Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It wasn't better. (Score 1) 322

by Cramer (#49565513) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

Adding someone to a circle doesn't magically give me permission to see their NON-PUBLIC posts. Plus, you can block anyone, and they won't see any of your posts. This is no different than facebook.

The entire problem was that it wasn't different from FB. G+ was just one in a long line of attempts to be facebook; and forcing everyone to "use" G+ certainly didn't make them any friends. So, the choice is Facebook By Facebook -- a system that's been around for a long time with relatively little change, or Facebook by Google -- who is well know for chucking things under the bus. Gee, surprise! Google's chucking G+ under the bus. Google simply cannot. leave. things. alone.

Comment: Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score 1) 389

by Cramer (#49517469) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

With C and C++, the programmer has to keep up with it; thus they are constantly aware of memory usage. (well, those that aren't complete shits do.) In Java, the programmer has no say in it, so they don't think about it -- or for younger "programmers" (who may have never learned C/C++), don't know how.

Comment: Re: The answer has been clear (Score 2) 389

by Cramer (#49516789) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

You've obviously not work in the Real World(tm). Companies will continue using hardware as long as it works -- not broken, don't need new features/functions not possible through software update(s), or don't need additional capacity (based on space and/or power)

(Cell providers cycle through tech due to the last two.)

Comment: Re: The answer has been clear (Score 1) 389

by Cramer (#49516737) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

How the hell do you summarize two distant /56's out of some other provider's "non-portable" /32? Yes, the ISP ("owner" of the /32) will announce only the entire block. No other piece of that block should exist anywhere outside the ISP's network.

We've allowed that bullshit in IPv4 for decades. The potential size that represents within IPv6 means it must be absolutely FORBIDDEN , from day one until the end of days.

Comment: Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score 5, Insightful) 389

by Cramer (#49516713) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

RA, aka. ICMP router advertisement. Abandoned circa 1970 as a "bad idea". It was a colossally bad idea in the 90's, and f'ing suicidally bad in 2000+. Yeah, let's trust whoever the f*** on the cable claims to be a router and send it our traffic. Oh, to protect my network(s) from that brain damage, I have to buy new switches that support "RA Guard".

They didn't like DHCP. So "no f***ing DHCP in IPv6!" DHCPv6 is a bolt-on, staple-on, and bandaid addition to IPv6. It's a horribly incomplete shadow of DHCPv4, and still requires an RA tell you to use it.

SLAAC... originally 80bit prefix plus 48bit MAC. They ignored the fact that ethernet is not the only technology in the universe. That was later amended (breaking older stacks) to 64bits. The entire purpose for the vast over-simplification of address selection (for tiny embeded systems with limit RAM/ROM/CPU) became moot 7sec into the IPng committee's existance -- IPSec shoots all three in the head, repeatedly, with artillery. Everything supports privacy extensions these days, so the logic for random address generation and duplicate address detection is there -- and rather trivial. Yet it, and SLAAC, demands the prefix-length be 64. Just to put that silliness in perspective, that's a single LAN with every ethernet device ever created (that will ever be created) in it 65,536 times over.

This leads nicely into the blindness to history... a 64bit LAN is pure lunacy. Today and likely for several decades. But we "have an infinite amount of address space." Actually, NO, it is, in fact, quite finite: 128bits, to be exact. If we carve it up with the same pez-like abandon as the early IPv4 assignments, it will be even less "infinite". Sure, we can change the way we do things "with the next ::/8", but that dooms us to live with the colossal stupid of this ::/8 for ever. Again, dooming us (and our children's great grand-children) to live with our bullshit. We did a lot of stupid things with IPv4; and we're doing them all over again with IPv6.

Comment: Re:It is coming... On Weekends... From Home... (Score 1) 389

by Cramer (#49516257) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

Why would the home be the "first" place for wide IPv6 adoption

Because it only takes one ISP to stop being a little shit and turn it on for millions of users to suddenly appear. Enterprise networks require the network admin(s) to actively set it up; no amount of tweaks at the ISP can convert them.

Comment: Re:IPv6's day will come, but... (Score 1) 389

by Cramer (#49516219) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

Indeed. A great many don't know that switch has been flipped (aka Uverse.) In many cases, it's not until things are suddenly "broken" that anyone notices. (youtube suddenly gets slow -- going through an overloaded 6rd tunnel server, websites don't load as fast -- trying IPv6 first that then timesout, etc.)

Comment: Re:How about basic security? (Score 2) 389

by Cramer (#49516185) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

1: No encryption.

Wrong. The protocol has IPsec bolted-on at the socket level. However, you are correct in that nothing knows how to actually use it.

2: Attackers can view your entire IP space.

A: FIREWALL. B: A 2^64 (::/64) LAN will take a LONG time to scan. But, yes, if you know the address of the machine not protected by anything, it's a lame duck.

3: Untested stack, relatively.

Less tested than IPv4, maybe. IPv6 has been around a lot longer than you may realize, and while issues are still emerging, many of them are due to poor protocol design and not poor stack programming.

4: Support is spotty.

This depends on where you are and how much work you put into correcting it (read: tunnels.) But this is ultimately what the entire thread is about... ISPs simply aren't bothering to support IPv6. Those that do are doing so in a mostly jedi-hand-wave gesture for marketing.

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe