Protect Your Pre-1997 IP Address 275
CWmike writes "With IPv4 space running out any day now, is your legacy IP address space safe? Marc Lindsey writes that if your company obtained its IP address space before 1997, you have probably received several letters from the American Registry for Internet Numbers encouraging you to enter into a contractual agreement to protect the IP address. But should you sign it? Be careful — there are several issues you should consider before signing up for this, writes Lindsey, who offers a deeper look at the issue."
Printable (Score:4, Informative)
Save some time, 4 pages is silly given the content.
Printable Version. [computerworld.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That link times out for me. It must have lost its IP address!
Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing special about IPv4. Upgrade your systems to IPv6 already, folks. It's been around for what? 10 years now? Give me a break.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, just like that. ISPs should replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment, find sensible IPv6 transit providers and re-negotiate their peering arrangements (whom may not want to peer with IPv6), then allocate and assign IPv6 addresses to every single IP endpoint on their entire network and then spend a couple of million more replacing end-user network equipment that almost certainly doesn't support IPv6, then await the massive flood of complaints from users who have additional non-IPv6 equipment behind their router which no longer works E.g. almost every consumer VoIP phone every shat out by the lowest bidder.
That's just for a small ISP.
The major force holding back IPv6 deployment is shitty consumer hardware that doesn't "do" IPv6, and shitty network hardware vendors who charge an arm and a leg for IPv6 capable routers etc. (coupled with the fact that people have already invested a lot of money on non-IPv6 hardware anyway). It's not like the ISPs are doing it just to piss you off.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, just like that. ISPs should replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment
ISPs replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment every year. Capacity grows fast enough that anything more than a few years old is so laughably obsolete it's not worth maintaining. Anyone who's been buying equipment for an ISP and not mandating IPv6 compatibility for the last ten years really shouldn't still have a job.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
We do?
Actually no we don't, because customers (that would be you) aren't willing to pay the actual cost of equipment. Upgrades are something that happens when the old stuff is dead or 5 years has passed (the time it takes to write it off), whichever comes first.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the company won't take the hit to profit to replace that stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ok, I'll bite.
A five year life cycle?
IPv6 has been with us for 10 years?
That mean that you have had 2 chances to upgrade your equipment to something that would support it.
This is not some thing that has snuck up on you, your just cheap or lazy or afraid of the change.
I think that what you meant was, "Customers are not willing to pay more for the equipment and we don't want to cut in to our profits to update our hardware."
Except, of course for the fact that you have ignored this problem for over a decade.
nic
Re: (Score:2)
you mustn't understand how companies deal with their capital expenditures, and replacement costs of infrastructure.
a company is going to replace network gear typically every 5 years or so. same company may replace servers every 3 years depending on need/workload.
those replacements are typically spelled out 6 months prior to the year in which they are replaced, and the new cost is put into the capex. capex goes through approvals, and typically gets a nice little chop because IT wants to add/replace too muc
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that the IT departments are the cheap, lazy, luddites in this equation.
I'm just saying that "the customers don't want to pay for the new equipment" is a weak excuse.
We didn't want to pay for the old equipment. So what?
If IPv4 doesn't give you any problems locally and you aren't worried about SomeOne Else's problems, keep it. If it aint broke why fix it?
If you must upgrade you can pay the cost difference from your profit margin or charge more.
I get how companies feel about lowering their p
Re: (Score:2)
And you apparently think costs are the same for ipv4 and ipv6 equipment?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, given the size and cost of some data centers these days, I don't think it would that hard to spend a couple million dollars every month upgrading the hardware in a single building. It would probably be more cost effective that trying to maintain a static configu
Ya not so much actually (Score:5, Insightful)
I work at a university which is an ISP, as most universities are. We are still using Cisco 6500s from about 10 years ago, and will continue to use those 6500s for some time. They are actually upgrading a few of the core routers soon, but basically only because the central network guys want new toys to play with, the 6500s work fine. Despite the massive increase in campus bandwidth, those 6500s work just fine. We'd probably have to move to something bigger than 10gbit connections to buildings (which we are actually just moving to now) before they wouldn't.
Now the 6500s are flexible platforms, and you can buy new supervisors to do IPv6. We actually did this a couple years ago... At a cost of about $10,000,000. That is just to serve the 50,000ish users on campus. Also that is only the big core equipment. The edge equipment didn't have to be upgraded since it is all switched at that point.
This idea that ISPs just trash tons of high end equipment every year is stupid. High end stuff doesn't get replaced until it is necessary, and that can be a long, long time. If you want them to buy all new hardware yearly, well then be prepared for your bill to go way up.
Also, that isn't the only problem. IPv6 support is not good at all in the home. A lot of routers don't support IPv6. I bought a Linksys router/WAP about a year ago, one of the N ones even, no IPv6 support. So if my ISP went all v6 I'd have to rebuy it and you know people would be mad about that. Even computers are problematic. There's a lot of XP systems out there and it has no IPv6 support. Sure it can be installed, you really thing a non-technical user can handle that?
Before IPv6 is feasible we not only need more ISP upgrades, we need more upgrades at home. Also, we really aren't going to need a good 4-to-6 setup. We need some way in the home that old devices that don't support v6 and can't be upgraded can get a v4 address that can then be routed transparently through the connection's v6 address. If that exists, I've not seen it.
It is a complex issue, and hence not something that will get solved quickly. I don't think we'll really start seeing IPv6 adoption in a big way for several more years. Once device support is far more wide spread, and more network equipment has been upgraded, it'll be more feasible. Also, when IPv4 really DOES start to deplete, and by that I mean companies start to run out of addresses not just that the top level assignments are gone, then there'll be pressure to make it happen.
People forget that the "running out" that is spoken of isn't that all addresses will be gone. It is that all available high level blocks will be allocated to regional registrars. They will still have space to allocate, and even when they run out most ISPs will still have space to allocate. It is when the ISPs start running out, that is when we are ACTUALLY running out of IPv4 space in a meaningful way, and there'll be pressure to move to something larger.
But why don't the ISPs do more? (Score:2)
No, they aren't doing it just to make us mad, but they could be doing a whole lot more. ISPs are probably the biggest end buyers of consumer level wireless routers. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but they have to be a big chunk because so many consumers don't know how to set them up and therefore rent modems and wireless routers from the ISP. They have to be a relatively big bulk buyer. They could insist that no one gets the contract for new purchases un
Also, some home routers do support IPv6 (Score:2)
And just to pre-empt anyone who argues it is too difficult for a non-geek to flash DDWRT onto a home router, remember that all Buffalo routers come with DDWRT as the factory default firmware, so actually you don't have to flash anything to get a home router with DDWRT and IPv6.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, however IPv6 does include important routing optimizations that will (at least in theory) mean it is easier to route than IPv4.
So there's no good reason it should route slower than ipv4, just potentially poor hardware / software implementation.
Re: (Score:3)
IPv4 is not going anywhere, even if IPv6 is adopted by the ISPs. There is plenty of hardware around that does not support v6 addressing, like network printers and most current home broadband routers. Just like companies hoard IE6 because their stuff doesn't work without it, so will they keep intranets on IPv4 no matter how much IPv6 propaganda is flung at them. Personally, like most normal people, I have no interest in having any IPv6 on my home network. It is much easier for the ISP to provide a 6to4 gatew
Re: (Score:2)
It's been around for what? 10 years now? Give me a break.
12 years pretty much exactly:
IPv6 was developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and is described in Internet standard document RFC 2460, published in December 1998.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely wasn't arguing otherwise.
Not an option for us. (Score:2)
This isn't an option for us. We qualified for address space under ARIN's old rules, and as such, we own a directly allocated IPv4 /24. The requirements for IPv6 space are higher, and we don't qualify for an allocation. If we give up our IPv4 /24 we get nothing for it, we'll be at the mercy of our ISP for address space, and that will make it impossible for me to add redundant uplinks later.
With this stuff in mind, I intend to defend my IPv4 allocation until such time as ARIN forcibly reclaims it.
Give me the money, then. (Score:2)
Fine; you pony-up the cash I'll need to R&R all the stuff in my network that still doesn't bother to support IPv6. And while you're at it, how about coughing-up some funds so I can just get basic maintenance done?
Go back to your Playstation, kid.
[/Bitter rant.]
Re: (Score:2)
Upgrade your systems to IPv6 already
Is this a rhetorical question or what? Considering that no equipment currently on the market does IPv4 to IPv6 NAT any IPv6 device would only be able to contact at best 0.001% of the Internet. Give me a break is right, just not a broken Internet. IPv6 is still a long way from being usable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of pieces of hardware that dont support IPv4. Unless you upgrade the hardware to a dual stack configuration. Routers, switches, etc arnt cheap.
Just because the OS supports it, doesnt mean its going to be easy or cheap.
Fast? (Score:5, Funny)
There are plenty of pieces of hardware that dont support IPv4. Unless you upgrade the hardware to a dual stack configuration. Routers, switches, etc arnt cheap.
Just because the OS supports it, doesnt mean its going to be easy or cheap.
So, fast is not out of the question? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly most commercial targeted hardware has supported v6 for at least the past five years or so. In some situations it might need memory upgrades and the like but that is in the grand scheme of things cheap! Other things like VOIP, PC over IP, multimedia technologies have pushed the equipment much older than five years or so out of most shops that have a significant amount of investment in route/switch anyway.
If you ask me its legacy applications as usually that probably forces most orgs to go dual stack
Re: (Score:2)
How about not losing their Internet connectivity? Seems like a pretty direct benefit to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just Hardware you also have application software with limits, I support several at work that were purchased/developed in the last two year that require connection to a server running a background service.
The field for the server "REQUIRES" a x.x.x.x IP format (won't even except a host-name) and won't work any other way, some of this software is required by state law so it can't be replace with another product. (we have to wait for the lazy software devs at the company to change it)
I hate cheap-ass
Re: (Score:3)
Most enterprise "LAN" switches are protocol aware, however. Ever heard of a VLAN? QoS?
More to the point, routers are protocol aware and I'd wager that most are not IPv6 capable, and if they are, they are not part of an IPv6 enabled environment (which might require considerable expense to make it IPv6 enabled, or at least a lot of planning).
Re: (Score:2)
VLAN is on a protocol layer just under conventional Ethernet. As such it doesn't know anything about protocols on top of it.
It is possible for a switch to inspect the payload looking for headers at a much higher protocol layer than a switch should be concerning itself with, and apply different routing policy depending on what it finds.
In the worst case such a switch would put IPv6 packets into random queues misinterpreti
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Set up a 6to4 gateway somewhere and you can at least get a pilot program going to make sure everything's ready. Then pester your provider.
Re: (Score:2)
The operation systems are a nice start however you still have to deal with:
* almost no home router supports IPv6
* almost no provider offers IPv6
* almost no webpage runs IPv6
Re: (Score:2)
only #2 is false. many routers provide IPv6, and more webpages than you imagine do. I was running IPv6 for several monts through a tunnel, and all google sites, even youtube, work through IPv6. Even FACEBOOK runs ipv6 too...
Re: (Score:3)
ooops... only #2 is TRUE! #1 and #3 are false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
dual radio (2.4 GHz and 5.0 GHz simultaneously so I could separate my G from N)
IPv6 support
http://www.fritzbox.eu/en/products/FRITZBox_Fon_WLAN_7390/index.php?tab=1 [fritzbox.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Many pages have special ip6 domain names, such ipv6.google.com or www.v6.facebook.com. Almost none have IPv6 on their main domain name, they all still experiment with it, but hesitate to actually deploy it.
And about routers, this list [sixxs.net] is rather short and certainly doesn't qualify as "many". The really shocking part isn't even that hardly anybody has a IPv6 capable router at home, but that even routers you buy today for most part still completly lack any IPv6 capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
ipv6.google.com doesn't work anymore. Your ISP needs to partner with Google so google's DNS serves will return IPv6 addresses to hosts in those networks.
Google or Facebook aren't hesitating. They're actually working on it. I don't know what else you want them to do. Of course they're not going to put IPv6 on their main domain, but that's only because most OSs and hosts have a broken implementation: they ask for an AAAA record first, timeout, and ask for an A record then. They don't check if IPv6 is working
Home Router Support exists (Score:2)
That's much less true these days. Buffalo routers [buffalo-technology.com] ship with DDWRT as the factory installed firmware, and that means they all support IPv6. I'm sure they aren't the only ones that do this. And at any rate, if ISPs would start renting out Buffalo routers to customers they would soon have IPv6 capable equipment on a lot of their networks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
* almost no home router supports IPv6
Linksys E3000 router
* almost no provider offers IPv6
http://www.comcast6.net/ [comcast6.net]
* almost no webpage runs IPv6
You mean like Google? http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ [google.com]
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry to have to say this to you like this, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Did you think about the infrastructure where you connect all those PC's?. Take Cisco in the Datacenter for example, current status is:
Routers and switches support IPv6 (excluding Nexus 1000V)
Firewalls (ASA) support IPv6
Firewall Service Modules (Cisco's Datacenter firewall solution) don't support IPv6 in transparent mode, don't support failover in IPv6, don't support IPv6 on hardware (which make them useless for real traffic)
Load Balancers (ACE), no support
WAN optimization, no support
Ironport, no support
etc.
And even if this support comes, in most cases it's not just a simple software update, you have to update the hardware and you're talking 10's of thousands of dollars for each. So believe me, it's not that easy, even with the will and the money, in some cases there is no even offering from the vendors at this point, which is shameful.
Re: (Score:2)
So we don't have IPv6 because vendors don't implement it, or because customers don't ask for it?
Money, money, money (Score:2)
IPv4 managers: "Hey, guys, first come first served, and there's little left. Start worrying!"
IP buyers: "AS IF!!! This affects the suckers coming in last place! My v4 internet won't just go poof! It's like the cockroach, the VGA port, the ball-mouse and the 4:3 TVs people got 10 years ago"
When IPv6 legislation worldwide exists to do onto IPv4 what in USA digital TV legislation did to our trusty analog TVs here, we'll see a real deadline. Speaking IPv6 is like speaking Esperanto: cool if you do, but not usef
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Cisco 877 at home running native IPv6 [on.net], using the Advanced IP IOS image.
I installed a new 877 this week for a client, and was surprised that the Advanced Security IOS image lacks IPv6 support.
You have to pay extra for IPv6 at cisco. pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows XP/2003 does not support IPv6 in any meaningful way. Yes, it has it in network config page. However, for example, it won't make DNS calls over IPv6 even when querying AAAA records. Forget getting SMB running over IPv6 properly. Finally, some products like Exchange 2003 and ISA 2004 and others have zero IPv6 support.
Only Vista/7 and their server counterparts have full IPv6 support.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like you can have anything but dual stack in the next ten years. Just run NATted IPv4 which handles DNS just fine, and use IPv6 for anything that can benefit from it. SMB is not supposed to ever leave your local network (and is abysmally slow if it does), so that's not a blocker either.
XP isn't the core problem... (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is fine. If I cared (I have been debating it) I could probably get my home internal network doing internal IPv6 and connected out via a tunnel this weekend (if I didn't already have some other things to do, like clean out the room that is to become the new office).
Might be able to do it at a small business, in a few days to weeks, if things were otherwise slow.
Try it on a large multi-site network that runs continuously. Coordinating changes between multiple groups, with varying level of skill and network clue, and varying responsibilities, all while everyone is doing their normal day job.
Shit, its going to take you two years of meetings just to explain to mid level managers why they need to get the high level managers on board so they can make all the little fiefdoms work together on something that isn't directly of interest to any of them, but yours.
Of course, its only two years because I figure its about that long before the high level manager hears some BS about someone else who did IpV6 and then asks the mid level managers that you have been battering for years about why they aren't doing it when these other people are.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a router that was made in the past month, designed from scratch in the past 6 months, and it doesn't support IPv6. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of those routers out there. I'm sure there is more, but that's one that I have that I've bought. IPv6 is so far off the corporate roadmap that there are plenty of hardware makers who still don't support it and expect that the ISPs will do IPv4 to IPv6 translations or such.
Re: (Score:2)
No, everyone needs a real IP not NAT. The internet is not fucking cable TV, we are all nodes not just moronic consumers.
NAT is bad network design. Also I went to a college at a university, you seem to have attended a composite work of art.
Re: (Score:2)
NAT works. Even more, it works now. Random user PC that is used to browse the web does not need a real IP, all incoming ports would be blocked by a firewall anyway. Most of the computers in a given company are client-only PCs.
IPv6 is badly designed (not that I could have made anything better). There are a lot of devices that do not support IPv6 and will never support it (for example my printer). So, you need to either replace the devices (and get the money where? Especially if the device does its primary fu
Re: (Score:2)
Your sig is missing a closing parenthesis.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
The world is consuming a /8 - 16 million addresses - roughly every 3 weeks.
Your piddling 65k addresses for a class B? 2 hours, tops.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. That just delays the problem by a few months, it doesn't solve it. There's not enough IP space for all the devices being hooked up, period. No matter how we divvy it up. NAT is not a solution.
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would it matter if you have the same IP address you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different one?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it matter if you have the same IP address you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different one?
Ask wikileaks. We're entering a world where you can't rely on DNS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah like what happened to them is really likely to happen to the average person. Grow up.
In the mean time, facebook and twitter are banned from China (at least the hotel I was in last month), with the only technical means being a forged DNS entry. The BBC is currently banned because of the Peace prize coverage, I assume the same mechanism. DNS is the weakest link in the internet, and you might not even notice it.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would it matter if you have the same phone number you've had for several years? What's wrong with switching to a different one?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Not the same. My phone number is published, my IP address isn't. I've moved IP addresses for my server four times in the last year. I set the DNS TTL to a few seconds, wait for old caches to expire, update it to the new address, and then reset the TTL to a longer value. No on notices.
I just moved to a new mobile phone company too. My SIM ID, which is used to uniquely identify my phone on the network, changed. My phone number was moved across. The phone number is just an entry in a database that maps to a SIM ID, just as DNS maps to IP addresses (actually, DNS can map to all sorts of other things, including geospacial coordinates and telephone numbers).
That's why we have these layers of indirection - so the low-level ones can be changed easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is the same. You just aren't used to have to ask the whitepages where person X is at the moment everytime you dial him up.
In fact, it isn't until very recently you where able to move a phonenumber with you (EU, no idea how it works in US) - requiring you to update all those who might want to contact you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you are trying to be clever or not, so I'll bite anyway...
Before the new fangled internet came along, we had a thing called a telephone directory which provided a lookup between name and number, somewhat like DNS. Even better, you could call the operator (or a directory enquiries service) and get them to look up the number for a name if you knew their rough address.
Of course, you could be ex-directory, and this would be like an IP address with no DNS.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it matter if you have the same IP address you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different one?
There isn't. The problem is you asked the wrong question.
This is ARIN we are talking about, they don't deal with single IP addresses.
Try a /16 block, or 65000 IP addresses.
To reword your question into relevance: "Why would it matter if you have the same 65000 IP addresses you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different 65000 addresses?"
Can you not imagine the undue amount of work such a change would involve to renumber that many computers, servers, routers, switches, DNS entries,
Bankrupt companies? (Score:3)
Maybe that's the final legacy of dead startups: their IPV4 address block is worth more than the company ever was.
I got one (Score:5, Interesting)
I just checked. My 1994 class C is still allocated to me. I have no idea how to regain control over it though as every single contact detail, except my name, is outdated by 15 years.
It was never used on the public internet. But back then they said you should get one for your local lan. This was before everyone started doing 192.168.x.y. So I applied for a class C and got it.
Even if I did manage to get RIPE to correct the contact details, I do not know any ISP who would advertize it for me. So this class C is part of the dead IPv4 space that will probably never get used.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, why don't you send a notarized letter via certified post to your regional IP address manager (e.g. ARIN) describing the details under which you obtained the block and giving up any interest in same? If they need that block back it would at least give them a starting point to work with.
sPh
Re:I got one (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but here's some perspective from someone who has been in the thick of the ARIN policy process for the last few years:
First, you're talking about RIPE (european IP addresses) while the article is about the registration services process at ARIN (north american IP addresses).
Had you been talking about ARIN, this is frankly the kind of thing where you'll want to sign the LRSA and soon. ARIN will work with you to nail down the details and confirm the registration but they'll want to normalize their relationship with you via a signed contract first. I think they'll still update if you come to them with ironclad documentation, but if you had ironclad documentation you'd have been the kind of person who kept the registration up to date to begin with.
For those who are still contactable via at least the email address published on the registration, now is not the time to sign the LRSA. ARIN claims you have more rights under the LRSA than under the regular RSA but on close examination the claim doesn't really hold up. It's a standard adhesion contract in which the powerful party has reserved the rights to themselves.
That having been said, keep tabs on proposed ARIN policy every 6 months or so. ARIN probably won't seek the legal liability from trying to seize legacy registrations that are obviously in use, but the situation could change.
If you are in the situation where your contact details are dead, I personally think you SHOULD sign the LRSA and normalize things with ARIN. A /24 is going to be worth at least $1000 within 12 months, and probably a lot more. IPv6 won't deploy fast enough, the IPv4 free pool will be gone by mid year and the only source of new IPv4 addresses will be folks who are willing to sell.
On the other side, the unrouted dead registrations without valid contacts are very likely to evaporate in the next 24 months. The ARIN policies for this sort of reclamation aren't in place yet, but mark my words: they will be.
Re: (Score:2)
When i
Re: (Score:3)
"But what's going to happen? Will IANA stop giving out numbers and say, "sorry, nothing we can do. No more numbers."
Yes. Quite possibly in less than a month.
When we're down to 5 /8's they're distributed to the RIRs automatically and IANA shuts down its ipv4 operations forever.
The RIRs then have until their v4 pool runs dry - they won't get any more - which may be quite quick for some (like apnic) and slower for others.
After that it's down to what ISPs have - they'll probably ramp up their prices for v4 an
Re: (Score:3)
With y2k, there was significant worry that existing infrastructure would cease to function. With this, it's mostly a threat of new services not being able to get started. Slowing growth is much less worrisome than an immediate reversal of 50 years of progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much any colo where you have a box should be able to announce it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you forward your mail from the old address to the current one, then request action by mail?
Re: (Score:2)
In my area it is only possible to forward mail for 6 months. It is certianly not possible to forward mail from an address I had 15 years ago.
The email is to a no longer existing ISP, using their domain of course.
The phone number is likely in use by someone else by now, and with the wrong area code in any case.
I would probably have to find some proof that I lived at that address 15 years ago and present it to RIPE. But why would I bother? I have no use for that class C. Big companies that waste a class A can
who cares (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Call me crazy, but wasn't DNS invented to remove the significance of using IP addresses as a means of identification?
That was before Javascript security issues mandated dns pinning.
Not that everything (or really much of anything) actually implemented DNS TTLs before, but I like blaming Javascript for all the world's ills.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realize w/out javascript, the web would be a pretty boring place.
Without javascript, the web as we know it would not exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Never! (Score:2)
They can pry 127.0.0.1 out of by cold, dead hands!
Re: (Score:2)
Here, have a ::1
IPv6 is important. (Score:2)
Every time this discussion comes up, people fail to see the significance of IPv4 running out. It's 2010, and folks still get confused.
The significance is this: There are massive growth regions in the world that will only be able to purchase IPv6 addresses within the next year or two. And if you aren't playing the IPv6 game, then you're shutting you and your customers off from all those various markets that will open up in years to come.
There's only so much can be squeezed out of IPv4. But regardless of how
Nobody should own more than /24 (Score:2)
People who say "just switch to IPv6" simply don't get it. The reason is that even after you "switch", you really haven't switched at all beca
Re: (Score:2)
What are ARIN's contractual obligations for address ranges they have allocated? Can they just decide to give notice that addresses will be rescinded?
Re:the internet a fuedal domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It is superficially similar to a simplified approximation of the feudal land-granting system.
Re:the internet a fuedal domain (Score:4, Funny)
I'm being repressed!
Re: (Score:2)
What has really killed IPv6 is not cost but lack of interest if not disinterest. You IT department at work does not really want the machine at your desk to be a true internet peer. They have a block of public IPs to hosts your orgs public services on and they can solve their other access problems with NAT. The need is meet and it even simplifies things in some ways depending on your perspective. At home your ISP who for most of America is probably also in the content distribution business does not care.
Re: (Score:2)
As one of those IT guys at work I strongly disagree. NAT is a hack and a terrible one. Use a firewall for that.
Re: (Score:2)
That is only for NAT, it is not actually needed at all. I have plenty of machines with real IPs in a class C just for my servers that I firewall from the rest of the world. On the ports needed you can get through just fine on the very same IPs.
NAT is not needed for this to work.
Re: (Score:2)
NAT is the wrong solution to that problem anyway. They should instead block incoming SYN packets, problem solved ... (your TCP connections can persist after the firewall reboots)
So, all that would be needed to go trough the firewall would be to start the connection without the SYN flag. This would simplify NAT-T and would allow P2P software to work where it shouldn't.
Also, instead of using a separate firewall, you can use NAT and get the same result (no incoming connections). A small company (a few users, no externally accessible servers and slow connection) can just use a cheap consumer NAT router. Is there a cheap consumer firewall? Also, there is no point giving every computer a
Re: (Score:2)
Greece has squandered its income on short sighted social programs (instead of investing in school, just dump money on people so they shut up) while relying on fickle businesses like tourism for income (ya know, the kind that feel it first when the economy takes a dive).
Ireland attracted companies with a low tax policy that ruined the finances in the long term for a short time increase in jobs.
I doubt either can be seen as a result of "long time, planned, future investment".
Re: (Score:2)
No actually Ireland's public finances were looking pretty good until they made a really stupid promise. They promised to fully backstop their large banks. That was a black hole that in turn cased the governments credit worth to come into question. Given how many of the largest firms their or foreign they probably could have and should have let the banks fail with little collateral damage.; More specifically guaranteed only the deposits to keep money from fleeing the country and told the bond and equity h
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that culture has indeed worked out for Europe. In fact, I think Ireland and Greece have definitely benefited the most by screwing over the short-term (haven't they screwed over the long term, as well?).
You can blame the financial companies for giving countries the rope to hang themselves with, but the Greek and Irish debt crisis are almost all about public debt. To please the voters by providing lots of services and generous benefits while keeping taxes low, they've completely ignored basic economics like making your income match your expenses and just let the budget deficit run wild. Eventually the lenders go "Whoa whoa whoa, you want to borrow even MORE?" First they do it for a risk premium then they fi
Re: (Score:2)
He's probably a Linux kiddie feeling leet on Solaris who doesn't know that he should use DELETE instead of BACKSPACE.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of people think that the free market has been an utterly catastrophic mechanism for handling scarce properties. It has resulted in massive wealth concentration as clever individuals leveraged small differentials to exploit others to increase those differences, which is pretty much the opposite of what nearly everyone wants out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)