit.
Personally, I think this is the inevitable future. 20 years from now, we'll look at IPv6 as a good protocol that never really caught on, because in the end, nobody really needed it.
This year comcast will most likely have completed the rollout of IPv6 to all of its ~20m Internet subscribers. All other major ISPs in the US are activly working twoard the same and it is only 2013.
IPV6 is great in theory, but it's solving a problem that does not exist. When the internet was started, the idea was that every workstation would be on the internet. Once security became a concern, all those workstations ended up behind firewalls. With firewalls, there is no reason to not NAT.
Doing away with ALGs makes the system more secure than restricted cone NAT.
Since only the firewalls need be internet facing, the number of IPs drops drastically.
It is still much less than the number of people on this planet. I believe each and everyone one of them with network access should have the opportunity to be individually addressed if thats what they want.
Multiple web servers and web sites can share a single IP.
Or we can bite the bullet and dispense with all of these shitty hacks that suck, dramatically increase complexity, incur security and accountability problems, don't scale and require permission/coordination from the ISP. Native IPv6 deployment has the same complexity as native IPv4 deployment.
There are people that think that they still need an internet facing IP on every workstation, but the reasons are more personal than practical.
Or maybe they just want to be able to access their computer from somewhere else on the network?
IPV6 is a classic engineering failure. They made this nice new protocol with absolutely no way to transition from IPV4. Say what you will about managers, but any average manager could have spotted this problem from a mile away
Like nobody thought of this and the people who designed these protocols were all idiots with no sense of reality or history. Maybe just maybe things are the way they are cause there aint any better options???
Perhaps those who continue to curse at IPv6 are those same manager types who continually ask engineers to do stupid impractical shit either not possible or feasible due to their lack of fundemental understanding of the problem space.
The engineers can claim victory all they want to but IPV6 is the biggest failure in networking history.
I rather like the biggest failure in networking history.. It pays the bills and then some.
1.During it's design, way too much effort was put in to solving problems that were not important. Many design decisions seem to satisfy only academic concerns and the egos of those who hold said concerns.
Care to be specific what are your talking about?
When I look at the IPv6 header and compare it to the IPv4 header I see address fields are a lot bigger and garbage from the IPv4 header is now gone. Thats it. TCP and UDP protocols below are exactly the same.
The next header scheme is the same one deployed in dumb layer 2 networks for vlan tagging... I don't see anyone complaining about that either.. Some L2 people have even gone nuts chaining with QinQ et al.
There are new things that did not have to change but these are management not wire issues. Their mostly ethernet/multicast nobody except the very few who write network stacks for operating systems and security schemes for L2 switches have to pay much attention to.
The efforts I see going on around me are centered in dealing with the reality of a larger address space and numbering networks.
Furthermore, due to the simple march of progress (Faster, cheaper computers. More bandwith. Better hardware), many of the above concerns are now moot. Many of IPv6's built in mechanisms will not be implemented today but replaced by "six-afied" versions of their ipv4 counterparts.
What are you talking about? Many of what?
Back to point one again, it seems like someone's ego prevented any kind of transition plan or backward compatibility. The all-or-nothing attitude has prevented rollout that should have happened a decade ago. Even inevitable address space exhaustion has not proven incentive enough
Suggest something better than native dualstack without breaking anyones shit.
Sorry to say, but v6 should have been scrapped a long time ago. A simple extension to v4 to expand the address space should have been adopted (Perhaps with some extensions/modifications to help alleviate some of the other issues. Goodness knows TCP could use some tweaks)
I'm surprised it has not happened already. Usually someone pragmatic comes up with a brilliant, but hackish compromise that everyone informally adopts by sheer necessity.. Then becomes formalized after the fact when standards bodies realize everyone's using it anyway.
The format or feature set of IPv6 have never been much of an issue.
The real problem that lots and lots of us must do make our toys IPv6 compatible is to make provisions for a larger address space.
For example my game does not work with IPv6 not because of the format of a packet...the game does not generate packets it uses the OS network layer to do that for it. It does not care about the format of an IP packet except for trivialities such as MSS.
The reason my game is not IPv6 compatible is because it is not capable of addressing a larger address space without the source code being modified. Aint none of this got shit to do with a packet format on the wire.
why in the world is it inevitable? Inevitable because they want to keep holding off on newer technology? If I was with Plusnet I'd use this as a good reason to start looking elsewhere.
My guess cause their running out of IPv4 addresses right now and IPv6 won't be widely deployed enough to stand on its own for a number of years.
I don't think anyone had any illusions CGN would not be deployed. The benefit to the ISP by deploying IPv6 early is they need a whole lot less of it as long tail of network traffic becomes IPv6 accessible. In the US the majority of the traffic is generated from just a handfull of suspects.. google, youtube, netflix, facebook...all native IPv6. By deploying IPv6 less traffic needs to be routed thru CGN.
What I don't see in TFA is anyone from PlusNet saying they will never deploy IPv6...rather it seems they are just testing a technology everyone already knew would be necessary anyway.
The only news seems to be the artistic license used to whore attention to a non-issue.
I don't know. The "world record" is under 70 feet. I found a report of 237 miles for 802.11 (300 ft "nominal", about 5000 times that for a record setup. So 70/5000 = about an inch, if the "world record" ratio holds. And I wouldn't call a one-off world record of 70 feet "long distance
By this logic the earth is only ~91 million miles from the sun. 91 million miles is not a long distance since pluto is ~3 billion miles from the sun.
WTF does wifi have to do with rfid?
Note also some schools have deployed active badges with batteries not just passive system.
What about it? Put it in a RFID-blocking case, or leave it in the locker at school.
Except the readers are on the buses too.
the terrorists are more worried about getting caught. If only reality could penetrate your tinfoil skull.
Who said anything about terrorists? Not everyone has the luxury of not having to look over their shoulder or assuming there is not someone out to get them. How many protective orders are issued in the US every year?
It is especially sad considering across the board driver of RFID is not loosing out on taxpayer dollars due to politics of how attendance is counted. Taxpayers deserve better than schemes which waste taxpayer dollars in order for institutions to be allocated more.
"Tell me something I don't already know"... goes back to writing horrible code ignoring continued presence of said individual.
If someone has specific cogent points to make by all means listen, learn, engage otherwise whatever is coming out their mouths is most likely not worth your time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's defined as long so will be 32 on 32 and 64 on 64. Changing it to 64 breaks all APIs for legacy programs. Simply compiling as 64bit on 64bit fixes the code it, so it just means migrating from 32 to 64 bit. That just leaves file formats and network protocols to fix.
Nonsense the ABI does not have to break to change the datatype of time_t. It can be patched in the compiler with a switch. The only problem is lack of will.
32bit unsigned, not signed! What'd be the negative timestamps for? Ages before 1970?
It signals invalid value/error/failure. While you can promote wire protocols to use unsigned 32-bit ints it does not work in the OS space.
This problem was fixed in windows compilers long long ago by making time_t 8 bytes instead of 4. If you had been doing something stupid which assumed 4-byte time_t you would have just fixed it and moved on already - end of story.
In the linux world the only way to fix this seems to be to create a 64-bit binary rather than allow 32-bit binaries to be compiled with 8 byte time_t.
This seems unecessarily dangerous to me. We don't have 25 years or anything close unless no app looks to the future to make calculations or schedule events, or deal with expiration of long term contracts, licenses..etc. Not everyone has 64-bit systems.
I don't know what I was thinking to enlist in redhats beta program (AKA fedora) .. I never admitted to having a brain.
Starting from Fedora 16.
Put F18 disk in drive and boots new UI. My immediate thought was oh great more ultra modern zombie interface bs.
I was confused do I just click next and continue? Where are all the options/upgrade settings and all of the old raid/enterprise? Will it just be smart enough to work and upgrade my system?
What scares me the most is that I'm 95% sure it would have auto-installed itself had I clicked continue with NO prompting and no scary messages of any kind. I say this cause I later spun up a VM with F18 and when you click continue on the main screen if its not shadowed out thats it.
Then I give up and RTFM check wiki apparently you can't upgrade from anything earlier than 17.
Okie so previous attempts to use the yum repo approach always ended in disaster...burn DVD... upgrade 16->17 from DVD runs flawlessly as ususal.
I'm now running F17. Wiki says I need to install fedup to upgrade to F18... alright do that.
Reboot and the fedup fedora icon keeps blinking on screen as if it is doing something but nothing happens..ever.. I waited an hour and it was not even touching the disks... hit escape to check for any useful hints messages or errors...none...of course.
So much for fedup... fedup with fedup just way too obvious.
Next reboot to F17...hey I know I'll type yum update and ah try again..yea thats it... it downloads tons of patches and I reboot to an instant kernel panic.. apparently a regression..so I spend the next 20 minutes trying to figure out how to change grub to prefer the old kernel version that still works. The files I found had an annoying nack for being auto generated with comments pointing to stuff only relevant for previous versions of grub. In hindsight uninstalling the bad kernel package would have been a lot easier.
So next I try fedup again after clearing out its data and surprise the same problem.
So much for F18 I'll try again with F19 and hope for better luck.
If linux distro folk are looking something actually broken to improve here are a few ideas:
So once installed the UI's look really nice...lol love KDE's windows 7 gadgets knockoff down to the exact behavior and configuration icons.... but still linux fonts suck, low quality, poor selection, too big, too aliased.
Try replacing a failed disk in a raid1 intel matrix fakeraid setup with a drive of a different (larger) size... WTF.. honestly.. its f'in impossible. or mirroring an existing system without reinstalling. Also impossible. In windows it takes 20 seconds and a few clicks of a mouse.
Replace ping with a version that works with both address families like all of the other operating systems and all of the other network utilities.
Please keep at the least the basic x86 libraries by default on 64-bit systems so we can run the same commercial stuff without going thru unecessary hoops.
Oh how I wish it was that simple, there are always issues / considerations when deploying. One of the biggest problems is firewalls which if configured correctly will not simply ignore what they don't understand but start raising alarms (this is a big sticking point for business customers).
I can come up with clever reasons not to do stuff too. Nevermind all the attack hits constantly blanketing the entire global IPv4 address space...red alert defcon 1 when an L3 firewall sees a L2 protocol message it does not expect.
Debugging any issue for users who are used to and understand 192.168.1.1 is going to be quite difficult when faced with IPv6's format
Is 192.168.1.1 a CPE? If so why would it still not be accessible via this address?
Comcast has already deployed IPv6 to half their customer base of 10m+ people and the sky did not fall.
To your second point, I shudder to think of the consequences.
While allot of services remain on IPv4 (bbc.com, cnn.com, amazon.com, twitter.com and ebay.com all lack AAAA records), such a stance requires full dual stack to the customer. At some point you will only have IPv6 to give customers, what then?
You deploy NAT to stretch whatever IPv4 resources you have left.
I've now double checked and what I meant was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64 which would allow customers who are only given an IPv6 address to be able to communicate with the IPv4 internet.
Native dualstack is the safest most compatible deployment method available.
NAT64 causes unecessary breakage. IPv4 only applications can't use it.
If you find yourself with no more IPv4 addresses to hand out then dualstack with an IPv4 NAT (AKA CGN) is the next best option.
As more services move to IPv6 the load on the NAT64 devices will decrease until they can eventually be removed
Yep.
What about those of us that do not want to participate in these things? At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible
About the same time toilets come "standard" with IP enabled cameras.
Since we are denied any real details other than what some ceo is spewing for public consumption it seems pointless to draw any conclusions at this point.
On the more general problem of service provider entitlements from those who give their customers what they want this seems to me to be all about lack of effective competition, rise of the mega ISP and total ownage of the last mile.
Allowing ISPs to get big, fat and lazy leads to inflated sense of entitlement and piss poor value for consumers.
The french and many others other need to get their shit together and open up the last mile and beyond to effective competition.
This group is where I expect most of the push-back from going towards IPv6 will come from, their networks are small enough to fit in IPv4, the few that have cared have asked what benefit is there to switch for them.
The way it should work most customers also get an IPv6 address and don't know they have it any more than they knew they had an IPv4 address.
The ones who have routers are not being deprived of anything by adding IPv6. They can choose to add IPv6 or ignore it if they elect.
To that point, if I could figure out how to get one of these 6to4 gateways working (completely transparently, and without needing allot of IPv4 space to deal with the temporary mappings)
In my not so humble opinion the time for IPv6 tinkers ameature hour has come and gone. Either deploy IPv6 native or don't do it at all. The best way to piss off customers is to give them a crappy experience. Thankfully the way host policy works on most systems 6to4 is likely to never to get used anyway.
The Western perspective dominating Slashdot is that Turkey is banning "truth," while Europe is banning lies, while the Turkish perspective is just the opposite.
Good god I hope not. The slashdot I know would be just as concerned with the banning of truth as the banning of lies.
I work for an ISP and sadly the reason I see for the stalling of IPv6 is the lack of interest from users, some of the service providers will switch of their own accord but until there is someone to serve on that side its more a token effort rather than a "we need to get this implemented".
Stupid question time...
When was the last time a user called in to signup for access to the "IPv4 Internet"? What percentage of your user base do you reckon even know what IPv4 is let alone IPv6?
Not really, they only put a small amount of adult content out there. I'm sarcastically suggesting they actively move all obviously adult websites to IPv6. Heck, just start charging more for IPv4 DNS records, a LOT more...
Actually, this problem will not be fixed anytime soon. Nobody has the power to force IPv6 adoption.
I betcha google could get basically everyone to switch to IPv6 overnight simply by saying their ranking algorithm will preference those sites accessible via both IPv4 and IPv6.
Have to be careful it is very easy to get IPv4 mapped IPv6 address confused with IPv4 compatible IPv6 addresses. While they sound and look the same they are two separate concepts which solve two distinct problems.
IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses in the fame of ::ffff: is used to facilitiate dualstack sockets. When you listen on a dualstack socket and an IPv4 connection is established the address is conveyed at the socket layer as ::ffff:x.x.x.x however this address explicitly has no meaning whatsoever outside of this internal use. It is not for example valid to address an IPv4 system by typing ::ffff:x.x.x.x into a browser. It is explicitly not allowed.
The IPv4 compatible IPv6 address in the form of ::x.x.x.x was intended to allow IPv6 to acess IPv4 thru a nat gateway or whatever. It has been dead for a very long time.
Even those new fangled proxy systems which leverage NAT and DNS to allow IPv6 only hosts access to IPv4 use a different prefix to map IPv4 universe into IPv6 subnets.
With regards to dualstack sockets they are only useful for listeners/server applications. Windows XP does not support them nor do insanely old versions of linux (pre 2.6 era)
The only problem lack of support for IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses means is that instead of getting away with just one socket to listen for IPv4 and IPv6 requests you need to listen on two separate sockets one for each address family.
While not very fair I've always tended to judge languages by their outcomes in terms of usability. From freeware utilities to products from large vendors, to websites using certain three letter extensions there have been certain recurring themes I have noticed throughout the years. Perhaps it is all expectation bias or a reflection of the culture of people who would use certain tools.. I won't pretend to know.
Is it fair to blaim PHP for SQL injection vulnerabilities found in PHP apps?
Is it fair to blame Java when an application outputs a stack trace and keeps on truckin as if nothing just happened?
Is it fair to blame Java when an application is as slow as a drunk snail or consumes mind boggling amounts of memory?
I think in the aggregate it might be possible to make the case for the quality of a programming language based on certain properties of a large sample of resulting programs.
What is the most interesting to me is the disconnect in effort spent by language designers to produce these modern languages and actual resulting outcomes. Why is ancient C(++) still soo popular and what gets used to write all of the core software? Why do we still have operating systems, network stacks and web browsers built in C when we have all of these superior languages with all of their holier than thou ivory tower labled features?
When is a _general purpose_ language going to come along that actually enables people to get amazing results which would not otherwise be feasible without the use of said language?
Who wouldn't cringe if they found out the latest version of their favorite browser had been rewritten in Java or .NET? In my view all TFA is doing is comparing the realitive intelligence of two mentally challenged competitors. I actually like both languages...NET somewhat more than Java. I just tend to not like the resulting program that comes out the other end.
Unless the switch is a managed one and can do things like packet filtering (based on layer 2, 3or 4 information, so for example Windows SMB ports (135-139, 445) are dropped by the switch). It seems that the manufacturer really wanted to write "IPv6 support" in the specs, so they made a bad implementation of it (maybe it runs entirely in software as opposed to hardware acceleration or whatever), the switch stops working properly when ~100PPS of IPv6 is passed. The only way to make it work properly is to instruct it to drop all packets of Ethernet type 0x86DD. One small ISP found this out the hard way.
Sure sounds like outlier, cherry picking, cheap hardware to me. A vendor who just ships shit without basic load testing is a crap vendor who can be assured to produce crap hardware.
While the general point if you expect to see wire speed forwarding performance in routers you need IPv6 aware ASICs is valid.
It is also valid to say if you want the same ARP security features in your switches you will have to buy a new one with RA guard or be prepared to cobble together hand coded filters with duct tape and bailing wire.
Both perfectly obvious and valid observations. 100 PPS on the other hand is nonsense crap scaremongering bullshit that tries to use one example of human stupidity to assert a larger reality which simply does not exist.
A managed 24 port gigabit switch is not cheap.
Apparently some of them are quite cheap in more ways than one.
without a firewall on your router? Seriously, unless you invest deeply, 90% of the consumer grade devices can't do that - my router supports IPv6 in theory
Poking around a few of the standard vendors web sites a few weeks ago they all have SPI/policy settings in their IPv6 enabled CPE/router offerings.
What about switches that die when they have to pass ~100 IPv6 packets per second?
I'm just making the observation hardware devices which inspect only L3 header and shuffle packets using custom ASICSs between interfaces are much cheaper than mostly general purpose software stacks which must inspect higher layers, keep state and execute ALG state machines.
Switches that only forward 100PPS sound like
ethernet cables that rust when IPv6 packets move over them.
So, replace those too, but they are not cheap.
They sound cheap.
Replace pretty much all customer routers
Replace them when they die. The half life of these devices is only a few years. There is no need to rush.
explain to the users how to use IPv6 on Windows XP or maybe even 2000.
Why? Whats the point? I can benefit from IPv6 even while others have not deployed it. Who cares? If they want to upgrade they will.. Not everyone has to have IPv6 until very late in the game when people tire and begin to drop IPv4 support in which case it can be assumed number of XP users will be much lower than it currently is.
On install a Linux-based CGN, keep all network infrastructure intact.
If you look earlier you will see me agreeing with the deployment of CGN as necessary and inevitable in the short term. I only disagree with the sentiment this being an acceptable long term solution.
For your protection we have blocked all incoming connections. If you want to run a server please upgrade to business class service.
This is a different issue. NAT requires coordination to enable port forwarding where it is necessary to support an application (not necessarily running servers) ... Administrativly locking down is an example of unecessary and poor behavior on the part of the ISP. In this case it is best to upgrade ISPs.
Actually, Server Name Indication allows multiple SSL servers behind a single IP, though support for it is slightly lacking, e.g. No version of IE on XP supports it, nor does the Blackberry browser or Android's stock browser prior to Honeycomb.
So in other words SSL requires unique IP addresses on webservers.
All of what you say is true, but it ignores the reality that well over 99% of the customers are residential customers, or even small businesses who will NEVER run a server on location
Is a telephone a server? I call your address and it rings. You call my address and my phone rings. Few of us operate IVRs and public information services on our phones but we all still benefit from being individually addressable.
I think it is a mistake to confuse "servers" with opportunity cost of maintaining the status quot.
Switching customers to NAT is not only easier than moving to IPv6 (read: cheaper),
Easier and cheaper for whom? The last I checked packet punters cost a whole lot less than packet manglers.
but also provides the carrier an opportunity to introduce a tiered "premium" service at an additional cost, where a customer could get a real IP address if they really need one.
As a consumer that sounds swell. I've got a better idea... we just move to IPv6 and do away with the artifical scarcity bullshit.
Personally, I think this is the inevitable future. 20 years from now, we'll look at IPv6 as a good protocol that never really caught on, because in the end, nobody really needed it.
This year comcast will most likely have completed the rollout of IPv6 to all of its ~20m Internet subscribers. All other major ISPs in the US are activly working twoard the same and it is only 2013.
IPV6 is great in theory, but it's solving a problem that does not exist. When the internet was started, the idea was that every workstation would be on the internet. Once security became a concern, all those workstations ended up behind firewalls. With firewalls, there is no reason to not NAT.
Doing away with ALGs makes the system more secure than restricted cone NAT.
Since only the firewalls need be internet facing, the number of IPs drops drastically.
It is still much less than the number of people on this planet. I believe each and everyone one of them with network access should have the opportunity to be individually addressed if thats what they want.
Multiple web servers and web sites can share a single IP.
Or we can bite the bullet and dispense with all of these shitty hacks that suck, dramatically increase complexity, incur security and accountability problems, don't scale and require permission/coordination from the ISP. Native IPv6 deployment has the same complexity as native IPv4 deployment.
There are people that think that they still need an internet facing IP on every workstation, but the reasons are more personal than practical.
Or maybe they just want to be able to access their computer from somewhere else on the network?
IPV6 is a classic engineering failure. They made this nice new protocol with absolutely no way to transition from IPV4. Say what you will about managers, but any average manager could have spotted this problem from a mile away
Like nobody thought of this and the people who designed these protocols were all idiots with no sense of reality or history. Maybe just maybe things are the way they are cause there aint any better options???
Perhaps those who continue to curse at IPv6 are those same manager types who continually ask engineers to do stupid impractical shit either not possible or feasible due to their lack of fundemental understanding of the problem space.
The engineers can claim victory all they want to but IPV6 is the biggest failure in networking history.
I rather like the biggest failure in networking history.. It pays the bills and then some.
That's what X-Forwarded-For: and agreements with ISPs are for.
This does not scale and is not compatible with SSL.
1.During it's design, way too much effort was put in to solving problems that were not important. Many design decisions seem to satisfy only academic concerns and the egos of those who hold said concerns.
Care to be specific what are your talking about?
When I look at the IPv6 header and compare it to the IPv4 header I see address fields are a lot bigger and garbage from the IPv4 header is now gone. Thats it. TCP and UDP protocols below are exactly the same.
The next header scheme is the same one deployed in dumb layer 2 networks for vlan tagging... I don't see anyone complaining about that either.. Some L2 people have even gone nuts chaining with QinQ et al.
There are new things that did not have to change but these are management not wire issues. Their mostly ethernet/multicast nobody except the very few who write network stacks for operating systems and security schemes for L2 switches have to pay much attention to.
The efforts I see going on around me are centered in dealing with the reality of a larger address space and numbering networks.
Furthermore, due to the simple march of progress (Faster, cheaper computers. More bandwith. Better hardware), many of the above concerns are now moot. Many of IPv6's built in mechanisms will not be implemented today but replaced by "six-afied" versions of their ipv4 counterparts.
What are you talking about? Many of what?
Back to point one again, it seems like someone's ego prevented any kind of transition plan or backward compatibility. The all-or-nothing attitude has prevented rollout that should have happened a decade ago. Even inevitable address space exhaustion has not proven incentive enough
Suggest something better than native dualstack without breaking anyones shit.
Sorry to say, but v6 should have been scrapped a long time ago. A simple extension to v4 to expand the address space should have been adopted (Perhaps with some extensions/modifications to help alleviate some of the other issues. Goodness knows TCP could use some tweaks)
Thats exactly what IPv6 is on the wire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_packet
Compare that to IPv4 on the wire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_packet
I'm surprised it has not happened already. Usually someone pragmatic comes up with a brilliant, but hackish compromise that everyone informally adopts by sheer necessity.. Then becomes formalized after the fact when standards bodies realize everyone's using it anyway.
The format or feature set of IPv6 have never been much of an issue.
The real problem that lots and lots of us must do make our toys IPv6 compatible is to make provisions for a larger address space.
For example my game does not work with IPv6 not because of the format of a packet...the game does not generate packets it uses the OS network layer to do that for it. It does not care about the format of an IP packet except for trivialities such as MSS.
The reason my game is not IPv6 compatible is because it is not capable of addressing a larger address space without the source code being modified. Aint none of this got shit to do with a packet format on the wire.
why in the world is it inevitable? Inevitable because they want to keep holding off on newer technology? If I was with Plusnet I'd use this as a good reason to start looking elsewhere.
My guess cause their running out of IPv4 addresses right now and IPv6 won't be widely deployed enough to stand on its own for a number of years.
I don't think anyone had any illusions CGN would not be deployed. The benefit to the ISP by deploying IPv6 early is they need a whole lot less of it as long tail of network traffic becomes IPv6 accessible. In the US the majority of the traffic is generated from just a handfull of suspects.. google, youtube, netflix, facebook...all native IPv6. By deploying IPv6 less traffic needs to be routed thru CGN.
What I don't see in TFA is anyone from PlusNet saying they will never deploy IPv6...rather it seems they are just testing a technology everyone already knew would be necessary anyway.
The only news seems to be the artistic license used to whore attention to a non-issue.
I don't know. The "world record" is under 70 feet. I found a report of 237 miles for 802.11 (300 ft "nominal", about 5000 times that for a record setup. So 70/5000 = about an inch, if the "world record" ratio holds. And I wouldn't call a one-off world record of 70 feet "long distance
By this logic the earth is only ~91 million miles from the sun. 91 million miles is not a long distance since pluto is ~3 billion miles from the sun.
WTF does wifi have to do with rfid?
Note also some schools have deployed active badges with batteries not just passive system.
What about it? Put it in a RFID-blocking case, or leave it in the locker at school.
Except the readers are on the buses too.
the terrorists are more worried about getting caught. If only reality could penetrate your tinfoil skull.
Who said anything about terrorists? Not everyone has the luxury of not having to look over their shoulder or assuming there is not someone out to get them. How many protective orders are issued in the US every year?
It is especially sad considering across the board driver of RFID is not loosing out on taxpayer dollars due to politics of how attendance is counted. Taxpayers deserve better than schemes which waste taxpayer dollars in order for institutions to be allocated more.
"Tell me something I don't already know" ... goes back to writing horrible code ignoring continued presence of said individual.
If someone has specific cogent points to make by all means listen, learn, engage otherwise whatever is coming out their mouths is most likely not worth your time.