Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:What about Firefox's declining market share? (Score 1) 129

People who are aware of the technical differences between browsers do not swing the great "market share" % points up or down; they're the extreme minority

They are the minority, but they're also usually the free tech support guy for friends and family. In the past, I used to aggressively push Firefox to anybody I could, but I wouldn't do that for the current Firefox.

Given that Firefox doesn't have much else in the way of marketing, I wonder how big an impact the deliberate loss/disenfranchisement of their technical user base is having.

Comment Re:Has IPv6's reputation just been destroyed? (Score 1) 229

Ah, yes, "through NAT". That's why they aren't suitable for connecting to the internet: because the only way to get them to even sort-of work is with NAT.

NAT makes your network more complicated, and therefore more expensive (in either money or time) to deal with. The amount of money spent on implementing, testing and debugging NAT traversal in all the software that needs it (games, VoIP, etc) is silly and it doesn't even work all the time. And manually setting up port forwards is a pain and it only works if your ISP even gives you at least one public IP; the moment they put you behind CGNAT (as many ISPs in the US are doing, because they don't even have enough IPs to give one per subscriber) then you're totally screwed.

Let's not even touch on RFC1918 clashes with VPNs or when merging two company networks, or the routing table size (which is going to trend way upwards as v4 fragments further and further) or the spiralling costs of buying v4 blocks off of other people.

Tons of NAT everywhere is not viable, sensible or acceptable for the future of the internet. It's been great as a delaying tactic, yes, I'll grant you that, but continuing to cling to it is just stupid.

Comment Re:Has IPv6's reputation just been destroyed? (Score 1) 229

They aren't, because there aren't enough v4 addresses to do that (did you somehow miss the memo on that?).

If your home network isn't connected to the internet, then fine, but most people want internet access and thus will need v6 on their home network to reach servers on the internet.

Comment Re:necessary but obscure addressing (Score 1) 112

While I wouldn't argue the need for better firewall software (something that does per-application firewalling on Linux, please?), you're not actually a sitting duck on v6. Your router's firewall will prevent any inbound connections, and the sheer size of a v6 /64 means that it's hard to even find a functioning IP to attempt connect to (although you shouldn't rely on that obscurity).

If you're going to disable anything, you're better off disabling v4.

Slashdot Top Deals

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller

Working...