Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: Great idea at the concept stage. (Score 1) 254 254

Your ISP is an ass. They got at least a /32 from their RIR. If IPv6 allowed say /120 subnets, they would probably be handing you a /120 instead of a /64.

Are you using a router with DHCP-PD? Are you sure it is asking from more than a single /64?

Comment: Re:Please stop trying to make the Internet better (Score 2) 69 69

An insightful rant.

We have only been building multitasking OSes for what, 50+ years, and yet people feel the need to instantiate a full VM just to run an additional instance of an application. Of course, the fact that many apps run on well known TCP ports (instead of using DNS service names) makes it difficult to demultiplex to multiple instances of the same app, unless each instance is running in a VM with a virtualized NIC address. IPv6 could fix this problem without the overhead of virtualization (give each app instance it's own IPv6 address).

Mobile IP and LISP are just bandaids trying to stem the bleeding from the poor design of TCP/IPv4, which ties application instance naming to a small port number plus a topology locator. ILNPv6 (RFC6740) or HIP (RFC 5201) fix the same problems in much more elegant ways.

SDN, properly conceived, has some valid technical use cases. Centralized, reactive, per-flow switching is not one of them (wait and see how the network behaves on a node-down). A lot of what has driven SDN to-date is not technical, but political: break the Cisco strangle-hold and provide something shiny for the VCs to pour money into.

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350