US Has More IPv6 Eyeballs Than Asia, Because of Apple 162
An anonymous reader writes "Google has been checking to see who's using IPv6. According to the company's tracking, half of all IPv6-capable systems seen by Google are Macs, helping the US land in fifth place in percentage of IPv6 users world wide, ahead of China and Japan."
Linux much (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has a far greater market share than Linux desktops, but you can't completely ignore that Linux has been pushing IPv6 for some time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except I'm under Linux and no ipv6 sites seem to work for me (default Ubuntu installation). If Apple is making it work by default, well, that's better than what Linux has been doing.
This result seems to be because of Apple routers (Score:5, Informative)
From the article, I picked up the reason for this result (but not until after posting a similar question, I must confess). Most home computer users, regardless of their platform, tend to connect to the internet through some sort of router device. Most of these routers use IPv4 only, and use NAT to share the Internet connection.
Many Mac users, instead of using some 'generic' WiFi access point, instead use Apple's Airport Extreme router. Per the article, Airport Extreme's have support for IPv6 built right into the router, and the router will *automatically* route IPv6 traffic using the 6to4 standard (which basically tunnels the traffic over the IPv4 connection from the ISP).
I suspect that if you connected your Ubuntu computer (or Vista, or XP if you installed IPv6 manually) to the Internet using an Airport Extreme, then IPv6 would work fine under Ubuntu too. That is, I think the 'magic' here that makes IPv6 "just work" is in the router, not in the OS.
Re:This result seems to be because of Apple router (Score:5, Interesting)
Many Mac users, instead of using some 'generic' WiFi access point, instead use Apple's Airport Extreme router. Per the article, Airport Extreme's have support for IPv6 built right into the router, and the router will *automatically* route IPv6 traffic using the 6to4 standard (which basically tunnels the traffic over the IPv4 connection from the ISP).
Indeed. I was quite impressed to read about that. I have been thinking for quite a while that router makes should be doing exactly that, so it's good to see that at least one of them does.
On the quite opposite hand, there's Vista. While the article pointed out that Vista sets up 6to4 automatically when it has a globally routable IPv4 address (which is a good thing, of course), there's an annoying other side to that coin. See, Vista announces that it routes through its 6to4 address, but then in actual fact doesn't (it just drops the packets silently). It has been annoying me quite some times when I've connected to a public WiFi access point at my university, only to see every IPv6-enabled site (including my own!) fail miserably since my Linux laptop will try to route through one of these Vista black holes. That's Microsoft for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any real costs or difficulties in the way, or is it just that they cannot be bothered to do until customers actually demand it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you are looking at a fairly strange cross-section of consumer routers, most of them do not run Linux. Only a handful of the ones offered by Linksys, D-Link, etc. do. The majority run VxWorks, I believe.
A few years back there were actually more Linux-based routers but as cost pressures and competition have increased the manufacturers seem to have moved away in order to reduce the parts count. Broadband routers are the only pieces of equipment I've seen where the hardware specs have actually fallen,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's more likely due to the fact that Apple has typically had an advantage in educational institutions. Most residential ISPs still don't provide IPv6 support, but I would not be surprised if nearly every college and university in the U.S. supported IPv6 to the end user.
Doesn't matter if your router supports IPv6 if your ISP does not.
Re:This result seems to be because of Apple router (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't matter if your router supports IPv6 if your ISP does not.
Sure it does. The whole point, and what makes it so cool, is that the AirPort sets up 6-to-4 tunnelling automatically. So you *can* have IPv6 connectivity even if your ISP doesn't provide it.
noah
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This result seems to be because of Apple router (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, for those running routers that can run DD-WRT:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPv6#6to4_Setup [dd-wrt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work on my Mac - Tiger, or my Ubuntu or my Vista.
I think it is the fact I'm using a Netgear router rather than an Airport router.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Linux much (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it has been build in into the kernel for several years now. I have IPv6 network already, works like a charm.
You need to get a ISP that supports native IPv6 or a IPv6 PoP to connect to IPv6 sites. Like http://ipv6.google.com/ [google.com]
LAN IPv6 is already build in, no need to configure that.
Re:Linux much (Score:5, Funny)
you can't completely ignore that Linux has been pushing IPv6 for some time.
Yes, yes we can.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you can't completely ignore that Linux has been pushing IPv6 for some time.
Yes, yes we can.
Sorry? It's the change we need!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry? It's the change we need!
No; it's the change you deserve.
Re:Linux much (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't just a matter of Mac vs Linux desktop market share.
Google's numbers say that the following percentages of users are IPv6 capable, broken down by OS:
2.44% for Mac OS
0.93% for Linux
0.32% for Vista
The article I saw on this at Ars Technica attributed this difference(despite the fact that all three OSes are IPv6 capable by default) to the fact that mac users have a tendency to use other Apple hardware, and Apple's Airport routers use 6to4 to tunnel IPv6 by default.
If linux has been pushing ipv6 (what does that even mean? does your kernel complain when it has to handle ipv4 packets?), perhaps it's been pushing in the wrong place, i.e. on the desktop, or as an end to end solution, rather than in routers, and with tunneling.
Re:Linux much (Score:5, Insightful)
don't you need both? if you have a router that supports IPv6 but your OS isn't configured to use IPv6 then you're still not going to be able to access IPv6 hosts. Windows XP still doesn't have IPv6 enabled by default--you need to go to network connection properties and add the protocol "Microsoft TCP/IP version 6" in order to enable IPv6 support.
so it's not a matter of it being IPv6 pushed in the wrong place, but a matter of networking hardware manufacturers being too slow to adopt IPv6. that's not really up to OS developers.
most existing networking equipment can probably already support IPv6 with a firmware update. but a lot of consumer networking equipment vendors are probably waiting for IPv6 to gain more traction so that they can a separate line of "new and improved" IPv6-enabled routers/switches/etc. to cash in on unnecessary equipment upgrades.
Pushing IPv6 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The BSDs has had IP v6 support forever to (and OS X has probably had it as long as it has existed to.) But what good is it if you can't get a real IP anyway. Proxy ftw? For what reason? *care* as long as the ISP don't give me an IP v6 network.
sounds damn scary (Score:5, Funny)
IPv6 Eyeballs! Run!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not only that, more eyeballs than Asia. It's like an IPv6 Shoggoth!
Re:sounds damn scary (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, but why do stories have to use lame 'industry insider' phrases when an ordinary one would do just as well ("actual users" might fit the bill)?
Re:sounds damn scary (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this proactive anecdote brings closure to the industry insider paradigm.
False negatives abound (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:False negatives abound (Score:4, Interesting)
However, my Linksys NATing router is not.
Exactly. I feel like left out - what use is having an IPv6 capable machine, if my ISP blocks all my IPv6 traffic simply because they don't support it?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?
Re:False negatives abound (Score:4, Informative)
That's not a false negative, that's you misunderstanding the test. They are testing users who are actually IPv6 enabled, not just users running IPv6 capable hardware.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
ISPs don't like IPv6 as it "flattens" the internet. NAT is good for them, keeps clients clients and servers servers, also makes it easy to install what are really shaping / deep packet inspection / logging black boxes as "NAT" appliances, etc.
Re:False negatives abound (Score:5, Insightful)
On one side, we have logged-in members of the highly technical Slashdot, all people in technical careers that I know IRL, and even Wikipedia claiming that IPv6 will help security. [wikipedia.org]
On the other side, we have a single AC saying otherwise.
AC must be right
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Firewalls and routers existed well before NAT became mainstream. You do realize that just because NAT acts as a firewall doesn't mean that it is a GOOD firewall, nor the ONLY type of firewall? (most NAT routers now allow in UDP packets from ANY source once a port is opened, for example, to allow for games to work)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do realize it will take months to map a LAN with IPv6 through nmap ? Because the IPv6-address space for the LAN is bigger then the whole IPv4-internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, but the probability is not zero. The differential cost is very small, and the potential gain (not having to migrate everyone to IPv8 when we run out of address space again) is huge.
It's exactly like a 128 bit filesystem. We will never be able to use 2^128 locations on a FS, because there's not even that many atoms in the known universe. But, you'll never have to upgrade again.
Basically, IPv6 needs to be future proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a sidenote, what is the rationale for making the IPv6 address spaces for LANs so freaking large? It's unlikely even the largest of organizations will need an address space as big as the entire IPv4 address space, much less individuals....
In fact, they should never need more than 640K.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, TimeWarner/Roadrunner tech support will get right on that, I'm amazed they support ping.
How can they tell? (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:2)
Google modified their home page to try to load a URL over IPv6; if it works then the client supports IPv6.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't sound right to me. What is your source for that statistic? I would think the percentage of multiple computer owners is probably roughly the same. I've had multiple Macs (and PCs running Linux and FBSD) for years, and so do several people I know. I realize Apple is often perceived as being more of a CE manufacturer recently, but there are still plenty of Mac-using geeks -- in fact, I think there are more than there used to be.
Re:How can they tell? (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense. I've visited the homes of Mac-only users. They usually have two or three. Where things get interesting however, is that they tend to be using an Airport Router. (Which caused me no end of grief when I didn't spring to have WiFi added to my last laptop.) As someone mentioned higher up in the discussion, Airport routes IPv6 by default. Something that most other consumer routers (typically paired with Windows and Linux machines) do not.
Re: (Score:2)
I have 5 machines, all Mac. What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I've got four macs, an airport and an iPhone. Each one gets an IP. I know the airport and the Macs support IPv6. Not sure about the phone.
My anecdote cancels your anecdote?
Re: (Score:2)
My anecdote cancels your anecdote?
I call your anecdote and raise one poll. [mactalk.com.au] More than 80% of Mac owners polled own more than one - of course the sample is rather small and not necessarily representative, but it does weaken the GP's uncited claim.
Re:How can they tell? (Score:4, Informative)
not at all.
While NAT is not a be-all end-all security measure, it certainly helps, as my router provides a (stupid-basic) blank face at port-scan attempts.
Layers of defense. My router is the drawbridge of my castle.
-nB
Re:How can they tell? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt it's really not allowed where I live (not in USA though), and the first three months I had only plugged in the TP-cable without signing any paper or anything. No login required, just plug the machine in and voila Internet with DHCP.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, has anyone ever been nailed for this? I've been running an SSH/SFTP server on my machine for as long as I've had the account (three years), and my cable company has never said anything to me.
Of course, I also have incredibly high volumes of traffic each month too, and they don't complain about that. The cable service is expensive even for residential customers like me, but you get what you pay for in my case.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still do that with a firewall. I think you need to change your religious believe in NATs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except he's ultimately right. There's no reason why I should have to replace any network devices on my home network because everybody else is using IPV6. That would be costly and wasteful. And for the near term that's going to be supported by most ISPs out of cheapness, no reason to drag people's home networks into it needlessly.
I prefer to spend my extra cash on death rays and doom devices. Also large quantities of obscure computing equipment bits.
Re: (Score:2)
No where does the GP mention anything about replacing equipment...
The GP was talking about devices facing the internet which isn't true if you set to disallow incoming connections.
It's a myth that NAT stops incoming connections, your firewall does this, which is my point you can still do this with a firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Replace? Why would you need to replace anything? (Ok, people have mentioned some routers is crap and can't handle IP v6, but except that?)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the future means every single device having a IP, perhaps even human beings if you are paranoid. :)
Don't think about today, think about the future. Can you imagine every cell phone user somehow browses the net and plays some games?
It is not like today's concept, it is about the very weird and connected future. I agree demanding IPV6 from a consumer level ISP today is a bit overkill but recently my heater company called me and asked if I wanted my combination heater (Vaillant) to be connected to net
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the fun in that?
Sure a virtual server somewhere might have more bandwidth than my home cable but at home I can experiment with different setups. Some people play video games. . .I like to play with new distros, or software. If running a http or ssh server from home is wrong then I don't want to be right :-)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason to let your home networked devices face the internet directly- it's a very bad idea to even open any ports, since you shouldn't need to.
And there's no reason not to let your home networked devices face the internet directly, since you're not opening any ports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How can they tell? (Score:4, Informative)
The difference between a "NAT router" and a "stateful firewall with public IP stuff behind"
You need the NAT working in order to reach the stuff behind it.
You don't need the stateful stuff working in order to reach the stuff behind it.
So in event of bugs, the hacker is more likely to have to work harder to exploit the stuff behind a NAT.
Now the issue with "just NAT" is the ISP can usually access the stuff behind the NAT - just as long as they know what IP range you have behind- they just have to get IP packets with dest=your.private.ip to your NAT device and _typically_ it will pass it through (some NAT devices also have a stateful firewall so they may not pass it through).
This means a 3rd party could get past your NAT if they have control over your ISP's routers route tables. But if they achieve that control you're probably screwed anyway.
Anyway, it's good enough protection, the hackers and malware bunch hardly do direct network attacks anymore against Joe User, much easier to convince Joe User to run stuff
Re:How can they tell? (Score:4, Insightful)
NAT is a horrible, horrible thing that shouldn't be used because it's causing subtle but ultimately very bad things to happen. Besides, home routers could just come with a default denial of all incoming packets unless they are related to an open connection rule to substitute the "firewalling" people enjoy with NAT.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For example - say you have a machine without an IPv4 address at all. How would you access the following sites:
mail.google.com
www.windowsupdate.com
security.ubuntu.com
mail.yahoo.com
I can list more.
2) You still need NAT if you are using dynamic IPv4 addresses.
Why?
Imagine what happens if the ISP gives you public IP range 4.5.5.0/252
But you drop and reconnect and are given public IP range 4.6.6.0/
Re: (Score:2)
2.) There are established procedures for that. Otherwise, how could your cable modem/router doing the NAT tell?
3.) It would only help the IPv4 shortage if large swaths of ISPs would be behi
Re: (Score:2)
1) You still need to use IPv4 if sites you need to use still don't support IPv6 or are unreachable from your network.
Actually the problem is the other way round. It should be possible to access an IPv4 service from your IPv6 network. What would not be possible would be for an IPv4 only host to access a serv(er|ice) on your IPv6 only network.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I take it someone has never encountered an ISP that provides more than one IP address to each customer? Back in 1998 when I first got ADSL the ISP I used handed out 5 IP addresses
Re: (Score:2)
What has happened to /.!? This is moderated at 5! All that fear mongering stuff about 'just NAT' (WTF) is plain wrong.
Let's think about it. Let's say you have a bunch of windows boxes on a private net like 192.168.1.x and you are using cifs. Do you think the NAT on the router makes an entry in it's table for that? Nope.
Okay so say you connect to cifs outside your LAN, say back to work. So now there is an entry in the NAT that links that TCP port, routable IP to your routable ip and port back to local ip and
Re: (Score:2)
What... the... fuck?
Re: (Score:2)
Joe's ISP's routers all have addresses of their own which are fairly fixed in practice. The ISP can't just change them and automatically expect the rest of the Internet to still be able to reach them.
Without NAT, Joe's PC needs addresses that belongs to Joe's ISP before it can talk to the rest of the Internet.
BUT before Joe's router is connected to the ISP, how does his router or PC know what address they should be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BUT before Joe's router is connected to the ISP, how does his router or PC know what address they should be using?
This is actually a topic of debate on IPv6 lists right now. There are basically two camps: One says that Joe's router should give out unique local addresses, the other says that a LAN only needs link locals. Both sides are, as far as I can tell, supporting their stance with really good arguments.
Joe would not have to wait for "dhcp renewal time" seconds, or "some other public IP update period" seconds, before his PC realizes that "Oh I'm supposed to be using this public IP address and this gateway".
That's not how IPv6 works. Joe's computer gets a Router Advertisement message as soon as the Internet LED lights up and everything instantly works.
Like most criticism of IPv6 on Slashdot, your criticism is founded o
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Without a NAT, how does a "NoNAT router" know what public IP range to give via DHCP (or other means) to Joe User's WinXP/Mac box, BEFORE it manages to get that public IP range from the ISP?
Before it connects to the ISP you'll be using link-local addresses. The router will then get a prefix from the ISP via DHCP prefix delegation and begin sending router advertisements so internal computers can configure themselves with public addresses (though they retain their link-local addresses).
Re: (Score:2)
Next question: What url does Joe Public enter on his browser to get to the router config page, so that he can enter the username and password in order to get access to the ISP's network?
Re: (Score:2)
So either you'll keep getting router advertisements on your network indefinitely, or your computers will have to keep requesting for it (instead of eventually giving up- which is what happens now).
Ok, you clearly should never be put in charge of any ISP's backbone.
Next question: What url does Joe Public enter on his browser to get to the router config page, so that he can enter the username and password in order to get access to the ISP's network?
Well, there are lots of ways of solving this, the first option (which is commonly used in europe) is to simply not require a username and password for the connection (what's the point if it's an always-on connection anyway?
Also, why would joe user even need a router? A transparent packet filtering firewall could work just as well. But I'm assuming you want to be able to have a machine act as the default gateway, well in that case the IP add
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next question: What url does Joe Public enter on his browser to get to the router config page, so that he can enter the username and password in order to get access to the ISP's network?
Another topic of debate on IPv6 lists. Apple believes that mDNS+a special configuration program is the solution here. Others have talked about reserving an IP address for this purpose. I believe that mDNS advertising something like router.local or linksys.local will be the most common method.
Re: (Score:2)
So either you'll keep getting router advertisements on your network indefinitely, or your computers will have to keep requesting for it (instead of eventually giving up- which is what happens now).
Correct. New computers can use router solicitations to get this information immediately, router advertisements can be used once the initial prefix delegation is complete (eg, the public prefix to use is know) and periodically thereafter to prevent autoconfig addresses for expiring.
I'm curious why you seem to regard this as a big deal.
Next question: What url does Joe Public enter on his browser to get to the router config page, so that he can enter the username and password in order to get access to the ISP's network?
I like the mDNS method personally.
Reserved by RFC or not, .local is sufficiently common for mDNS that it's basically unusable for any other purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly "router." isn't a reserved TLD. So what RFC compliant TLD should be used?
Many years ago I personally tried convincing ICANN etc to reserve
But they didn't listen - maybe it's because I didn't give them lots of $$$.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong answer.
With the current NAT router+ISP stuff, Joe Public at the most needs to provide the username+password. And in some ISP configs, Joe doesn't even need to provide that- they just plug it in and it works "like magic" - and the sort of magic that Joe Public barely notices.
That's why it's far from "almost the same thing".
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem with passing the DHCP request when needed?
Re: (Score:2)
Without a NAT, how does a "NoNAT router" know what public IP range to give via DHCP (or other means) to Joe User's WinXP/Mac box, BEFORE it manages to get that public IP range from the ISP?
Well, the IPv6 subnet to be handed out can be configured automatically, and with IPv4 the common method is to simply have one ISP-level DHCP server that hands out IP addresses to all hosts (since there is no pesky NAT to screw things up).
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Let me guess, your inner keep is Goatse/tubgirl/lemon party montage, deceptively labelled "secretpasswordstomybankaccountsandthat.png"
Anyone cracking yo' stuff will be sick for a week.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a similar level of security by using a stateful firewall. The main security advantage to NAT is really the property of limiting inbound packets to those that are associated with existing connections, and that's what you get with a stateful firewall. You don't have to have disjoint address spaces to get this feature.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Or like, they could ship OSes and servers only listening to local IPs by default, or none at all, and that point wouldn't matter at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what a firewall is for, not NAT. NAT adds nothing to your security beyond what a simple firewall does.
Do Macs automatically setup a 6over4 Tunnel? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't believe any US ISPs have begun providing IPv6 connections yet, have they? So, does this statistic reflect that not only are Macs IPv6 capabable, but all of them are automatically setting up an IPv6 tunnel over their IPv4 connections? If so, what tunnel broker are they using as an endpoint (is Apple itself providing a tunnel broker service for them)?
Or, instead of using a tunnel, are they using the technology (don't remember the name, maybe 4to6?) where an IPv6 address is automatically generated from the public IPv4 address, and then IPv6 packets are sent to an IPv4 anycast address which automatically routes them to the nearest 'public' 4ot6 gateway? Unfortunately, I don't believe the latter solution works well behind NATted connections, which I think would dramatically reduce these statistics, so the sheer size of the Mac IPv6 'population' suggests to me that tunnels are being used instead?
I've recently been playing with IPv6 via Hexago Freenet6 [go6.net], but truth be told, there's really not much use for IPv6 yet, since very few apps (like IM clients [skype: I'm looking at you], network games, etc) or websites actually support IPv6 on the other end yet. I've also noticed a problem with packet loss and high latency with Freenet6, so I'm thinking I'm going to try to find a different tunnel broker.
Re:Do Macs automatically setup a 6over4 Tunnel? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess I should have read the article first. Looks like this result is because Apple's Airport Extreme AP automatically sets up 6to4 (which is the 'anycast' based system I was referring to previously, but got the name backwards), and because the router itself supports 6to4, there's no problem giving the systems behind the router a public IPv6 address in the sub-net of the 6to4 address.
I didn't realize there were any IPv6-capable home routers on the market (other than routers that have been hacked to replace the OEM firmware with OpenWRT or DD-WRT). Kudos to Apple for showing some leadership here. Anyone know of any other makers with affordable home routers with IPv6?
Re:Do Macs automatically setup a 6over4 Tunnel? (Score:5, Funny)
After you Google for it, it will be Depression (*SIGH* No, nobody else is doing it any cheaper.) and finally Acceptance (Apple is so Awesome! I really shoulda switched sooner)... so, spare yourself the depression and just buy one. k? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got a /48 from Hurricane Electric, I used OpenVPN to become my own tunnel broker. Probably the most useful thing so far for me has been making machines behind NATs accessible without having to get ports forwarded (this is often a pain if the eg someone doesn't remember their router's password).
This could obviously be done with RFC1918 addresses on v4, but it's hard to pick a range there because someone somewhere will end up being incompatible with it.
Something Mildly Amusing (Score:2)
By Default... (Score:4, Informative)
Sonic.net supports IPv6, sort of (Score:2)
Sonic.net will, if requested, deliver IPv6 packets to their DSL subscribers. Unfortunately, their upstream connections are IPv4, so they're just offering tunneling at their end.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you say that like it's not as good as the real thing. I'm a Sonic.Net customer, and I use an AirPort base station as my IPv6 tunnel endpoint. My home network is fully dual-stack, and the Sonic.Net tunnel is just as reliable as the rest of their service. I'm a huge fan of Sonic.Net.
!won thgir 6vPI no ma I (Score:3, Funny)
!PASA 6vPI tuo yrt ot enoyreve egaruocne ylgnorts I .smelborp yna deciton t'nevah I dna pu tes ot hguone ysae demees tI .yppah yllaer neeb ev'I dna ,won thgir 6vPI gnisu m'I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)