Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Mozilla Rolls Out Sponsored Tiles To Firefox Nightly's New Tab Page

Dagger2 Re:Well... (170 comments)

I and others have offered to maintain the features I listed above, and Mozilla have rejected our assistance. I'm an extension developer, and maintain a bunch of extensions which exist for the sole purpose of making recent Firefox versions sane, so this isn't a hollow offer: I (and/or other people) will be maintaining extensions to do these things anyway, but Mozilla is refusing to integrate that code into Firefox.

(Note that CTR is a pretty clear demonstration that you can't do all those things in Firefox, or there wouldn't be an extension for it.)

9 hours ago
top

Mozilla Rolls Out Sponsored Tiles To Firefox Nightly's New Tab Page

Dagger2 Re:Well... (170 comments)

You can't stick stuff on a toolbar at the bottom of the screen, you can't uncombine or even move stop/reload, you can't move back/forward or put buttons between them and the address bar, you can't get rid of the conditional forward button, you can't put the tab toolbar under the navigation toolbar, you can't turn the broken toolbar button styling off with Small Icons mode any more, and you can't put stuff at the far right of the navigation toolbar because the Menu button is there and unmovable. Probably plus other stuff that I've forgotten or not discovered because I don't use Australis.

3 days ago
top

Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

Dagger2 Re:Which Filesystem? (315 comments)

ZFS. It's by far and away the best choice for data storage like this. Even if you ignore its technical features (lz4 and gzip compression, checksumming (including of metadata, which you won't manage with a script), redundant metadata so you don't lose entire directories to a single badly-placed bad block, snapshots and the ability to incrementally send snapshots over a pipe to another pool, native block devices, ...), it's just way nicer to administrate than btrfs, which is the only possible contender.

Just don't be tempted by its dedup. You'll regret turning that on.

5 days ago
top

New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells

Dagger2 Re:So what they need, then... (185 comments)

By scanning the pattern and constructing a new brain with the same patterns. Implementation details are left as an exercise for the reader.

This seems like it'd be extremely hard but not necessarily impossible. The bigger issue is that you'd essentially be fork()ing your mind -- the original mind would still be stuck in the original body, so the whole procedure wouldn't help it any.

about two weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:just ask carriers. (248 comments)

The odd thing is that they don't. Want a bigger allocation on Comcast? I guess you could buy Comcast Business, but that's inappropriate for residential use (it's a business account, after all)... and even that only gets you a /56. If you want more than that, I don't think you even have the option to pay for it. More v4 addresses? 95% of ISPs won't give you that, regardless of how much you're willing to spend. (Of course exhaustion is beginning to justify this, but these are the same ISPs that claim they "have enough v4 addresses to not need v6", so presumably they have enough.) Some ISPs will sell you a static IP, but not many. rDNS? Snort.

about two weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:just ask carriers. (248 comments)

They're giving /56 to business customers... I can only assume they sat down and worked out what allocation sizes would be reasonable, then deliberately picked the next size down, because we couldn't possibly have good service from an ISP.

I can't yet imagine what I would use more than a /60 for.

I've got a router here that supports two guest wifi networks, so that's 3 /64s already. Throw in one or two people using VMs with routed networks and maybe a son that went and plugged a second router in behind the first (which is generally dumb, but it ought to work) and suddenly you're looking at half of that /60 gone, and you've already had to throw away aggregation and nice rDNS sub-delegation to get it.

And that's just the stuff people are using today. I have no imagination, so I have no idea what we might get in the future if we actually had the infrastructure to support it.

about two weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:just ask carriers. (248 comments)

Comcast's is native. AT&T's deployment is 6rd, where a /60 is justifiable, but all Comcast needed to do was write "56" in their config files rather than "60"...

A /60 is definitely better than nothing, yeah, and probably enough for 90% of people these days. But that's not what we should be targeting. We should be targeting "enough for pretty much everybody", and "for the foreseeable future" -- including for any new, fun things that become possible because of easily-available address space.

about two weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:Betteridge (248 comments)

Of course it won't. The internet is growing and v6 is there to handle that growth, so of course it's going to end up with more prefixes. However, the number of prefixes scales much better with network size in v6, due to the much lower HD-ratio (which is a big part of why the address space is so huge in the first place). A v6 prefix tends to take 2x the TCAM space a v4 prefix does, but v6 can handle the same number of nodes with way fewer than half the prefixes that end up being needed in v4.

about three weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:Hmm, the example on that page is interesting (248 comments)

If you use SLAAC to automatically configure an address, it does it by putting the MAC (rather, EUI-64) address in the lower 64 bits. If your address comes from something other than SLAAC then it doesn't need to have the MAC address there.

about three weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:Ipv6 to ipv4 interoperability is only way (248 comments)

Your solution is to a problem that doesn't exist. v6 already supports a gradual rollout and transition period: all you have to do is roll it out without disabling your existing v4.

about three weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:just ask carriers. (248 comments)

/60 is actually pretty small; RFC 6177 basically says you should be getting /56 or bigger.

Though it's certainly better than the one /64 that far too many ISPs are doing (or the "no routed space whatsoever, on-link only" that way too many datacenters do...).

about three weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:Ipv6 is the fix ? (248 comments)

See RFCs 1715 and 3194. Lower HD-ratio means less fragmentation of allocations, which means fewer routes required to cover the same number of hosts. Each route takes twice the memory, but you have way fewer than half the number of routes because your allocations aren't fragmented to hell and back.

about three weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:IPv6 would make the problem worse (248 comments)

v6 makes things better, because it uses 128-bit addresses rather than 32-bit addresses. See RFCs 1715 and 3194 for the details.

Yes, there's a small linear factor of extra memory required for v6 routes vs v4 routes, but that's irrelevant compared to the route count reduction that comes from a lower HD ratio.

about three weeks ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Dagger2 Re:IPv6 (248 comments)

Unless IPv6 addresses are being handed out in a way that's much more conducive to this, it won't really change anything

Which they are, as a direct result of v6 being so huge. See RFCs 1715 and 3194 for discussion on this.

Obviously in the long run we'll end up with a higher absolute count of routes in v6 (because supporting more people was the other reason for it) but the route count will scale far better than a network that has to be run at a ridiculously high HD-ratio because it's too small.

about three weeks ago
top

The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router

Dagger2 Re:Comcast engineer here (224 comments)

Yeah, it's technically possible in v4, but I need a /27 for my network and I guess most people need /28-/29. Your /19 is only 512 /28s, so I guess you aren't going to be giving those out. Realistically, your users are going to end up with 1 v4 IP each, and be stuck with NAT.

(Until you get more than a few thousand customers and have to start CGNATing, at which point they're screwed, especially without v6 as an alternative.)

Who running dual stack gives out blocks of v6 to end users as part of the "standard" residential low-cost service? What sizes are the blocks?

Pretty much everybody does. My ISP gives a /48, and even Comcast give up to /60. (Then there's the depressingly large amount of ISPs that only do one /64, despite RFC 6177 basically saying that you should be getting at least /56...)

about three weeks ago
top

The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router

Dagger2 Re:Comcast engineer here (224 comments)

I believe dual stack uses resources that increases cost and complexity for the end users, and I don't want to subject them to an inferior service.

Well, it doesn't. If anything the lack of NAT means it uses fewer resources, but nobody will notice anyway because the resource usage of an IP protocol is irrelevantly tiny.

if I have to go out and buy a bunch of v4 addresses for them anyway, why shouldn't I just give them standard v4 Internet?

You know where this logic is headed, right? It won't be long before you won't be able to buy a bunch of v4 addresses for them. Or maybe you will, but they'll be expensive enough to seriously impact your bottom line. Will an extra $5/mo on each customer's bill be enough to count as an inferior experience for them? What about $10/mo? $20/mo? (Not just your bill, mind. Their Netflix bill too, or anybody else they pay for any services that need a server to run. Or maybe the service is free, but shut down because servers are too expensive due to the IP cost.)

That's the future you're trying to get for your users. I don't think it's superior.

If you can't [I'll assume "can"] name a single one that isn't "religious", then I'll reconsider

If you have v6, you can accept inbound connections on any of your computers without dealing with port forwarding/NAT.

There are others, but whatever, there's one.

about three weeks ago
top

The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router

Dagger2 Re:Comcast engineer here (224 comments)

If you read my above posts, you'll see I'm not asking you to punish your customers. I'm specifically asking you to do dual stack, so your customers have v6 and Skype works. There is no need to break Skype to get v6 to your customers.

about three weeks ago
top

The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router

Dagger2 Re:Comcast engineer here (224 comments)

I blame you, and people like you, for refusing to roll out v6. If you'd all just do it, we'd be done by now. Please do your part.

Yes, the situation with Skype sucks, but it's not preventing you from rolling out v6, it's only preventing you from not rolling out v4. We need v6 now; sunsetting v4 has to come after that, not before. Yes, I know it sucks that you can't do v6-only networks yet, but rolling out v6 is step 1 in getting to that point, so please do it.

about three weeks ago
top

The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router

Dagger2 Re:Comcast engineer here (224 comments)

That's BS. You need v6 to reach other people's v6 servers. Other people need you to have v6 so they can run v6 servers. Your users need v6 so they can run servers that other people can actually connect to without fucking around with NAT. You need v6 for when you inevitably run out of v4 addresses and start having to do CGNAT -- over 50% of your traffic will be on v6, so your CGNAT boxes will only need to handle half the traffic they otherwise would, which makes them cheaper (not to mention your customers will actually be able to receive connections). The internet needs everybody to have v6 because v4 is a clusterfuck with this many users and it's only going to get worse.

You don't need to handle "4-6 NAT" and "6-4 CGNAT" for this. You're overcomplicating it. Just do dual stack. It's easy and it works perfectly fine (and it doesn't break Skype, or anything else).

about three weeks ago
top

The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router

Dagger2 Re:Comcast engineer here (224 comments)

Skype works just as well on a dual-stack network as it does on a v4 only one. It is broken on v6-only networks even with NAT64 in the picture, which definitely sucks, but please don't let it stop you rolling out v6! Skype is only a blocker if you're trying to remove your v4, which is a separate step that you don't need to be doing yet.

(It's broken because it exchanges v4 literal addresses in the protocol -- there's no space for v6 addresses and it doesn't use DNS, so NAT64+DNS64 is out. Of course MS could fix it easily enough if they could just be bothered to...)

There's also DS-Lite if you really desperately want to run a v6-only access network, but generally dual stack is the way to go, particularly for any network that already exists.

about three weeks ago

Submissions

Dagger2 hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Dagger2 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>