Yahoo IPv6 Upgrade Could Shut Out 1M Users 290
alphadogg writes "Yahoo is forging ahead with a move to IPv6 on its main Web site by year-end despite worries that up to 1 million Internet users may be unable to access it initially. Yahoo's massive engineering effort to support IPv6 — the long-anticipated upgrade to the Internet's main communications protocol — could at first shut out potential www.yahoo.com users due to what the company and others call 'IPv6 brokenness.'"
Real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Notice it does say 'potential'. :-P
And, yes, I have to ask the same thing ... I've not used Yahoo's search in over a decade (do they have one anymore?), and except for Flickr, I'm not aware of a single thing from Yahoo I might use.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yahoo Sports is the highest trafficked sports site on the web, more than ESPN, CNN-SI, AOL Fanhouse, FoxSports, CBS Sportsline, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
No more than you're an asshole.
Look, all I said is that I'm not personally aware of any offering from Yahoo that people still use besides Flickr ... not that since I don't use it, it must be irrelevant. I don't use Facebook either, but it's clearly not irrelevant.
I'd happily accept the second half of your post and say "gee, thanks for the info, I didn't know that".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you use facebook yahoo can get your contacts out into a csv file and then import them into google contacts.
that could be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, the people in my country are using almost exclusively yahoo IM (and more recently facebook alongside)
Re:Real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo mail (Score:5, Interesting)
Yahoo mail has a nice tab-based interface so you can open multiple emails while writing a few more, which Gmail is missing. It's also hard to migrate 10 years' of emails to a new service (they make it hard, at least) - not to mention getting everyone to use your new email address.
Re: (Score:3)
No problem for me. I weeded out my 10 years of emails down to 200 of actually real emails that need to be kept. then I set my yahoo email address to auto foreward to my Gmail.
Also by not giving out the old email address PLUS having my sig on my emails showing that my email address has changed to his new one... I have not had 20 legitimate emails hit my yahoo account in a year.
It's not hard, you just cant be lazy about moving to a new email address.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh, aren't tabs something your browser supplies? At least in mine, I can open multiple GMail tabs with separate emails just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also hard to migrate 10 years' of emails to a new service (they make it hard, at least)....
I've got to say that just knowing that would make me work pretty hard to move away. That's me, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I actually still maintain a premium email account with them for one reason: the disposable email addresses. I have the email all forwarded to my Gmail account because the integration with my phone is...considerably better. However, the email address I give out when shopping or to corporations I do business with is one of my disposable email addys on yahoo. Gmail doesn't have anything like it, afaik. Yes, on gmail you can add suffixes (myemail+ebay@gmail.com), but people are free to leave out the suffix
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've thought about this. I do think it's somewhat of a hack though, to have to go into another email account rather than having it built into the account you are actually using (granted I'm doing that with the Yahoo account, but other than saving me $19/year, there's not a lot of benefit to me vs the pain of switching all the extant registrations I have). There is another problem with it I ran into before, though. When I started migrating to Gmail, I initially was going to try to do something like
Re: (Score:2)
I use Yahoo Zimbra to view my Yahoo accounts on my Ubuntu box.
Clean interface (nothing like their online webmail), and even though I have an old version I can copy/paste migrate the program (as I did when I just upgraded my hard disk).
Works fine, no reason to fuck with it, good spam filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I know several people that have yahoo accounts because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
One reason could be that Yahoo still provides co-branded DSL services through SBC.
That's AT&T, for the last several years, but yeah.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes [unica.com]. And then some:
- May 12, 2010
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Where's your <snark> tag?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as FreeBSD doesn't die, they should.
(Yahoo! runs FreeBSD on their web frontend servers and for backend operations, last I heard.)
Isn't there something a bit 'iffy' in terms of the quality of the KAME reference implementation that FreeBSD uses for it's IPv6 stack? I seem to recall reading something about it not being quite 'complete' or stable, but that may have been in the context of something else.
Re: (Score:3)
I have recently changed my default search engine in Chromium to Yahoo because of Google's annoying Instant Preview "feature" that can't be turned-off.
You can turn off Google Instant using the Settings [google.com] link.
(and Yahoo search is powered by Bing now [techcrunch.com])
killer app (Score:5, Funny)
Once Yahoo! is only available over IPv6, the internet will have no choice but to upgrade!
Re: (Score:2)
Once Yahoo! is only available over IPv6, the internet will have no choice but to upgrade!
More like "Once Yahoo! is only available over IPv6, the internet will carry on regardless"
IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (Score:4, Informative)
That isn't what they're doing (yet). Although the headline/summary made it sound like they were shutting out IPv4 users, this is not the case. They will be supporting both simultaneously.
What that means is that if a website advertises itself as simultaneously IPv4/IPv6 compliant, and someone's computer/browser thinks they are IPv6 compliant but their attempts to connect via IPv6 don't make it through (ISP? router? modem? who knows), their connection times out and the site is unreachable.
The solution in this case would be to identify the node that doesn't support IPv6 (might be difficult) or force the system on the user-end to use IPv4 (shouldn't be that hard). It certainly shouldn't be the end of the world, and it shouldn't really even affect too many people. And it will be a push to at least support IPv6 (not necessarily require it) at every step of the path so that users whose computers are capable of IPv6 connections can actually connect successfully over it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if anyone thought of forcing AAAA requests (dns IPv6 requests) for those sites only on ipv6 packets, and denying them if they are in ipv4 packets
Re: (Score:3)
Even systems with working IPv6 still make DNS requests over IPv4. The system would have to be pure IPv6 and not dual-stack to make that work. Besides that, DNS servers work by forwarding and caching requests and results. Even if a client made a IPv6 DNS request, its DNS server may forward that request on IPv4.
Re: (Score:3)
Even systems with working IPv6 still make DNS requests over IPv4.
More specifically, an IPv6 system may make a DNS request over IPv6, which goes to the ISP's DNS cache. This cache may then issue a DNS request over IPv4. Similarly, the converse may happen - a DNS cache may handle a v4 request by doing a v6 recursive query.
Re: (Score:2)
their connection times out and the site is unreachable.
What actually happens is the connection times out and then the browser requests the page over IPV4.
Unfortunately the browsers (at least firefox last time I tried it) seem to rely on the OS timeouts (which are very long) and don't seem to remember that V6 failed before. The result is the site works but is EXCRUCIATINGLY slow (IIRC well over a minute per page).
Re:IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't what they're doing (yet). Although the headline/summary made it sound like they were shutting out IPv4 users, this is not the case. They will be supporting both simultaneously.
You are correct. I believe it's called "running a dual stack."
If slashdotters want to test whether their present system (client, router, NAT, firewall, proxy, ISP) is IPv6-ready, go here [test-ipv6.com]. Its free and there s a ton of good information about the conversion "issues" and what you'll need to do to become a full IPv6 citizen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[...] if a website advertises itself as simultaneously IPv4/IPv6 compliant, and someone's computer/browser thinks they are IPv6 compliant but their attempts to connect via IPv6 don't make it through (ISP? router? modem? who knows), their connection times out and the site is unreachable.
More precisely: if the DNS has both v6 (AAAA) and v4 (A) records for the site's name, and the client prefers v6 connectivity over v4, and a v6 connection can't be established for some reason, the site will appear to be broken. Most large sites have measured this kind of brokenness, but haven't published their methodology nor results; there is an exception [www.fud.no], but it's limited to Scandinavian users. It is nevertheless a very interesting analysis, which basically suggests that eliminating just two sources of bro
Great logic there Lou (Score:5, Insightful)
From
IPv6 experts say some Internet users will experience slowdowns or have trouble connecting to IPv6-enabled Web sites because they have misconfigured or misbehaving network equipment
to
"IPv6 brokenness."
So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but if they changed their infrastructure to no longer be compatible with your existing (and working) plumbing and expected you to pay to upgrade, you'd be mad, right?
One of the problems with IPv6 is everybody already has networking equipment that they've paid for and that works ... I can't see much motivation for most people/organizations to switch to IPv6, especially if it means it breaks what they've already got. I can also see making
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but if they changed their infrastructure to no longer be compatible with your existing (and working) plumbing and expected you to pay to upgrade, you'd be mad, right?
This is actually a pretty good analogy. Suppose the city was upgrading to higher pressure water in order to be able to reach further (yeah I know doesn't really work that way). So about 20 years ago the city started telling everyone they were going to switch over and if you have antique, clay pipes in your home, you'll need to make sure your main intake valve handles things correctly or it could jam and cause problems. So, having bought a new intake valve within the last decade (and really who hasn't bought
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose the city was upgrading to higher pressure water in order to be able to reach further (yeah I know doesn't really work that way).
By the false extension of logic and reality, your analogy is pretty bad. You can't base the thesis of your argument on "Suppose balls were square..." and expect cogency.
More like: my water bill goes up because the city deems it appropriate to redistribute the cost to me for the new subdivision, instead of pushing it to where it belongs (the people in the new subdivision).
As far as IPv6, I see only two benefits:
* bigger address space
* DNSSEC (which is arguably fairly large, because it'll -hopefully - cut dow
Re: (Score:2)
NAT will scale up to ~32k times what we have today. Then you're done
IPv4 has about 3 billion usable addresses (given that class E is multicast, F is unusable and some space in A B and C will be taken up by subnetting overhead). According to wikipedia the "UN HIGH" estimate of world population by 2100 is 14 billion. That is about one IP for every 5 people. Even given that things won't be allocated evenly I think that is still a reasonable level of NAT.
Plus there is nothing stopping a NAT using the same natte
Re: (Score:3)
You mean other than not wanting to end up sitting all alone in IPv4 space pinging themselves so they can feel like someone cares?
I've been doing 6to4 tunneling on a years old WRT54GL. If you have to buy a new router, blame the vendor of the old one for not providing a firmware update, because the hardware is certainly capable of it.
Comcast is pressuring cable-modem vendors to provide the needed firmware updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm in favor of it if you can do it in such a way that every home user doesn't find themselves with a broken network connection and no idea of what went wrong.
It just seems like it's been one of those things that has sat there for a very long time.
Not being a networking guy ... I can't figure out if it
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of it has been lazy vendors sticking their heads in the sand and pinching pennies. It took the DOD mandating v6 support on all new equipment to motivate the vendors to even offer v6 in theory (though often without even the most rudimentary testing).
Of course a lot of that was because so many management teams ascribe to the piss on fires theory of change management and lack of v6 wasn't even smoldering yet. It doesn't matter if you give them 100 years heads up time, they will wait until it's an emergen
Re:Great logic there Lou (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point.
We're not speaking about switching to pure IPv6. We're speaking of making Yahoo accessible over both IPv4 and IPv6.
Pure IPv4 ("legacy") sites will have no problem, they'll just contact Yahoo over IPv4. Properly configured dual-stack sites will have no problem, they'll have a choice between IPv4 and IPv6. It's only mis-configured clients that might have problems.
The article claims that 0.05% of Yahoo's customers are mis-configured. These 0.05% will need to either disable IPv6, or fix their systems. --jch
Re: (Score:2)
I already have a static IP address, and if I want to talk to individual devices within my house, I use a VPN connection, so what benefit does IPv6 have for me? Nobody else is using it, so there is no network effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would VPN go away?
I'm pretty sure companies won't want to stop having a separate, encrypted network connection.
I don't understand why IPv6 obviates the VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
This is bullshit. Every single ISP I know that offers IPv6 service today delegates a prefix. All the ones I know that are preparing commercial IPv6 services will be delegating prefixes. Even the tethering you're going to get from your IPv6-capable mobile phone will delegate a /64 prefix. Most residential providers will delegate at least a /56 and the ones run by SMART PEOPLE will delegate a /48 to each subscriber.
There is no need for residential. mobile and small-office subscribers to use NAT for IPv6.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but if the water company switches to IPv6 water and your plumbing is incompatible, you might blame them. After all, water is water, and the plumbing worked just fine until they changed something.
Or, to put it in light of a bit of recent history, a lot of Americans are still grumbling at local broadcasters and the FCC because over-the-air TV was working JUST FINE until June 2009, when ALL OF A SUDDEN the rabbit ears weren't enough. And that was with a sustained, repetitive, annoyingly pervasive advertisi
Re: (Score:3)
The only change they made was to add all new IPv6 water mains. The old IPv4 mains are still there and unchanged. The problem is that you had your plumbing redone by an incompetent who connected it so that it sometimes believes that it is hooked to the IPv6 mains when it actually only connects the the IPv4 ones
Re: (Score:3)
The truth is that analog was far more robust. I might not get a great signal, but I got a usable one. Now I don't even get that.
And the trade off was that the analog signal used around four times the bandwidth to get that robustness...
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to complain if your plumbing was fine until they doubled the water pressure on the main, yeah.
Re: (Score:3)
That happened on my street. I live in the historic district (basically 1 street full of 100-130 year old houses) and when they replaced the old leaky water main suddenly the whole street was plagued with exploding plumbing.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said when I went to Boston, "you know you're in an old city [by New World standards] if Fenway Park at 98 years is relatively young amongst the local landmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two major technical issues obstructing IPv6 adoption for home users:
Now you're router is probably physically cable of handling IPv6 routing, a linksys wrt54g from 5 years ago can do it if you flash OpenWRT firmware onto it.
Your logic is no better (Score:2)
So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?
No you should blame your plumber if they install your plumbing wrong. You should blame the water company if they install the plumbing service connecting to your house wrong. Unless you are in fact the plumber, it's not your fault.
Also last I checked your water service didn't change the size and standards of pipes every couple of decades.
Re: (Score:2)
So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?
Obviously, we all know that one shouldn't blame either a web site or the ISP for misconfiguration of a home router or operating system, but most users don't know anything about protocols and won't be able to make the distinction. What's less clear to me is who should be taking most of the blame? Is it Microsoft, router manufacturers or OEMs? In any of those cases, the company should be providing upgrades to fix the problem.
But (Score:2)
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there some operating systems out there which still aren't compatible with IPv6, or is it a problem at the ISPs level?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be incredibly surprised at the number of people who still use Windows 2000, or even Windows 9x, which don't have support for IPv6 (although to be fair, if you're running Win2k at this point you probably have enough smarts to sort it out).
At the same time, many ISPs are unequipped to deal with it too. For instance, my ISP (Virgin Media in the UK) have no plans as of yet to roll it out. There's going to be lots of incompatibilities all around.
The person above who said about the DTV transitioning (which
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the case.
Like most others, Yahoo's website is only available through IPv4. Thus, even computers that have IPv6 still use IPv4 to get to access Yahoo.
When they enable IPv6, computers which have IPv6 will try to use IPv6 to access Yahoo.
Computers which aren't compatible with IPv6 are actually fine: they'll just use IPv4 like always.
The problem here is that there's a large number of computers which (thinks) it has IPv6 connectivity but actually, the IPv6 connectivity is broken. Thus, when Yahoo e
Re: (Score:2)
It's no problem when your OS doesn't support IPv6. It's a problem when your OS supports IPv6 and believes it can reach the internet via IPv6, but can't. That's a _really_ rare condition.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that Yahoo is not abandoning IPv4 support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly OSX has a bug related to handling sites that can be accessed via both IP4 and IP6 (or at where least the dns has entries for both). Do not recall the details right now, nor if it has been fixed or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly OSX has a bug related to handling sites that can be accessed via both IP4 and IP6 (or at where least the dns has entries for both). Do not recall the details right now, nor if it has been fixed or not.
Not yet, next version supposedly nails it (according to a friend who knows these things). IIRC, Windows 7 is good-to-go.
But, then what happens to people running Windows Vista, Snow Leopard, etc.? I guess they'll get patches if enough people are harmed sufficiently.
In every corner it still looks li
So what? (Score:2)
I feel bad for that 1M, kind of, but any change you make will shut out at least that many with setups that are broken in other ways. I bet there are more than 1M people still on Netscape 4, but I'll be darned if I'll take them into account when planning service or network upgrades.
as opposed to IPv4 brokenness (Score:2)
yet another article that's skeptical of how ready IPv6 is. The amount of brokenness that is there is not very big. Of all the people that have the full Internet (that is IPv4 *and* IPv6) most will simply connect to any IPv6 website without issues.
And apart from the fact that yahoo seems to be a US only thing, and even there is not so relevant anymore, I applaud them doing IPv6, when they get to it. (and after Google, Comcast, Akamai and many others)
I wish we'd get over this "brokenness" story and simply dep
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Every piece of commecial networking equipment i've ever used has been IPv4 only. Now, they could likely be upgraded to IPv6 by firmware update, but most vendors probably wouldn't do that for existing equipment and want you to buy new equipment. In addition, 99% of applications i've seen that are IP aware are only IPv4 aware. Again, that's a big problem.
I don't see how only 1% of people will be affected.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people with no IPv6 support are entirely unaffected. This only affects people with broken, not absent, IPv6 support.
Despite the haterade (Score:3)
Yahoo still has a lot of good stuff. Mail and calendar work well, there is useful news and finance pages as well. I was playing around with their YUI stuff yesterday, and it is pretty cool and open source.
Sites should probably serve ipv6 from a separate colo to a separate domain name to work the kinks out first, e.g. yahoov6.com. After a testing period they could start moving the support over, assuming the results were good.
Impact due to misconfiguration? (Score:3)
IIRC the problem isn't with computers that don't support IPv6. It's with networks where the computers and DNS software does support IPv6 but there's no IPv6 connectivity. In those cases a name query gets back AAAA records, the computer tries to connect via IPv6, and the connection doesn't go through because IPv6 traffic doesn't have a route off the local network. If your computers don't support IPv6 at all, the problem doesn't happen (the AAAA records never get used). If the DNS software (probably in your router) doesn't support IPv6, it won't do queries for AAAA records in the first place. Note also that at the other end (the DNS servers for the web site's domain) there should also be filtering in place: AAAA records shouldn't be being returned in queries that came in via IPv4. But not all sites do that filtering, so clients have to be prepared to get IPv6-only data back in IPv4 responses and filter it out.
A German website tried this (Score:5, Interesting)
They had their servers respond to both IPv4 and IPv6 on the same domain name for a day. Among one million visitors they only had 5 with a problem. 2 could be solved by rebooting the router and or the computer, 2 had unreleated problems with their internet, and one actually had triggered a bug in the OS.
http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IPv6-Tag-bei-heise-de-Erste-Ergebnisse-1081201.html [heise.de]
Re: (Score:2)
5 *had* a problem, or 5 *reported* a problem?
The real "problem" is that people who can't access your site won't jump through hoops to report the fact-- they'll just leave. I can't read German, so I don't know if they compensated for this, but your summary isn't really helpful.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a website with a community. The experiment was largely publicised before and people knew how to get to them easily. There were no complaints about outage in the forums afterwards. In fact they have no completely switched to dual-stack.
So in short, I do not think that much more than those 5 had a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact they have no completely switched to dual-stack.
Tough word to make a typo on - 'now', 'not'? Your point hinges on a letter.
Good for them (Score:2)
People (and ISPs) are never going to switch to IPv6 if it does not affect them directly. If a major website, such as Yahoo, makes the move, then the ISPs will be forced to update, or loose customers. If only Youtube and Facebook would follow suit....
Re: (Score:2)
From a content provider's point of view, this should make it desirable to deliver content over IPv6 since it is not NATed, etc. Hopefully more content providers become aware of this because it'll be the case w
1500 byte MTU (Score:2)
I sure hope no one is relying on 1500 byte MTU paths. As I recall, the most anyone can rely on is 576.
Many QoS setups mess with MTU and so does VPN of various kinds.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit of a misnomer... (Score:2)
First, it's not really IPv6 brokenness so much as it is an issue with hosts that think they have IPv6 connectivity, but, really don't.
Second, in most cases, affected users will see long page load times, not complete inability to access the site.
The 0.05% number is probably pretty accurate. Several sites have used embedded tests to measure this and come to the same number. However, the good news is that a year ago, this was 0.1% and it is continuing to trend downward.
With IANA running out of IPv4 this month,
Yahoo! is relying on old, incomplete data. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo! has been talking about this at conferences for a while, but I'm not sure they are using good data. Here's a lighting talk from NANOG about it:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/presentations/Tuesday/Igor_ipv6_recursive_light_N46.pdf
Page 2 has the crux of the issue, Yahoo! claims if you add AAAA records that 0.078% of the user base "breaks", that is they understand a AAAA enough to try IPv6, but they lack IPv6 connectivity to the destination.
There was a time this made sense. A lot of early IPv6 deployments were islands without complete connectivity. Additionally, up until about 18 months ago there was a serious lack of IPv6 interconnectivity between ISPs, they were still figuring out how to turn up peering, filter, and so on.
However, times change. ISP's are now fairly well interconnected, and getting a lot better every day. Almost no one turns up IPv6 as an island anymore. Interestingly, some of the original islands still exist, on purpose, as they are test labs or other non-production deployments. The people use them expect them to be broken in some ways, in some cases to test what the user experience is when various things break. Indeed, I suspect the number of islands is small, and constant, and thus an ever decreasing percentage of the IPv6 user base.
Another large issue with the numbers is that they are only measuring the difference between the status quo and one of the four outcomes. A user could have:
A) Broken IPv4, Broken IPv6.
B) Broken IPv4, Working IPv6.
C) Working IPv4, Broken IPv6.
D) Working IPv4, Working IPv6.
What Yahoo has done is measure the status quo (IPv4 only) to bullet point C.
However, there will be some folks in bullet B. These are folks who can't get to Yahoo! today at all, but would be able to if Yahoo! had AAAA's. Granted, it's probably smaller, but still is an offset. Basically they are trying to scare folks that 470k folks might not be able to access Yahoo with IPv6. However, 470k folks may already be unable to access it via IPv4, they just can't measure that right now because they never see the requests!
There is also the looming issue. As a we run out of IPv4 addresses (likely in late 2011) ISP's will basically be forced to turn up IPv6 only users. Even if you take Yahoo!'s numbers as correct, that 0.078% are broken, then all you would need is a larger percentage than that of the user base to be IPv6 ONLY and it makes more sense to have AAAA's and exclude them. Basically 1% deployment of IPv6 completely flips their argument if the goal is serving the largest number of folks.
My take, some folks inside Yahoo! collected some rather raw data early on in IPv6's life cycle. Folks from Marketing and such read too much into it, and went into a panic that some large number of users wouldn't be abel to get to Yahoo! This created a huge issue for the engineers trying to deploy IPv6, which they have been fighting ever since.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. A and B are, for all practical purposes, not on the internet as we consider the internet to be today. In fact, I would consider the union of groups C and D to be the closest thing possible do a meaningful definition of what the internet is.
I would be amazed if group B could be considered part of the internet, as most people think of such a thing, in less than 2 years. 5 seems more likely, or even 10.
Summary misrepresents article (Score:2)
The a
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
They've got a special article up right now on the latest Racy dress worn by Venus Williams.
Now I've bolstered their network activity by sending half of /. their way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yahoo Finance is much better than the competition. Yahoo Mail is still the market leader, just slightly ahead of Hotmail, possibly because they were one of the first. Flickr is quite popular as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Yahoo Finance worlds better than Google or MSN
Yahoo Stores is a popular interface for web stores
Flickr, Delicious, etc
Re:Yahoo IPv6 Upgrade Could Shut Out 1M Users ... (Score:4, Funny)
It's not even a shutout from what I understand. The IPv6 request will timeout after a while and revert to IPv4, so while people will certainly experience slowdowns, I doubt anyone will be actually unable to access the site. Detect this and point people to resources to resolve the problem and things will take care of themselves. And by things taking care of themselves I mean that you will be asked to go fix the internet by your parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, friends-who-are-only-friends-when-there's-a-computer-problem, and your grandma's bridge partner who you once installed a printer for.
Honestly, if it weren't for the army of computer geeks fixing most of the IT problems for friends and family I think the whole thing would collapse overnight.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe this can help? [sixxs.net]
Aside: Woah, I pasted something and it worked!
Re: (Score:2)
No more downloading of TV shows I missed (like Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch, Conan O'brien, Rachel Maddow, et cetera).
OK, how does Yahoo! figure in to downloading these shows? Bravo for being able to do so on dial-up, BTW.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that include the two dozen users who WANT to view Yahoo's websites?
Re: (Score:3)
I welcome a commitment to move ahead even if it means a few people will have to fix their Internet connection. Hopefully they have an ISP that can help them, and if not, they should probably find a different ISP.
After all the mess we will have if websites remain
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking about users of IPv4-only ISPs, not Yahoo
Re: (Score:2)
Right, like that makes a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
but for people making it one of top 10 sites on global market and number 1 in markets like Japan, it does have a value.
Well, yeah, if you value it based soley on visitors, and not content.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could mean that since Yahoo Mail alone has 300M registered users (never mind their other services) then 1M having a problem is statistically insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could mean that since Yahoo Mail alone has 300M registered users (never mind their other services) then 1M having a problem is statistically insignificant.
To whom?
Re: (Score:2)