Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Chinese speakers only (Score 1) 463

fluency in [ mandarin | Chinese ] is a plus

Of course it's a plus. I'm likely to be hiring a group of Mechanical Engineers in the next six months, and I certainly want at least one of them to be fluent in Mandarin to make it easier to work with Chinese suppliers. It would be pretty handy if they speak Korean, Japanese or Hindi, too.

-jcr

Comment Re: I manage Internet connections in 148 locations (Score 1) 125

Qwest are apparently doing 6rd so you should be able to get v6 with them too, albeit over a tunnel.

I have this set up, and can attest that it works reasonably well. The only real problem is that (presumably unlike native IPv6) you aren't assigned a static IPv6 prefix; it's tied to your dynamic IPv4 address. Consequently, I also have a Hurricane Electric tunnel configured with a static IPv6 prefix for use in DNS. This required some complicated source-based routing rules, though, so it's not for everyone. (You can't route HE packets out over the 6rd tunnel or vice-versa, and normal routing only looks at the destination address. To make it work you have to set up multiple routing tables ("ip route table ...") and select the proper one based on the source address ("ip rule add from ... table ...").

Of course, one could just pay extra $$$ for a static IPv4 address, which would provide a static 6rd prefix...

Comment Re:IoA (Score 3, Informative) 125

That would be well and fine if most IPv6 addresses didn't have a 64-bit or even 80-bit prefix, identical for everything routable at the endpoint.

That 64-bit network prefix is the equivalent of 4 billion entire IPv4 internets—and each "host" in each of those internets contains its very own set of 2**32 IPv4 internets in the 64-bit suffix. Quadrupling the number of bits from 32 to 128 means raising the number of addresses to the fourth power (2**32 vs. 2**128 = (2**32)**4). We can afford to spare a few bits for the sake of a more hierarchical and yet automated allocation policy that addresses some of the more glaring issues with IPv4, like the address conflicts which inevitably occur when merging two existing private networks.

Think of it this way: If we manage to be just half as efficient in our use of address bits compared to IPv4, it will still be enough to give every public IPv4 address its own private 32-bit IPv4 internet. Right now the vast majority of IPv6 unicast space is still classified as "reserved", so we have plenty of time to adjust our policies if it turns out that we need to be more frugal.

Then there are DHCP addressing schemes that use the MAC as part of the address, further reducing it.

Automatic address assignment (based on MAC or random addresses or whatever) comes out of the host-specific suffix, not the network prefix, so it doesn't reduce the number of usable addresses any more than the prefix alone. It does imply that you need at least a 64-bit host part in order to ensure globally uniqueness without manual assignment, but the recommended 64-bit split between network and host was already part of the standard.

Comment Re:What I would do different is DNS related (Score 1) 125

1) First I would have done only countries and no other TLD.

Personally, I would have done the opposite, and demoted country-specific sites to a second-level domain like .us.gov. The Internet is an international network; forcing every domain to be classified first and foremost according to its national origin would cause needless discord. Only a small minority of sites are truly country-specific.

it could have been debian.cc or debian.de or any other that they wanted

In which case the country code would communicate zero information about the site—so why have it at all?

What might make more sense would be using registrars as TLDs (e.g. google.mm for MarkMonitor), with a convention that multiple TLDs can contain the same subdomains if and only if they mirror each other. This would tie in well with DNSSEC while also avoiding the need to defend one's domain name against scammers in a million separate TLDs. If a government just happens to run its own registrar it could use the country code for its TLD alongside non-country TLDs. The main difference from the current system would be that TLDs would be generic rather than catering to a particular kind of site, which is mostly the case in practice anyway: .com no longer implies commerce, not every .org is a non-profit, .net does not imply an ISP, etc. Instead, the TLD would imply a trust relationship; the name "google.mm" would imply looking up the "google" subdomain in the MarkMonitor domain registry, which would presumably be listed among the user's local trust anchors. If there were an alternative domain like "google.vs" (for VeriSign) it would be required to resolve to the same address.

Slashdot Top Deals

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein

Working...