Fair enough, but while we're still in a dual-stack situation, you'd have to care enough to at least be able to tell a unified ping utility which protocol you want to use (even if it's just via a -4 or -6 switch). Otherwise, if a given domain name resolves to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, which should it pick? Perhaps if you're just using it to see if a host is up, you don't care -- but if you're trying to determine the connectivity of your network graph for a specific protocol set, it's important.
I'm really sorry about sounding like a broken record here but the answer to your question is that it should pick the IPv6 address if you have IPv6 connectivity. This is standard behavior (RFC 3484) that can be overriden by local policy. All applications follow the same preferencing behavior to understand which protocol should be used when connecting to a host. The answer to your question is clear.
-4 and -6 flags are great if a host is reachable over both protocols and you want to test a specific protocol but the default behavior should be the same well defined standard that everything else on your system uses when it resolves a name to an ipaddress. getaddrinfo() is your friend.
Ping isn't intended to be a novice utility. It's a serious piece of a network diagnostic toolkit. Your grandma isn't going to be running it, so the harm of having it separated into two utilities is minor; anyone serious about network diagnostics and administration isn't going to be phased by the fact that there are two commands, one per protocol.
No it is not a minor issue. Many think that because their world is IPv4 only and they don't yet have to deal with a world running both protocols.
Like I said before and like I will undoubtably have to say a thousand times again before people start understanding there is no reliable way to know before you run the ping utility what protocol the destination host is running. Think about that for a second.
The other day I was trying to troubleshoot why I could not get to a carriers web site. I used ping but it returned the IPv4 address. The problem turned out to be an issue with IPv6 connectivity. I had no clue the site was on IPv6 and the v4 result I got back was less than useless.
There is one global namespace for DNS even though there are two IP protocols. There is no technical reason this is not a bug that will only annoy more and more people as the transition picks up steam. All the other major OS vendors seem to have it right...Whats wrong with Linux?
Umm. no. ICMP unicast L2 ping utilities measure single hop one to one TTL. While traceroute ICMP unicast works the same, default behavior in most multicast l2/l3 traceroute utilities measure one to many hops in-route TTL.
traceroute is at least IP-layer, so while it has to handle both stacks it doesn't do particularly different things. And because of that you'll find that the traceroute implementations that are still being maintained support both stacks -- traceroute6 is often just a link to traceroute, or a link that prepend "-6" to your arguments.
LOL traceroute is just a bunch 'o ICMP pings with varying TTLs.
Because Ping is almost 30 years old and changing it that substantially would break functionality in a huge number of OSes. Not to mention the fact that as long as IPv4 is in common use it's going to be damn confusing figuring out when it's safe to use ping in IPv4 versus IPv6.
You have things totally backwards. The operating system figures out whether a host should be reached via ipv6 vs ipv4 based on your systems IPv6 connectivity and DNS. You can't know it in advance.
If I browse to www.slashdot.org and it has an AAAA record and my computer has IPv6 I get to slashdot via IPv6. Having ping being the only utility left on the fricking operating system that does not work this way is more broken than any nastalga.
Traceroute is 30 years old too and it works just fine with both protocols enabled at the same time.
Yes, but each command has been duplicated: ping, ping6; tracert, tracert6; etc. It doesn't seem particularly elegant to me. Why not just modify ping to accept both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses?
There is no justification for not fixing linux ping. Microsoft has it right. Traceroute works properly. What broke when traceroute was fixed to support both versions? There is no excuse for not fixing ping.
Now that virtually all host applications had been modified to support ipv4 and ipv6 transparently based on DNS I don't want to hear this total nonsense fixing ping will cause breakage. Bullshit.
The whole point in the transition is that you do not know ahead of time whether a host is IPv4 or IPv6. By not fixing ping and something does does not work you 'ping' it and the result you get is totally out of step with the way the rest of the operating system and your apps work.
Does it really matter the smart card was attacked? If the machine is compromised to begin with anything you or your computer does with your credentials is compromised anyway.
According to TFA attacker still can only do anything while card is in compromised computers reader. What has failed?
As far as I know even if you run headless with server core there is still a UI presented when you login. TFA dance around it with talks of IE and various UI services not being avaliable but at the end of the day there is still a UI present.
I like the concept of Microsofts remote management tools but when you are bandwidth constrained they are painful to use. The citrix/RDP technology works well everywhere even over dialup, intl and sat links. I hope they will find some time to optimize existing remote management tools to at least reduce number of round trips.
I also think MS and the rest of the industry needs to stop drinking the virtualization coolaid. What we really want are jails that can be migrated. Duplication of resources and management overhead needed to express management concepts lacking in the base system concept is depressing.
We are google resistance is futile. You must get google+ even if you don't want to cause if you don't your ranking will go to shit. - "The Goorg"
Google is already pissing me off with their intentionally defective ever forgetful no I don't want to be bothered with your chrome commercial on their home page. The + nonsense is just icing on the cake.
Every time you click go away someone at google must be laughing "MUAHAHAHHAHA sucker..."
You've got to realize that latency of a second isn't as widely acceptable as you're making it out to be. Take your standard webpage these days - it probably has close to 100 items on it
Sat systems often have proxies to help cover RTTs on the ground so fewer end up translated through the sat link.
Still sucks but when you have nothing better the new ViaSat is a big deal.
Cisco IP phones sitting on the desk in their home office, and that phone call is going to sound like garbage with >1000ms of latency.
Packet loss not latency is what makes VoIP links sound like garbage. Latency without packet loss has NO effect of any kind on audio quality.
The only difference is humans having to learn a little patience to cope with prop delay.
As long as the vechicle manufacturer computes MPG in compliance with EPA/NHTSA standards it is the sue happy moron in the wrong in every case. If you don't like how MPG is calculated bring that up with the fricking EPA.
If your car is defective (Bad battery...etc) bring it in and have it repaired.
Have they gone insane? People vote for these officials... blacklisting any country hurts the economies of BOTH nations... Not exactly something the US needs right now?
It is bad enough Cuba is still on the master shit list for reasons having more to do with ancient history and nonsensical rhetoric than current reality.
Then there is the issue where the effective result of the US system is screwed up. Copyright law in the US is controlled by micky mouse not rational people interested in the public good...not something we deserve to be "exporting" anywhere.
For some reason I was browsing the text of the law of the sea the other day which most countries of the world have signed and ratified.
The interesting thing about it is that while pirate broadcasters can be ceased in international waters by the flag the boat is operating under or by any country where the signal can be received that provision applies only to "sound radio" and "television" broadcasts. It says nothing about data transmission.
I would imagine a few strategically placed unmanned solar/wind powered boats at sea bouncing signals off the ionosphere would be a heck of a lot cheaper than launching birds into orbit...
Just let us install what we want on our devices from any source that we want. You don't have to allow "root" access just the same permissions and sandboxed isolated storage, manifest based security constraints as any app avaliable on the app store.
I mean whats the difference between just making it a feature of the platform vs having to go through a few extra hoops for the same outcome? Your "enterprise" customers would thank you.
Don't be another evil Apple who thinks it is ok to control what can be installed on our devices. This behavior is NOT ok. Unlike other platforms there is no valid security or reliability reason for it either.
Let me get this straight terrorists use a US based platform for communication and Isrealies have the audacity to fuck with what must be a CIA gold mine?
Number one recruiting tool for middle eastern terrorists is Isreal inability to settle their land disputes with the Palestiniens.
I've always wondered how seemingly smart people can act so stupidly totally oblivious to the repercussions of their actions.
What happens when a busy computer that would cause it to naturally act in a similiar matter as a botnet zombie sends an email and that message is then flagged as spam?
Spammers are no fools or dinosaurs. They will simply adjust their spamming rate in zombie client below the threshold needed to induce effects needed to trigger the detection scheme.
End result as always is the same:
It won't stop anyone from spamming
It WILL make SMTP based Email even more unreliable than it currently is.
The whole "Hollywood hype" attitude dismissing the risk is off the mark too. If anything, nobody prepares against EMP because quite simply there's no reasonable defense against it apart from preventing it from happening in the first place. Protecting the infrastructure is a staggeringly huge and unaffordable proposition which would be a "waste of money" if it never happens, so of course the logical political assumption to make is that it never WILL happen. Ostrich meet sand, sand, Ostrich.
The EMP commission assessment disagrees with your conclusion. It says where EMI protection is baked into the design of product it normally adds little overall cost. Retrofit of existing product is cost prohibitive.
A good example of hollywood being wrong is cars being rendered useless especially new cars with all their "fancy" electronics. Well you know what the EMP commission actually tested "new" cars under the highest field strength their testbed was able to produce and not a single one of the dozens of vechicles tested suffered permanent damage preventing the vechicle from functioning. During the test one or two of them stalled and needed to be restarted. This is because there are already stringent EMI shielding requirements the automotive industry must follow.
Even computers tested were not fried. They rebooted, there were display issues and some of the NICs become unreliable or stopped working due to large induced currents in long ethernet runs. Fiber is not much more expensive than copper and MOVs in circut breakers are effective in stopping induced currents in mains from blowing up your computer. The same way they are effective against induced currents from nearby lightning strikes.
People often point to a past with less transisters and conclude the modern erra is necessarily worse off from an EMP standpoint than it was 50 years ago. The truth is EMI tolerance and effectiveness of protection circuits has progressed steadily for separate operational reasons over the years and it will continue to do so.
Portable electronics is mostly uneffected except for RF gear with antennas attached which has a tendance to get fried.
I don't disagree a large scale EMP is a bad day it would most likely knock out the entire grid which even if completely undamaged would itself take days or weeks to effectivly restart and you can expect lots of physical damage.
However the hollywood notion that EMP = Stone age does not seem to be supported by real world testing.
Isn't it better to focus on margins and making sure the worst case scenario is not capable of degrading circuits? If margins are a problem or electron migration is a potential issue be more careful and size your components accordingly.
Even if the capsuls do their job they change the capacitance of the circut upon release right? 10-microns is hundreds of times the feature size of a modern process. So you don't know exactly what percent of the circut is restored you don't really have the capability to model the effect of worst case cap change when the "liquid metal" is arbitrarily released in one or more areas... and you expect the circut to keep functioning as it would normally with no sideffects? Maybe 15 years ago..but really on current and future processes?? Really?
I would rather a system fail outright then become dangerously unreliable. If you need component redundancy do it at the systems level or don't be lazy with your margins.
Improve the lithography and your algorithms if you want more reliability.
we're going to see a huge change in programming methods coming pretty soon. Today, A.I. is still math and computer based. The problem is that data, input, and all of the algorithms you're going to write can result in a plane nose-diving -- even though no human being has ever chosen to nose-dive under any scenario in a commercial flight.
There are some humans alive today who have wisely done so to the point of causing injuries to recover from stalls real and imagined.
You still need a warrant if the surveillance is directed at an individual. And if it's just patrolling, how is that any different than a cop walking his beat?
Given the technology invovled my guess it would be functionally about the same as a cop on every street corner 24x7. Now thats what I call a police state.
Why allowing Software Patents is foolish. It destroys innovation and rewards established players and those with deep pockets. (It also allows the established players to pick the pockets of others, whether they are deep or not.)
Abolish software patents. Software should be covered under copyright as it is written material. Patents are for physical objects. Not the written word (or code).
Do you think the same bullshit dynamics don't play out every day in the non-software world?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, but while we're still in a dual-stack situation, you'd have to care enough to at least be able to tell a unified ping utility which protocol you want to use (even if it's just via a -4 or -6 switch). Otherwise, if a given domain name resolves to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, which should it pick? Perhaps if you're just using it to see if a host is up, you don't care -- but if you're trying to determine the connectivity of your network graph for a specific protocol set, it's important.
I'm really sorry about sounding like a broken record here but the answer to your question is that it should pick the IPv6 address if you have IPv6 connectivity. This is standard behavior (RFC 3484) that can be overriden by local policy. All applications follow the same preferencing behavior to understand which protocol should be used when connecting to a host. The answer to your question is clear.
-4 and -6 flags are great if a host is reachable over both protocols and you want to test a specific protocol but the default behavior should be the same well defined standard that everything else on your system uses when it resolves a name to an ipaddress. getaddrinfo() is your friend.
Ping isn't intended to be a novice utility. It's a serious piece of a network diagnostic toolkit. Your grandma isn't going to be running it, so the harm of having it separated into two utilities is minor; anyone serious about network diagnostics and administration isn't going to be phased by the fact that there are two commands, one per protocol.
No it is not a minor issue. Many think that because their world is IPv4 only and they don't yet have to deal with a world running both protocols.
Like I said before and like I will undoubtably have to say a thousand times again before people start understanding there is no reliable way to know before you run the ping utility what protocol the destination host is running. Think about that for a second.
The other day I was trying to troubleshoot why I could not get to a carriers web site. I used ping but it returned the IPv4 address. The problem turned out to be an issue with IPv6 connectivity. I had no clue the site was on IPv6 and the v4 result I got back was less than useless.
There is one global namespace for DNS even though there are two IP protocols. There is no technical reason this is not a bug that will only annoy more and more people as the transition picks up steam. All the other major OS vendors seem to have it right...Whats wrong with Linux?
Umm. no. ICMP unicast L2 ping utilities measure single hop one to one TTL. While traceroute ICMP unicast works the same, default behavior in most multicast l2/l3 traceroute utilities measure one to many hops in-route TTL.
L2 multicast traceroutes...LOL...
traceroute is at least IP-layer, so while it has to handle both stacks it doesn't do particularly different things. And because of that you'll find that the traceroute implementations that are still being maintained support both stacks -- traceroute6 is often just a link to traceroute, or a link that prepend "-6" to your arguments.
LOL traceroute is just a bunch 'o ICMP pings with varying TTLs.
Because Ping is almost 30 years old and changing it that substantially would break functionality in a huge number of OSes. Not to mention the fact that as long as IPv4 is in common use it's going to be damn confusing figuring out when it's safe to use ping in IPv4 versus IPv6.
You have things totally backwards. The operating system figures out whether a host should be reached via ipv6 vs ipv4 based on your systems IPv6 connectivity and DNS. You can't know it in advance.
If I browse to www.slashdot.org and it has an AAAA record and my computer has IPv6 I get to slashdot via IPv6. Having ping being the only utility left on the fricking operating system that does not work this way is more broken than any nastalga.
Traceroute is 30 years old too and it works just fine with both protocols enabled at the same time.
Total nonsense. traceroute
Yes, but each command has been duplicated: ping, ping6; tracert, tracert6; etc. It doesn't seem particularly elegant to me. Why not just modify ping to accept both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses?
There is no justification for not fixing linux ping. Microsoft has it right. Traceroute works properly. What broke when traceroute was fixed to support both versions? There is no excuse for not fixing ping.
Now that virtually all host applications had been modified to support ipv4 and ipv6 transparently based on DNS I don't want to hear this total nonsense fixing ping will cause breakage. Bullshit.
The whole point in the transition is that you do not know ahead of time whether a host is IPv4 or IPv6. By not fixing ping and something does does not work you 'ping' it and the result you get is totally out of step with the way the rest of the operating system and your apps work.
Does it really matter the smart card was attacked? If the machine is compromised to begin with anything you or your computer does with your credentials is compromised anyway.
According to TFA attacker still can only do anything while card is in compromised computers reader. What has failed?
As far as I know even if you run headless with server core there is still a UI presented when you login. TFA dance around it with talks of IE and various UI services not being avaliable but at the end of the day there is still a UI present.
I like the concept of Microsofts remote management tools but when you are bandwidth constrained they are painful to use. The citrix/RDP technology works well everywhere even over dialup, intl and sat links. I hope they will find some time to optimize existing remote management tools to at least reduce number of round trips.
I also think MS and the rest of the industry needs to stop drinking the virtualization coolaid. What we really want are jails that can be migrated. Duplication of resources and management overhead needed to express management concepts lacking in the base system concept is depressing.
In the long have a feeling it would have been better for everyone if Pauls retarded scheme had worked.
Facebook IPO = company turn into rich brats with infinite senses of entitlement overnight.
We are google resistance is futile. You must get google+ even if you don't want to cause if you don't your ranking will go to shit. - "The Goorg"
Google is already pissing me off with their intentionally defective ever forgetful no I don't want to be bothered with your chrome commercial on their home page. The + nonsense is just icing on the cake.
Every time you click go away someone at google must be laughing "MUAHAHAHHAHA sucker..."
Intrinsically, people are inconvenienced by change, change of this magnitude is inconvenient enough that people will go to war over it.
Nothing like a good ole nuclear winter to kick off the next ice age.
You've got to realize that latency of a second isn't as widely acceptable as you're making it out to be. Take your standard webpage these days - it probably has close to 100 items on it
Sat systems often have proxies to help cover RTTs on the ground so fewer end up translated through the sat link.
Still sucks but when you have nothing better the new ViaSat is a big deal.
Cisco IP phones sitting on the desk in their home office, and that phone call is going to sound like garbage with >1000ms of latency.
Packet loss not latency is what makes VoIP links sound like garbage. Latency without packet loss has NO effect of any kind on audio quality.
The only difference is humans having to learn a little patience to cope with prop delay.
As long as the vechicle manufacturer computes MPG in compliance with EPA/NHTSA standards it is the sue happy moron in the wrong in every case. If you don't like how MPG is calculated bring that up with the fricking EPA.
If your car is defective (Bad battery...etc) bring it in and have it repaired.
Have they gone insane? People vote for these officials... blacklisting any country hurts the economies of BOTH nations... Not exactly something the US needs right now?
It is bad enough Cuba is still on the master shit list for reasons having more to do with ancient history and nonsensical rhetoric than current reality.
Then there is the issue where the effective result of the US system is screwed up. Copyright law in the US is controlled by micky mouse not rational people interested in the public good...not something we deserve to be "exporting" anywhere.
For some reason I was browsing the text of the law of the sea the other day which most countries of the world have signed and ratified.
The interesting thing about it is that while pirate broadcasters can be ceased in international waters by the flag the boat is operating under or by any country where the signal can be received that provision applies only to "sound radio" and "television" broadcasts. It says nothing about data transmission.
I would imagine a few strategically placed unmanned solar/wind powered boats at sea bouncing signals off the ionosphere would be a heck of a lot cheaper than launching birds into orbit...
"MongoDB (from "humongous") is a scalable, high-performance, open source NoSQL database"
LOL I think the word in parens they were looking for is "humours".
Just let us install what we want on our devices from any source that we want. You don't have to allow "root" access just the same permissions and sandboxed isolated storage, manifest based security constraints as any app avaliable on the app store.
I mean whats the difference between just making it a feature of the platform vs having to go through a few extra hoops for the same outcome? Your "enterprise" customers would thank you.
Don't be another evil Apple who thinks it is ok to control what can be installed on our devices. This behavior is NOT ok. Unlike other platforms there is no valid security or reliability reason for it either.
Let me get this straight terrorists use a US based platform for communication and Isrealies have the audacity to fuck with what must be a CIA gold mine?
Number one recruiting tool for middle eastern terrorists is Isreal inability to settle their land disputes with the Palestiniens.
Glad to finally see people waking up from the illusion Apples shit smells good when in fact it smells just as bad as everyone elses.
I've always wondered how seemingly smart people can act so stupidly totally oblivious to the repercussions of their actions.
What happens when a busy computer that would cause it to naturally act in a similiar matter as a botnet zombie sends an email and that message is then flagged as spam?
Spammers are no fools or dinosaurs. They will simply adjust their spamming rate in zombie client below the threshold needed to induce effects needed to trigger the detection scheme.
End result as always is the same:
It won't stop anyone from spamming
It WILL make SMTP based Email even more unreliable than it currently is.
The whole "Hollywood hype" attitude dismissing the risk is off the mark too. If anything, nobody prepares against EMP because quite simply there's no reasonable defense against it apart from preventing it from happening in the first place. Protecting the infrastructure is a staggeringly huge and unaffordable proposition which would be a "waste of money" if it never happens, so of course the logical political assumption to make is that it never WILL happen. Ostrich meet sand, sand, Ostrich.
The EMP commission assessment disagrees with your conclusion. It says where EMI protection is baked into the design of product it normally adds little overall cost. Retrofit of existing product is cost prohibitive.
A good example of hollywood being wrong is cars being rendered useless especially new cars with all their "fancy" electronics. Well you know what the EMP commission actually tested "new" cars under the highest field strength their testbed was able to produce and not a single one of the dozens of vechicles tested suffered permanent damage preventing the vechicle from functioning. During the test one or two of them stalled and needed to be restarted. This is because there are already stringent EMI shielding requirements the automotive industry must follow.
Even computers tested were not fried. They rebooted, there were display issues and some of the NICs become unreliable or stopped working due to large induced currents in long ethernet runs. Fiber is not much more expensive than copper and MOVs in circut breakers are effective in stopping induced currents in mains from blowing up your computer. The same way they are effective against induced currents from nearby lightning strikes.
People often point to a past with less transisters and conclude the modern erra is necessarily worse off from an EMP standpoint than it was 50 years ago. The truth is EMI tolerance and effectiveness of protection circuits has progressed steadily for separate operational reasons over the years and it will continue to do so.
Portable electronics is mostly uneffected except for RF gear with antennas attached which has a tendance to get fried.
I don't disagree a large scale EMP is a bad day it would most likely knock out the entire grid which even if completely undamaged would itself take days or weeks to effectivly restart and you can expect lots of physical damage.
However the hollywood notion that EMP = Stone age does not seem to be supported by real world testing.
Isn't it better to focus on margins and making sure the worst case scenario is not capable of degrading circuits? If margins are a problem or electron migration is a potential issue be more careful and size your components accordingly.
Even if the capsuls do their job they change the capacitance of the circut upon release right? 10-microns is hundreds of times the feature size of a modern process. So you don't know exactly what percent of the circut is restored you don't really have the capability to model the effect of worst case cap change when the "liquid metal" is arbitrarily released in one or more areas... and you expect the circut to keep functioning as it would normally with no sideffects? Maybe 15 years ago..but really on current and future processes?? Really?
I would rather a system fail outright then become dangerously unreliable. If you need component redundancy do it at the systems level or don't be lazy with your margins.
Improve the lithography and your algorithms if you want more reliability.
we're going to see a huge change in programming methods coming pretty soon. Today, A.I. is still math and computer based. The problem is that data, input, and all of the algorithms you're going to write can result in a plane nose-diving -- even though no human being has ever chosen to nose-dive under any scenario in a commercial flight.
There are some humans alive today who have wisely done so to the point of causing injuries to recover from stalls real and imagined.
You still need a warrant if the surveillance is directed at an individual. And if it's just patrolling, how is that any different than a cop walking his beat?
Given the technology invovled my guess it would be functionally about the same as a cop on every street corner 24x7. Now thats what I call a police state.
Why allowing Software Patents is foolish. It destroys innovation and rewards established players and those with deep pockets. (It also allows the established players to pick the pockets of others, whether they are deep or not.)
Abolish software patents. Software should be covered under copyright as it is written material. Patents are for physical objects. Not the written word (or code).
Do you think the same bullshit dynamics don't play out every day in the non-software world?
The military signal is just an error correction to the civilian signal. It's not a totally separate signal.
Wrong it is a totally separate signal broadcast on a totally separate frequency.
This is critical as the difference in response between both frequencies allows the GPS receiver to get a better handle on ionospheric delay.