Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Modding != Cheating/Hacking (Score 1) 135

I agree. And it's not (just) for the sake of cheating - sometimes, I wish to set up certain scenarios. Like in Civ IV, I'd want to set up certain civilizations w/ certain preset cities, scattered on some islands, before starting a game. So I'd go into the scenario editor, set it all up, save it and then start the game from that point. They got rid of the scenario editor in Civ V, replacing it w/ XML tables somewhere, but I'd like to see it return in Civ VI

Comment value of coal (Score 1) 173

Actually, while there is a case for not using coal just to produce energy, producing metals out of their ores is a very valid use of coal. As it is, that carbon dioxide is trapped in the mines - never gets out in the quantities that, say, factories produce when burning coal for electricity. As long as we keep digging up iron ore, bauxite, copper ore and other metal ores, we'll need comparable amounts of coal to extract those metals. And that is the only thing that coal should be needed for.

Comment Re:This simply means we're succeeding. (Score 3, Insightful) 173

Actually, this trend makes pretty good sense.

Electricity - while the oldest form of generating electricity involved burning coal or oil, there had evolved several alternatives to it, thanks to electricity generation being stationary. Like hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. So it was not difficult to minimize one's dependence on carbon based fuels, aside from the political brinksmanship - the environmental protests that the dams will drown the fish, nuclear will be another Fukushima, windmills will slaughter birds that fly into it, leaving only solar, which is good in tropical and equatorial regions, but limited elsewhere.

Transportation is a different story, however, since one can't have hydroelectric damns on a train, nuclear power in a ship (aside from Russian icebreakers) or wind power driving a car. There, one is forced to use fossil fuels. However, if one can eliminate their use in electricity generation, that reduces their consumption, and ergo, whatever pollution they create. Hopefully, one day, solar powered cars would be completely viable.

Looks like the trend is right as far as reducing pollution due to electricity goes.

Comment Re:public routing table vs connection tuple (Score 1) 116

There are 3 ways of assigning IPv6 addresses. One is SLAAC, which is the usage of MAC addresses in EUI-64. Another is privacy extensions. The third is the use of DHCP v6, which would be analogous to DHCP v4 in IPv4. The third would be the ideal way to do it - manage the networks logically, and avoid needing >1 /64.

'NAT' on IPv6 is a Prefix translator, which avoids the pitfalls of NAT on IPv4, while retaining its advantages. It is a 1:1 relationship b/w a global unicast address and a site local address: it doesn't touch the interface ID. So you can use it for load balancing, you can use it if you change ISPs w/o disturbing the internal network, but you don't need to map one global unicast address to several site local addresses. So one avoids the need to consume port numbers that may be needed by applications.

Comment Re:32 bits address (Score 1) 116

I don't agree that 4 billion was ludicrous. Just theoretically. I mean, the world had more than a billion people then, which could easily be imagined as growing to 4 billion. If one imagined that each person would have something in his hand that would require an IP address, there was the case right there that 4 billion wouldn't suffice.

64 would have - if we had that, then we could have had Class B size subnets for everything, and everything beyond address 16 would have been the network address.

Comment Re:I wouldn't have (Score 1) 116

Actually, it was not so much the hoarding - it was the idea of Class addresses that was IPv4's undoing. By having Class A and Class B routable addresses, companies like DEC ended up w/ whole blocks that they were never going to exhaust. Not a bad idea when IPv4 was just the domain of the DoD. It's when it became the de facto internet standard that the shortcomings of Class addresses showed through

Comment Re:I wouldn't have (Score 1) 116

As far as routers go, the top 64 bits is the address - anything beyond that would really be handled by the switches. As far as the TCAM goes, w/ all the advances in process technology and CPUs, wouldn't the TCAMs have advanced as well? And if they are that expensive, as they would be since they don't normally go into consumer goods, then wouldn't companies like Intel be giving them capacity in some of their most advanced fabs?? I would sure prefer manufacturing that over SRAM, not to mention DRAM

Comment Re:I wouldn't have (Score 1) 116

ipv6 doubles the packet header size.. back then, that would've had significant impacts on performance.

Yeah, particularly since what we had then were 8 and 16 bit CPUs, and 32 bit was just entering the market. So that would have had a significant hit on an already slow internet at the time. But for those sort of applications, one would already have implemented them in FPGAs and ASICs.

I agree w/ darkain - we would not have had the opportunity to learn everything we did w/ IPv4. Also, another thing worth considering - at the time IP was conceived in DARPA, the idea was that it would be used only by the DoD, in which case, 32-bits was pretty adequate. Proliferating it in the open market was what exposed its limitations rather quickly, w/ the result that several types of NAT had to be devised.

However, I think that had we known what we know now, we could have created IPv4 and restricted it to DoD, while we could have created IPv6 and spread it to the world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematics deals exclusively with the relations of concepts to each other without consideration of their relation to experience. -- Albert Einstein

Working...