I quoted the assertion to which I was referring. Reading problems, maybe?
I said "We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system". I believe this is a true statement. I stand by it. I will not have my comments associated with specific debates of specific experiments, interpretations and arguments between people. If you have specific reason to believe my statement is wrong. State the reason directly.
which should have been clear to someone with knowledge of the field it violates the second law of thermodynamics
First off do not assume I am knowledgable in the field. This assumption is untrue and unwarranted.
Second from what I can tell your physics is wrong. If this is what I think it is you are glossing over the important parts about CLOSED systems and equilibrium. Neither is true statement when applied to sun earth energy balance. The earth is part of an OPEN system.
What the earth receives in radiation it must eventually re-emit the same quantity of energy back into the surrounding universe. The only open question is what form and frequency this energy takes.
The energy of blackbody radiation is based on its frequency. The higher the frequency the more energy per quantum is transmitted. What happens in the sun/earth system is that if the earth absorbs more energy it gets hotter. When this happens the frequency of emitted radiation increases to bring incoming and outgoing into equilibrium.
If you still think I'm wrong why are the surface temperatures of mercury and venus the same when venus is twice the distance from the sun as mercury and due to inverse square law receives only 1/4 of the energy of the sun as mercury? What are you trying to say..the greenhouse effect is not real? The composition of atmospheric gas has no effect on it? Tell me what you are trying to say.
I made up nothing
You said "So you admit that people should stop watching / listening to news about AGW?"... I never made this claim. Begs the question where did it come from? You? Space Aliens?
Talk about straw-man! Hahaha! What does this have to do with an increasing severity of storms, or the lack of same?
Do you ever listen to yourself? You just randomly spewed...and don't tell me... when I never said anything about any storms or anything remotly similiar to it. I was getting tired of beating down the spontaneously segways so I decided to invent one of my own to show how counterproductive it is.
You just made it up...the whole thing and now you seriously expect me to defend a position I never asserted or made, even thought of or LOL really have the answer to... For your information I have no idea what the correlation between storm prevalance and climate change are. I don't presume to know.
And yet the very first statements in that other post VERY strongly implied what your conclusions were
To quote princess Padme "You assume too much". I made a statement of fact about the composition of the atmosphere and you go off on your merry little tangent thinking you know me. Well guess what you are WRONG.
Let me make an assumption of my own. You are driven by your own ideas and views of reality always seeking to reinforce them with evidence or thought matching your presuppositions rather than investing sufficient time and energy to question and check them.
Hint for the future: if you don't want people to know what your real position is, you should avoid telegraphing it all over the place.
I would rather people not make unwarranted assumptions about anyones positions that have not been stated. People may choose to do so but be warned the behavior is virtue. By making ASSumptions you run the risk of being wrong. The more you make them the higher your risk.
I don't think I should have to explore every segway and rabbit hole that pops into your head with you to respond to the origional issue.
Hell look at what should be so damned simple (and would have been if they wouldn't have taken a dump on backwards compatibility) which is having both an IPV4 and an IPV6 address. If they would have went with a sane design one could simply use IPV6 for both
Some actually are backhauling IPv4 over IPv6 to CGN using prefix maps and DNS rewrite hacks. Works pretty good for web sites for the most part but this is not 100% compatible with all existing applications and systems.
Without access to a time machine to fix IPv4 to make interop possible the path to interop is dualstack.
but as it is now either you use IPv4 primarily and IPV6 is useless or you use IPV6 and have to wait for a timeout before it switches over to IPV4.
The operating system makes a policy decision based on your level of IP connectivity and the capabilities of the site you are connecting via DNS.
If your computer supports IPv4 only and you go to a site with IPv6 and IPv4 your computer connects via IPv4.
If your computer supports IPv4 and IPv6 and you go to the same site IPv6 is preferred unless you are using a transition technology for IPv6 reachability such as 6to4 in which case IPv4 is preferred.
If your computer supports IPv4 and IPv6 and the remote site supports only IPv4 then IPv4 is used.
See RFC 3484 for more details. The situation you describe is what IPv6 day was intended to address. It should not happen normally. If it does it is related to configuration or software bugs. These problems have mostly been resolved via subsequent software updates.
Every major ISP and content provider in the US is in the process of testing IPv6 for deployment. Asia is going batshit..."
Every video store had Betamax tapes. V6 has been shoved down their throats. They don't particularly like it.
Shoved down their throats by who? The depletion of IPv4 address space? Without ISPs and content who is doing the shoving?
The world hasn't even heard of it for the most part.
The people who matter certainly have.
Most people have never heard of IPv4 and don't know what an IP Address is. When their systems start passing IPv6 packets they will be as oblivious to that as they are to IPv4 today.
Point is, V6 isn't an extension to the net, it's an entirely separate parallel network. Some people are going to migrate over to it, but the vasy majority have absolutely no reason to.
Most people have no reason to care because it will happen automatically at some point. Either instantly when their ISP turns up IPv6 or at some point in the future when their CPE craps out or is obsoleted they will go get a new one.
"It is an ADDRESSING issue." Gosh, you don't say.
It sure sounds obvious but the implications seem not to be. I see too many people saying IETF screwed up without themselves offering a better workable solution. The alternate solutions I see people talking about seem to be missing very basic points of what it means to be out of addresses or what is operationally viable.
So, at this time, and for the near future, it is not feasible to consider that it will be available as our salvation to the IPv4 problem. You'll most likely see carrier grade NAT deployed first, which will push IPv6 adoption off by decades. No residential provider wants to do a wide spread deployment, because it will cost them a fortune in new hardware. Commercial providers look at the same numbers you provided and I summarized, and say it's not worth considering at this time.
Packet for packet CGN costs (lots) more than a dumb L3 router. Deploying IPv6 means you pay LESS not more even if buying new hardware.
In the numbers quoted a key point is missing. There is a "long tail" in distribution of bandwidth consumption.
Only a very small handful of sites and large ISPs generate and consume the majority of overall traffic in the US. Between google, netflix, youtube, facebook and Akamai you are sadly looking at the majority of all network traffic. **ALL** of these sites are activly deploying IPv6. Millions of remaining sites consume the silver that is all remaining usage. The cost of CGN to manage the remaining sliver is managable.
ISPs have incentive to deploy because they are running out of addresses and routing costs a lot less than CGN and provides better user experience.
Content has incentive to deploy because they want to reach everyone and provide high quality service (Avoid CGNs)
There is a long tail...all the millions of small sites and thousands of smaller ISP operations will lag behind for a considerable amount of time... here I agree it will take many many years to get everyone to switch over.
I'm bringing my servers up with IPv6 for the novelty of it, and the simple bragging rights. I seriously doubt I'll see more than a small fraction of my traffic coming in from IPv6 clients.
In a few months when comcast flips the switch for all customers it will be interesting to see what happens to your traffic. I suspect you will be surprised.
NAT keeps my ISP from knowing how many and what sort of devices I have connected downstream from the demarcation point where their wire enters my house. And they have no fucking need to know. IPV6 may allow the ISPs to charge per device connected. They will doubtless do so for commercial reasons, not to invade privacy.
It really does no such thing. There are an endless number of ways an ISP can fuck you over including monitoring higher layer traffic to count number of devices you have behind your IPv4 NAT. They may also limit number of established tcp sessions or source port usage to effectivly limit concurrent use. If your an ISP and paying for expensive DPI gear might as well use it...
With IPv6 privacy addresses enabled on devices by default it is not so easy since local bits of your IPs keeps changing over time. They have to do more than simply count unique IPs. However your right it is a real danger.... no doubt some will see IPv6 as an opportunity to press their luck.
In the end there is no substitute for market competition.
I'll believe there's a shortage, when those companies explain to me why they need 16.7 million addresses. Each. With a publically reachable IP.
Allocation statistics globally and details at each RIR are PUBLIC knowledge. There is no need to take anyones word for it or draw conclusions not based on avaliable data.
APNIC by itself burnt thru >10 class As in a single year. Even if all of these companies returned ALL of their addresses to the free pool it does not mean shit.
Some other really clever protocol will pop up and gain widespread commercial acceptance. It will not come from the IETF.
Every major ISP and content provider in the US is in the process of testing IPv6 for deployment. Asia is going batshit...
Mark my words.
I'm sorry but it is too late for this shit. The world IS moving on to IPv6 out of necessity with or without you.
I used to be the poster child for hating IPv6 and thinking IETF was stupid until I looked into the problem and questioned my own assumptions.
You speak about protocols...inventing clever protocols... The core problem is not a protocol issue at all. Get your minds out of the IP header. It is an ADDRESSING issue.
Look at the address map again. See all those bits "reserved by IANA" - that's an artificial scarcity. There's isn't even a IANA any more. If the right poeple want to use them, they'll get used.
Class E is "dirty". By design not all IPv4 devices can use or route addresses in this space without modification. This is partially why the decision was made to release it for use by private networks rather than place it into the free pool. It would have only bought us a year or two.
The more you know about security the less you'd rely on stateful firewalls for security. For organizations that care about security, every device in the network not having a publicly accessible address is a desirable feature and not a problem. The day someone makes a mistake does not necessarily expose your entire network. It just exposes the servers/services that you hopefully have already hardened for such a scenario. A NAT router does not protect your internal network from your ISP and whoever has control over the adjacent network to it, but that risk is way lower.
1:many NAT router is less secure than SPI cause ALGs and their associated packet mangler state machines are subject to compromise.
Internal networks for "security" is an old joke that is not much funny anymore.
All it takes is one employee to be suckered into opening the wrong attachment to create a bridge between your Internal network and the Internet and all your "security" goes down the drain.
If you want real "network" security you need airgap or IPSec with sane access policies. Anything less is a delusion.
Developed in an ivory tower like OSI with ZERO thought given to interoperability and migration which should have been the Key things when developing a replacement for IPv4.
They gave way too much thought to interoperability and as a result we get disasters like 6to4 and parsers having to understand nonsense like::10.2.3.4.
No matter what you do end to end reachability is impossible when address space of one network is larger than the other.
The network with the smaller address space can not address all peers on the larger address space network.
The network with the larger address space can not be addressed by peers on the smaller address space network if they are not in the subset of the network that can be directly mapped between both address spaces.
It really sucks but sometimes backwards compatibility is simply not possible. It is IPv4's fault for not being more flexible.
Actually, an IPv6 packet can be smaller than an IPv4 packet. The IPv4 header contains a lot of garbage not required by IPv6.
No way IPv6 minimum fixed header length is 40 bytes. IPv4 header is 20 bytes. Getting rid of garbage helps but still twice the size. Hardware interests need their precious structure alignment so we are still left with some useless junk in IPv6 like the version field.
As much as I like IPv6 a legitimate critisim of IPv6 is increased per packet overhead.
In some applications with small payloads it adds significant overhead. VoIP applications, interactive shells, keepalives, dns.. per packet payload is typically less than 80 bytes to minimize latency. A low latency VoIP application requires about 15% more bandwidth for the same communication via IPv6. For normal web site viewing and bulk transfers on a percentage of total packet basis it is insignificant.
Not only is this a significant increase in packet overhead, but it is highly likely that some portion will identify a person.
Theres an RFC for that... RFC 3041. On windows hosts privacy addresses are enabled by default. Apple users have to switch it on manually if they want it.
Yes, yes, I know there are lots of things the ISPs _can_ do to under IPv6 preserve anonymity. Most will not, and of the few remaining, a few unfriendly chats from the telecommunication regulators will persuade most.
ISPs will have more prefixes to play with.. very reasonable to assume users will end up keeping their IPv6 prefixes longer or even have them statically attached to their accounts. My current ISP is dynamically assigning IPv4 addresses but I've had the same one for more than a year.
Broadband and "always on" put an end to dialup era short term assignment.
I don't anticipate that ipv4 dies off as slowly as many people suggest. ipv4 is easy to understand, and addresses fit within the average technicians short term memory. Just try to remember ipv6 addresses, you brain will melt!
IPv4 never has to go away. It can be used forever in internal networks.
IPv6 Addresses can be remembered if you select your local bits rather than let the slaac monster pick them for you. Google via IPv6 for example: 2001:4860:8005::68... Almost the same length as an IPv4 address!!
IPv6 lets you have some hexsp33k fun..
Face book: 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3
cisco dog food ipv6 day: 2001:420:80:1:c:15:c0:d07:f00d
This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics
Further, even if we could measure that, it is largely irrelevant because the single biggest hurdle to predicting climate is that it is anything but static!
No shit... if only I had explicitly said as much...oh wait I did.
Again, pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.
It was relevent to the sentance it was in response to.
If warming (which has occurred) forces them to move, then they'll have to move
Insightful
Nonsense. It has a very major effect on reality, by influencing public opinion. This is a very dangerous thing.
The "reality" of public opinion only.
So you admit that people should stop watching / listening to news about AGW? Because there has been at least as much BS on the "pro" side of the argument as on the other (e.g., your own Al Gore example), and I believe a good deal more.
I think people should stop listening to crackpots. Your awefully good at making shit I never said up and then attempting to use that against me. You have no clue what my position is. I have not stated it.
And please don't go on about storms affecting the coasts, unless you can show me some genuine evidence that warming will make them worse
And please don't go on about how all the magic unicorns will drown as their lands are flooded by an extra inch of seawater.
Which I have been doing a great deal of on this subject, for a number of years now, and my conclusion is very different from yours
The voice you hear is your own. I have not spoken of any conclusions.
First, you have to prove it was mankind and is harmful. Let me toss some facts:
The hell you do. You can't "prove" the next trigger pull in Russian Roulette is harmful either... Surely this does not mean our actions are devoid of consequences simply because an outcome can't be "proven".
1/3 of the carbon in the atmosphere was put there by humans. The isotopic ratios of carbon from fossil fuels vs burning trees, respiration..etc are awefully hard to miss or misinterpret.
We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system.
Predicting offsetting secondary dynamic responses to the change on our living earth is extremely difficult to model and an area of active research.
Hey, I will not even argue warming exists!!! But is it bad to have say NWT turn into farm-able and livable land? Or ferns to grow again on the north slope of Alaska?
Majority of the worlds population lives by the ocean. It is hard to see how the winners outweigh loosers on this one.
Let me ask, why does eco junk science always talk of gloom and doom for tax bucks?
When Al Gore goes on TV and streches the truth to the point of being indisingushable from a lie his action has no effect of any kind on reality. This is not the Matrix and Al Gore is not Neo.
99% of what we are fed in the media is political jousting in the ruse of science, about money, taxes and power. People are getting sick of the BS and shutting down. Be it right or wrong.
Yet they still watch mostly partisian "news" and listen to crackpots on talk radio. By continuing to watch the "BS" they are getting exactly what they are asking for.
If you don't want to get p0wnd you need to turn off the idiot box and do your homework.
A science based question given 'x' action what is the likely 'y' global or regional outcome.
A political question given 'y' global outcome what if anything should be done about it.
Scientists need to shut their pie holes NEVER suggesting a course of action based on the outcome of their models.
People doing the climate work should not be the same people calculating the consequences.
People calculating consequences must never suggest a course of action or make suggestions to fix the problem.
Scientists have no place or duty to play politician and spout off about what ought to be done. Encrouching on politicians, sigs, rumor mill and associated quackeries turf is a loosing proposition for science.
Politicians, sigs and the popular circus whos only qualifications are having stayed at a holidy inn express need to be ignored or called to task when they object to a model without a substantive showing. They need to put up or shut up.
By disconnecting the issues science becomes a pointed lightning rod rather than a blunt one.
Creating a random number generator is even easier than designing useful circuits. Just ignore your noise margins. There is no need for quantum laser bullshit.
If you get caught abusing your kids or putting them in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, some government worker is going to step in and take corrective action. Is denying vaccinations not a similar situation that warrants a similar response?
Be careful what you wish for. The world is unsafe. Value judgements and interpretations of what is "unsafe" or "unhealthy" is subjective and may at any time be interepreted in a way allowing it to be used against you.
What??! You let your kids eat a McDonalds quarter pounder with extra salted fries and a super sized carbonated monstrosity last week?....Thank god I have CPS on speed dial.
Government meadling in the affairs and decisions of citizens and especially parents must be vigorously checked.
Stop coddling the nutters, let them get pissed off, call the country communist and seek refuge from government tyranny in Somalia. It's the only way the problem will correct itself.
What is really needed is a propoganda campaign to check the Internet and right wing nut mills spewing FUD rather than assuming use of force is an acceptable answer to everything comrade.
If parents got the other side of the story and saw what could happen when their kids are not vaccinated they would not be so quick march to the drum beat of the rumor mill.
Vaccine companies have fucked up big in the past and yes even gone out of their way to cover shit up but things need to be kept in perspective and everyones feet kept to the fire.
In my view the real power of SOPA was protection for those choosing to act in "good faith" as judge jury and executioner without the possibilty of civil recourse when this is abused.
No ISP is going to implement MPAA's wet dream if they know they will be successfully sued into oblivian the second it is switched on.
This is the same thing all over again.
Only the choice of words is different to appeal to the "security" boogyman this time around.
Slashdot Mirror
I quoted the assertion to which I was referring. Reading problems, maybe?
I said "We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system". I believe this is a true statement. I stand by it. I will not have my comments associated with specific debates of specific experiments, interpretations and arguments between people. If you have specific reason to believe my statement is wrong. State the reason directly.
which should have been clear to someone with knowledge of the field
it violates the second law of thermodynamics
First off do not assume I am knowledgable in the field. This assumption is untrue and unwarranted.
Second from what I can tell your physics is wrong. If this is what I think it is you are glossing over the important parts about CLOSED systems and equilibrium. Neither is true statement when applied to sun earth energy balance. The earth is part of an OPEN system.
What the earth receives in radiation it must eventually re-emit the same quantity of energy back into the surrounding universe. The only open question is what form and frequency this energy takes.
The energy of blackbody radiation is based on its frequency. The higher the frequency the more energy per quantum is transmitted. What happens in the sun/earth system is that if the earth absorbs more energy it gets hotter. When this happens the frequency of emitted radiation increases to bring incoming and outgoing into equilibrium.
If you still think I'm wrong why are the surface temperatures of mercury and venus the same when venus is twice the distance from the sun as mercury and due to inverse square law receives only 1/4 of the energy of the sun as mercury? What are you trying to say..the greenhouse effect is not real? The composition of atmospheric gas has no effect on it? Tell me what you are trying to say.
I made up nothing
You said "So you admit that people should stop watching / listening to news about AGW?" ... I never made this claim. Begs the question where did it come from? You? Space Aliens?
Talk about straw-man! Hahaha! What does this have to do with an increasing severity of storms, or the lack of same?
Do you ever listen to yourself? You just randomly spewed ...and don't tell me... when I never said anything about any storms or anything remotly similiar to it. I was getting tired of beating down the spontaneously segways so I decided to invent one of my own to show how counterproductive it is.
You just made it up...the whole thing and now you seriously expect me to defend a position I never asserted or made, even thought of or LOL really have the answer to... For your information I have no idea what the correlation between storm prevalance and climate change are. I don't presume to know.
And yet the very first statements in that other post VERY strongly implied what your conclusions were
To quote princess Padme "You assume too much". I made a statement of fact about the composition of the atmosphere and you go off on your merry little tangent thinking you know me. Well guess what you are WRONG.
Let me make an assumption of my own. You are driven by your own ideas and views of reality always seeking to reinforce them with evidence or thought matching your presuppositions rather than investing sufficient time and energy to question and check them.
Hint for the future: if you don't want people to know what your real position is, you should avoid telegraphing it all over the place.
I would rather people not make unwarranted assumptions about anyones positions that have not been stated. People may choose to do so but be warned the behavior is virtue. By making ASSumptions you run the risk of being wrong. The more you make them the higher your risk.
I don't think I should have to explore every segway and rabbit hole that pops into your head with you to respond to the origional issue.
For those looking for more details about this voyage http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/294/
Hell look at what should be so damned simple (and would have been if they wouldn't have taken a dump on backwards compatibility) which is having both an IPV4 and an IPV6 address. If they would have went with a sane design one could simply use IPV6 for both
Some actually are backhauling IPv4 over IPv6 to CGN using prefix maps and DNS rewrite hacks. Works pretty good for web sites for the most part but this is not 100% compatible with all existing applications and systems.
Without access to a time machine to fix IPv4 to make interop possible the path to interop is dualstack.
but as it is now either you use IPv4 primarily and IPV6 is useless or you use IPV6 and have to wait for a timeout before it switches over to IPV4.
The operating system makes a policy decision based on your level of IP connectivity and the capabilities of the site you are connecting via DNS.
If your computer supports IPv4 only and you go to a site with IPv6 and IPv4 your computer connects via IPv4.
If your computer supports IPv4 and IPv6 and you go to the same site IPv6 is preferred unless you are using a transition technology for IPv6 reachability such as 6to4 in which case IPv4 is preferred.
If your computer supports IPv4 and IPv6 and the remote site supports only IPv4 then IPv4 is used.
See RFC 3484 for more details. The situation you describe is what IPv6 day was intended to address. It should not happen normally. If it does it is related to configuration or software bugs. These problems have mostly been resolved via subsequent software updates.
Every major ISP and content provider in the US is in the process of testing IPv6 for deployment. Asia is going batshit..."
Every video store had Betamax tapes. V6 has been shoved down their throats. They don't particularly like it.
Shoved down their throats by who? The depletion of IPv4 address space? Without ISPs and content who is doing the shoving?
The world hasn't even heard of it for the most part.
The people who matter certainly have.
Most people have never heard of IPv4 and don't know what an IP Address is. When their systems start passing IPv6 packets they will be as oblivious to that as they are to IPv4 today.
Point is, V6 isn't an extension to the net, it's an entirely separate parallel network. Some people are going to migrate over to it, but the vasy majority have absolutely no reason to.
Most people have no reason to care because it will happen automatically at some point. Either instantly when their ISP turns up IPv6 or at some point in the future when their CPE craps out or is obsoleted they will go get a new one.
"It is an ADDRESSING issue."
Gosh, you don't say.
It sure sounds obvious but the implications seem not to be. I see too many people saying IETF screwed up without themselves offering a better workable solution. The alternate solutions I see people talking about seem to be missing very basic points of what it means to be out of addresses or what is operationally viable.
So, at this time, and for the near future, it is not feasible to consider that it will be available as our salvation to the IPv4 problem. You'll most likely see carrier grade NAT deployed first, which will push IPv6 adoption off by decades. No residential provider wants to do a wide spread deployment, because it will cost them a fortune in new hardware. Commercial providers look at the same numbers you provided and I summarized, and say it's not worth considering at this time.
Packet for packet CGN costs (lots) more than a dumb L3 router. Deploying IPv6 means you pay LESS not more even if buying new hardware.
In the numbers quoted a key point is missing. There is a "long tail" in distribution of bandwidth consumption.
Only a very small handful of sites and large ISPs generate and consume the majority of overall traffic in the US. Between google, netflix, youtube, facebook and Akamai you are sadly looking at the majority of all network traffic. **ALL** of these sites are activly deploying IPv6. Millions of remaining sites consume the silver that is all remaining usage. The cost of CGN to manage the remaining sliver is managable.
ISPs have incentive to deploy because they are running out of addresses and routing costs a lot less than CGN and provides better user experience.
Content has incentive to deploy because they want to reach everyone and provide high quality service (Avoid CGNs)
There is a long tail...all the millions of small sites and thousands of smaller ISP operations will lag behind for a considerable amount of time... here I agree it will take many many years to get everyone to switch over.
I'm bringing my servers up with IPv6 for the novelty of it, and the simple bragging rights. I seriously doubt I'll see more than a small fraction of my traffic coming in from IPv6 clients.
In a few months when comcast flips the switch for all customers it will be interesting to see what happens to your traffic. I suspect you will be surprised.
NAT keeps my ISP from knowing how many and what sort of devices I have connected downstream from the demarcation point where their wire enters my house. And they have no fucking need to know. IPV6 may allow the ISPs to charge per device connected. They will doubtless do so for commercial reasons, not to invade privacy.
It really does no such thing. There are an endless number of ways an ISP can fuck you over including monitoring higher layer traffic to count number of devices you have behind your IPv4 NAT. They may also limit number of established tcp sessions or source port usage to effectivly limit concurrent use. If your an ISP and paying for expensive DPI gear might as well use it...
With IPv6 privacy addresses enabled on devices by default it is not so easy since local bits of your IPs keeps changing over time. They have to do more than simply count unique IPs. However your right it is a real danger.... no doubt some will see IPv6 as an opportunity to press their luck.
In the end there is no substitute for market competition.
I'll believe there's a shortage, when those companies explain to me why they need 16.7 million addresses. Each. With a publically reachable IP.
Allocation statistics globally and details at each RIR are PUBLIC knowledge. There is no need to take anyones word for it or draw conclusions not based on avaliable data.
APNIC by itself burnt thru >10 class As in a single year. Even if all of these companies returned ALL of their addresses to the free pool it does not mean shit.
V6 is Betamax and will never be adopted.
Some other really clever protocol will pop up and gain widespread commercial acceptance. It will not come from the IETF.
Every major ISP and content provider in the US is in the process of testing IPv6 for deployment. Asia is going batshit...
Mark my words.
I'm sorry but it is too late for this shit. The world IS moving on to IPv6 out of necessity with or without you.
I used to be the poster child for hating IPv6 and thinking IETF was stupid until I looked into the problem and questioned my own assumptions.
You speak about protocols...inventing clever protocols... The core problem is not a protocol issue at all. Get your minds out of the IP header. It is an ADDRESSING issue.
Look at the address map again. See all those bits "reserved by IANA" - that's an artificial scarcity. There's isn't even a IANA any more. If the right poeple want to use them, they'll get used.
Class E is "dirty". By design not all IPv4 devices can use or route addresses in this space without modification. This is partially why the decision was made to release it for use by private networks rather than place it into the free pool. It would have only bought us a year or two.
The more you know about security the less you'd rely on stateful firewalls for security. For organizations that care about security, every device in the network not having a publicly accessible address is a desirable feature and not a problem. The day someone makes a mistake does not necessarily expose your entire network. It just exposes the servers/services that you hopefully have already hardened for such a scenario. A NAT router does not protect your internal network from your ISP and whoever has control over the adjacent network to it, but that risk is way lower.
1:many NAT router is less secure than SPI cause ALGs and their associated packet mangler state machines are subject to compromise.
Internal networks for "security" is an old joke that is not much funny anymore.
All it takes is one employee to be suckered into opening the wrong attachment to create a bridge between your Internal network and the Internet and all your "security" goes down the drain.
If you want real "network" security you need airgap or IPSec with sane access policies. Anything less is a delusion.
Developed in an ivory tower like OSI with ZERO thought given to interoperability and migration which should have been the Key things when developing a replacement for IPv4.
They gave way too much thought to interoperability and as a result we get disasters like 6to4 and parsers having to understand nonsense like ::10.2.3.4.
No matter what you do end to end reachability is impossible when address space of one network is larger than the other.
The network with the smaller address space can not address all peers on the larger address space network.
The network with the larger address space can not be addressed by peers on the smaller address space network if they are not in the subset of the network that can be directly mapped between both address spaces.
It really sucks but sometimes backwards compatibility is simply not possible. It is IPv4's fault for not being more flexible.
Actually, an IPv6 packet can be smaller than an IPv4 packet. The IPv4 header contains a lot of garbage not required by IPv6.
No way IPv6 minimum fixed header length is 40 bytes. IPv4 header is 20 bytes. Getting rid of garbage helps but still twice the size. Hardware interests need their precious structure alignment so we are still left with some useless junk in IPv6 like the version field.
As much as I like IPv6 a legitimate critisim of IPv6 is increased per packet overhead.
In some applications with small payloads it adds significant overhead. VoIP applications, interactive shells, keepalives, dns.. per packet payload is typically less than 80 bytes to minimize latency. A low latency VoIP application requires about 15% more bandwidth for the same communication via IPv6. For normal web site viewing and bulk transfers on a percentage of total packet basis it is insignificant.
Not only is this a significant increase in packet overhead, but it is highly likely that some portion will identify a person.
Theres an RFC for that... RFC 3041. On windows hosts privacy addresses are enabled by default. Apple users have to switch it on manually if they want it.
Yes, yes, I know there are lots of things the ISPs _can_ do to under IPv6 preserve anonymity. Most will not, and of the few remaining, a few unfriendly chats from the telecommunication regulators will persuade most.
ISPs will have more prefixes to play with.. very reasonable to assume users will end up keeping their IPv6 prefixes longer or even have them statically attached to their accounts. My current ISP is dynamically assigning IPv4 addresses but I've had the same one for more than a year.
Broadband and "always on" put an end to dialup era short term assignment.
I don't anticipate that ipv4 dies off as slowly as many people suggest. ipv4 is easy to understand, and addresses fit within the average technicians short term memory. Just try to remember ipv6 addresses, you brain will melt!
IPv4 never has to go away. It can be used forever in internal networks.
IPv6 Addresses can be remembered if you select your local bits rather than let the slaac monster pick them for you. Google via IPv6 for example: 2001:4860:8005::68 ... Almost the same length as an IPv4 address!!
IPv6 lets you have some hexsp33k fun..
Face book:
2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3
cisco dog food ipv6 day:
2001:420:80:1:c:15:c0:d07:f00d
SPRINT!!! OMFG...
2600::
This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics
What assertion have I made that is wrong?
As to your reference I have one of my own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Further, even if we could measure that, it is largely irrelevant because the single biggest hurdle to predicting climate is that it is anything but static!
No shit... if only I had explicitly said as much...oh wait I did.
Again, pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.
It was relevent to the sentance it was in response to.
If warming (which has occurred) forces them to move, then they'll have to move
Insightful
Nonsense. It has a very major effect on reality, by influencing public opinion. This is a very dangerous thing.
The "reality" of public opinion only.
So you admit that people should stop watching / listening to news about AGW? Because there has been at least as much BS on the "pro" side of the argument as on the other (e.g., your own Al Gore example), and I believe a good deal more.
I think people should stop listening to crackpots. Your awefully good at making shit I never said up and then attempting to use that against me. You have no clue what my position is. I have not stated it.
And please don't go on about storms affecting the coasts, unless you can show me some genuine evidence that warming will make them worse
And please don't go on about how all the magic unicorns will drown as their lands are flooded by an extra inch of seawater.
Which I have been doing a great deal of on this subject, for a number of years now, and my conclusion is very different from yours
The voice you hear is your own. I have not spoken of any conclusions.
First, you have to prove it was mankind and is harmful. Let me toss some facts:
The hell you do. You can't "prove" the next trigger pull in Russian Roulette is harmful either... Surely this does not mean our actions are devoid of consequences simply because an outcome can't be "proven".
1/3 of the carbon in the atmosphere was put there by humans. The isotopic ratios of carbon from fossil fuels vs burning trees, respiration..etc are awefully hard to miss or misinterpret.
We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system.
Predicting offsetting secondary dynamic responses to the change on our living earth is extremely difficult to model and an area of active research.
Hey, I will not even argue warming exists!!! But is it bad to have say NWT turn into farm-able and livable land? Or ferns to grow again on the north slope of Alaska?
Majority of the worlds population lives by the ocean. It is hard to see how the winners outweigh loosers on this one.
Let me ask, why does eco junk science always talk of gloom and doom for tax bucks?
When Al Gore goes on TV and streches the truth to the point of being indisingushable from a lie his action has no effect of any kind on reality. This is not the Matrix and Al Gore is not Neo.
99% of what we are fed in the media is political jousting in the ruse of science, about money, taxes and power. People are getting sick of the BS and shutting down. Be it right or wrong.
Yet they still watch mostly partisian "news" and listen to crackpots on talk radio. By continuing to watch the "BS" they are getting exactly what they are asking for.
If you don't want to get p0wnd you need to turn off the idiot box and do your homework.
There are two separate issues WRT climate change.
A science based question given 'x' action what is the likely 'y' global or regional outcome.
A political question given 'y' global outcome what if anything should be done about it.
Scientists need to shut their pie holes NEVER suggesting a course of action based on the outcome of their models.
People doing the climate work should not be the same people calculating the consequences.
People calculating consequences must never suggest a course of action or make suggestions to fix the problem.
Scientists have no place or duty to play politician and spout off about what ought to be done. Encrouching on politicians, sigs, rumor mill and associated quackeries turf is a loosing proposition for science.
Politicians, sigs and the popular circus whos only qualifications are having stayed at a holidy inn express need to be ignored or called to task when they object to a model without a substantive showing. They need to put up or shut up.
By disconnecting the issues science becomes a pointed lightning rod rather than a blunt one.
The endless parade of Java security issues after all this time is inexcusable pretty much like the rest of Oracles "unbreakable" stack.
Larry needs to put his carbon fiber sailboats away and get his companies shit together.
Creating a random number generator is even easier than designing useful circuits. Just ignore your noise margins. There is no need for quantum laser bullshit.
If you get caught abusing your kids or putting them in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, some government worker is going to step in and take corrective action. Is denying vaccinations not a similar situation that warrants a similar response?
Be careful what you wish for. The world is unsafe. Value judgements and interpretations of what is "unsafe" or "unhealthy" is subjective and may at any time be interepreted in a way allowing it to be used against you.
What??! You let your kids eat a McDonalds quarter pounder with extra salted fries and a super sized carbonated monstrosity last week?....Thank god I have CPS on speed dial.
Government meadling in the affairs and decisions of citizens and especially parents must be vigorously checked.
Stop coddling the nutters, let them get pissed off, call the country communist and seek refuge from government tyranny in Somalia. It's the only way the problem will correct itself.
What is really needed is a propoganda campaign to check the Internet and right wing nut mills spewing FUD rather than assuming use of force is an acceptable answer to everything comrade.
If parents got the other side of the story and saw what could happen when their kids are not vaccinated they would not be so quick march to the drum beat of the rumor mill.
Vaccine companies have fucked up big in the past and yes even gone out of their way to cover shit up but things need to be kept in perspective and everyones feet kept to the fire.
Instead all they had were white signal flares which we know the closest ship saw and promptly ignored because they were the wrong color.
Doing a bit more checking flare colors were sorted out circa 1950s before that any color could be used. I'm sorry for my stupid assumptions.
24/7 monitoring on a nearby ship was the ONLY change that would have made a difference, at least in terms of technology.
Aint so. The closest ship (SS Californian) would have been alerted had the Titanic had red emergency flares on hand to launch.
Instead all they had were white signal flares which we know the closest ship saw and promptly ignored because they were the wrong color.
Fact of the matter is only one vessel was in those treacherous waters as many sailors avoided the ice field.
SS Californian was close enough to see her emergency flares.
In my view the real power of SOPA was protection for those choosing to act in "good faith" as judge jury and executioner without the possibilty of civil recourse when this is abused.
No ISP is going to implement MPAA's wet dream if they know they will be successfully sued into oblivian the second it is switched on.
This is the same thing all over again.
Only the choice of words is different to appeal to the "security" boogyman this time around.
I predict a global infustructure collapse on Janurary 19th 2038 assuming all of todays systems remain in place for the next 9420 days.