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

Chrome For Mac Drops 32-bit Build

Dagger2 Re:Addenum: FF is nothing like Chrome (125 comments)

Whereas FF is far and away the MOST customizable

Mozilla are working hard to "fix" this though. It's not even as customizable as its own previous versions.

10 hours ago
top

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

Dagger2 Re: Great idea at the concept stage. (253 comments)

My recommendations to that are a) use DNS anyway (you can limit which clients get access to which zones, so you can keep them internal if you really want), or at least a hosts file, b) pick your IPs carefully to avoid dealing with horrible addresses, c) copy/paste.

e.g.:
# host he.net
he.net has address 216.218.186.2
he.net has IPv6 address 2001:470:0:76::2

16 characters vs 13 characters isn't too bad, and it's the same effort to copy/paste either way... and if NAT is involved then the v4 side gets silly because you have to deal with two addresses for that machine, which is definitely more effort than those 3 extra characters.

about a week ago
top

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

Dagger2 Re: Great idea at the concept stage. (253 comments)

Neither. That's just an IP.

If it was http://2001::48:8080/ then you'd be connecting on port 80. If it was http://[2001::48:8080]:8080/, then it'd be port 8080. It's not the most wonderful syntax, but it's not ambiguous either... and it's not like anybody deals with IPs on a regular basis anyway, because we have this "DNS" thing that saves you from doing it.

about two weeks ago
top

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

Dagger2 Re: Great idea at the concept stage. (253 comments)

That decision was made almost 20 years ago, and I haven't had much luck finding any records of the discussion about it. I can, however, point out that there's a big difference between numbering networks and numbering hosts. A 48-bit space for numbering hosts is tight; a 64-bit space for numbering networks is not.

And your ISP is supposed to be giving at least a /56, so take your allocation size up with them. If they won't give you more, it's not IPv6's fault, it's their fault.

about two weeks ago
top

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

Dagger2 Re:Yeah, that's gonna work (253 comments)

Uh... yes there is.

a) Being able to connect to someone else's (or your own) v6 machine is useful.
b) Not needing NAT is very useful. It's much, much easier to manage a network that doesn't use NAT.

Even putting (a) aside, (b) makes it cheaper and nicer to admin your network. Unless you're a masochist, why wouldn't you want that?

about two weeks ago
top

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

Dagger2 Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (253 comments)

NAT rewrites addresses; firewalls don't. The former breaks inbound connections and complicates everything for the network admin and for anything that needs to know your IP. There's no reason to do that to yourself unless you absolutely have to.

about two weeks ago
top

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

Dagger2 Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (253 comments)

It's not a firewall. NAT doesn't block incoming connections, it breaks incoming connections (and more besides). We should not be basing the internet around something that does that.

about two weeks ago
top

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

Dagger2 Re: Great idea at the concept stage. (253 comments)

This is pretty much what IPv6 did.

Once you sit down and hash out all of the details of this "just add a few more octets" plan, you end up with roughly what we've already got. Except, of course, we decided to add 12 octets rather than 2, because 48 bits is hilariously too small for the current internet, let alone to handle future growth.

about two weeks ago
top

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

Dagger2 Re:Well... (171 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.)

about two weeks ago
top

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

Dagger2 Re:Well... (171 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.

about two weeks ago
top

Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

Dagger2 Re:Which Filesystem? (316 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.

about three weeks 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 three 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 a month 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 a month 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 a month 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 a month 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 a month 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 a month 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 a month 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>