Obama Highlights IPv6 Issue 442
alphadogg writes "The Obama Administration bills itself as the most tech-savvy political team ever, but until now it has ignored one of the biggest issues facing the Internet: the rapid depletion of IPv4 Internet addresses and the imminent need for carriers and content providers to adopt IPv6. Today, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host a workshop on IPv6 that features high-profile executives from government, industry and Internet policymaking organizations. Some observers are hoping the Obama Administration will use the workshop to issue a deadline for all federal agencies to support IPv6 on their public-facing Web sites."
Re:NAT (Score:3, Informative)
There actually isn't any need for NAT with IPV6. Each public address will have 64000 addresses available to do the equivilent of nat'ing.
Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)
And why would you need nat for that? Inbound scans can be blocked by the firewall on the router. Outbound traffic sniffing needs to approximate anyways either by looking at the IP's in use or how fast the ports change in NAT (PAT really). NAT has never been anything but security through obscurity over a standard firewall.
Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)
Actually on the current 6rd deployment of comcast they are giving out more ip addresses for free. Mostly because they have to or you can't use the privacy extensions of ipv6.
Re:Already Run Out (Score:5, Informative)
In reality it's about getting rid of the restrictions of needing network address translation, allowing devices to be accessible by one address anywhere, unifying different forms of addressing like phone numbers, IPv4 addresses, multicast/anycast addresses, etc all into one address space, making routing more efficient, making autoconfiguration more seamless, getting built-in cryptography, etc, etc, etc.
Addresses running out is, for the reasons you give and more, really not what it's about, but it is a bit heart-wrenching to see tech-savvy people say we shouldn't go for IPv6 because we're not really running out; we aren't, but we still need to go for IPv6, and if tech-savvy people don't have one mind on this issue it'll take far longer than it should.
Re:Cool, I can't wait... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:NAT (Score:3, Informative)
Require NAT? As in *REQUIRE* and be the absolutely non-optional best-if-not-only way to do something? Would you mind naming a few of such scenarios?
Amongst the clueless, the answer usually revolves around "statefull firewalls can only be implemented by using NAT" or often some variety of security thru obscurity.
Amongst the clueful, the answer usually revolves around mobile vehicles with substantial LANs that want to talk to numerous fixed station networks, don't want to talk BGP, and don't want to do the proxy server thing. Another clueful application, although in my opinion generally misguided, is some pretty strange cluster based load balancing designs, although if it makes you feel better you can call your NAT box a "load balancer" instead of a NAT box, they are trying to do their load balancing directly at layer 3 instead of a proxy layer 7 solution or a DNS solution.
Re:Deadline (Score:1, Informative)
No, my point is that claiming Obama is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, especially when you consider what previous leaders have done, is ludicrous.
Re:Deadline (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't pay attention in school, did you. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Already Run Out (Score:3, Informative)
[citation needed] [potaroo.net]
Re:Why not go mobile IPv6? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's their motivation:
Re:Deadline (Score:3, Informative)
The problem isn't that Fox news isn't objective. The problem is that they have a conservative bias and all of the liberals here think that's a good reason to hate them.
Re:Deadline (Score:3, Informative)
FOX is Republican (or Libertariaan) leaning and people don't like Republicans/Libertarians.
Please.
People don't like FOX because FOX is populated by lying sacks of shit. Just look at how the mosque situation in NYC was handled: they attempt (badly) to link the Imam to a Saudi who supposedly funds terror, with no basis for their claims. And on top of it, their fucking hypocrites, conveniently neglecting to point out that that very same Saudi owns the second largest share of FOX corporate.
If they were just partisan, fine, so be it. But they actually *manufacture* news out of whole cloth... and in fact went to court (and won) to defend their right to do so!
The US was supposed to switch to metric in 1976 (Score:5, Informative)
I was visiting my father-in-law in Canada, and we were driving through northern Ontario. I'd gotten used to all the street signs in metric by then, and I was surprised to see an old highway sign with a distance in miles. My father-in-law pointed out that Canada had converted to the metric system in 1977, based upon the US plan to convert to the metric system in 1976.
I worked for a blueprint printing company for several years. One issue that often came up was difficulties in rescaling blueprints for different page sizes, as the arbitrary sheet sizes that were standard each had different ratios of length to width. As a political activist, I also often designed flyers; scaling flyers to half-size always came out ugly. One day, I happened to read up on ISO paper sizes, and how they were all based upon ratios of one to the square root of two, which meant that ratios were uniform and rescaling was easy. Apparently, ISO paper sizes are the standard used everywhere but in the US and a few countries in Latin America; Canada prints in US sizes because of the scale of the US market. The ratio of one to the square root of two was proposed early in the history of printing, centuries ago.
As I understand, all modern operating systems have native support for IPv6, and have had such support for years; part of the impetus is that the US Federal government had, at some point, announced a policy requiring any software it used to support IPv6. From what I can make out, it's the ISPs that are dragging their heels on implementing technology that's been tested and ready to deploy for years.
I can understand hesitancy to deploy radical new ideas. However, I don't understand the hesitancy to deploy ideas that have been tested exhaustively, deployed, and used widely.
Re:Deadline (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah it wasn't only Jews that were victims.
In the 1930s, long before the gas chambers were built, Hitler killed his own Germans simply because they were mentally retarded (purify the German race). Communists because they were considered an enemy of the national socialists. He did not kill but did imprison Christians who felt forcing Jews to wear stars was immoral (Pastor Niemoller in 1939, for example) and other white persons who dared question Hitler's rule. And sterilized Germans he considered inferior or "mongrel" instead of pure.
Even if Hitler had been executed in 1940, and never killed one single Jewish person, he would STILL be considered one of the worst tyrants in history (like Mussolini, Nero, Napoleon, Roberspierre, Pol Pot, ...) simply because of his anti-civil rights attitude.
Re:Deadline (Score:2, Informative)
All the news companies are populated by lying sacks of shit (yes, even NPR). Why does FOX get singled out?
Okay, well, you find another news organization that regularly attempts to deceive it's viewership, not just through simple spin, but by actually creating new facts out of whole cloth, and you might have a point. But I suspect you're gonna have a little trouble.
FOX news aren't simple spin artists. They're liars and propagandists, and actually had the audacity to defend their right to lie to their viewers in a fucking court of law. No other organization is so bald faced in their lying, so actively deceptive, so transparently partisan and unobjective in their news reporting (note, I distinguish this from the talking heads, who are universally liars and spin artists, at least to some degree).
Re:Deadline (Score:1, Informative)
Both "left" and "right" in america are "right" by world standards. You're kidding yourself if you think the truth is somewhere in the middle between fox and msnbc - they're both right wing corporatists!
Here we go YET AGAIN... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Deadline (Score:3, Informative)
MSNBC can only be compared to Fox on the basis of their primetime programming (and the overnight repeats). From roughly 5 am until 6 pm, MSNBC is rather balanced, while the Fox propaganda continues unabated. How can you call Joe Scarborough "pro-Democrat" and how does Mrs. Alan Greenspan (is she still on midday?) owe allegiance to anyone other than big business? You won't find a prominent Democratic ex Representative on for three hours on Fox. You won't find the spouse of the head of the UAW with a show on Fox.
The simple equation "MSNBC=Fox, but on the left" is absurd.
Re:Deadline (Score:2, Informative)
You have an atrocious memory.
Second year. He started in 2009.
The financial disaster started in early 2008 with some large problems in the financial industry, then became a really major issue with the stock markets losing some 30% of their value over the last few months, starting prior to the election, and basically leveling off before Obama ever even took office.
During that time, Bush and the congress of the time passed the TARP. After Obama took office, he passed the stimulus bill. So you really can't say he has done "basically nothing to counteract it." What would you have had him do?
Some 90% of the public was supportive of some form of health care reform. Then the bickering and misinformation started. Now we have a terrible bill (that's still better than nothing) that few support. One could say that Obama *was* doing what the voters wanted by initiating the health care reform. Unfortunately, it really didn't work out very well.
Anyway, your reality doesn't match my reality. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't match most other people's reality either when half of what you assert as facts are demonstratably false, and all you have left is subjective, unsupported opinion.
--Jeremy
Re:Deadline (Score:3, Informative)
Just ignore him, he's another one of those "Both sides are bad! (vote republican)" guys.
Re:Deadline (Score:4, Informative)
I was making a point. During the Bush era I saw Democrats/liberals carrying Hitler signs.
[citation needed]
But now suddenly, that's not allowed. Hypocrites.
Pending your above [citation needed], clearly two wrongs make a right, so you're now allowed to do it? Is that how that works?
By the way fascists ARE socialists.
Incorrect.
"socialist" was in the name of the 1920s-40s fascist parties of Spain, Italy, and Germany. And the parties of Eastern Europe, USSR and China.
[citation needed]
Nazism is a politically syncretic variety of fascism, which incorporates policies, tactics and philosophic tenets from left and right-wing politics. Italian fascism and German Nazism reject liberalism, democracy and Marxism.[67] Usually supported by the far right (military, business, Church), fascism is historically anti-communist, anti-conservative and anti-parliamentary.[68] The Nazis' rise to power was assisted by the Fascist government of Italy that began to financially subsidize the Nazi party in 1928.[69]
Of course not all socialists are fascists.
If I am willing to consider that "No" and "Not all" are close-ish, this is the first thing you've said that borders on being marginally correct.