288 posts • joined 11 Jan 2008
Re: Nothing good seems at all likely...
Oh? So it's bad to have someone from a small neutral country with a competitive telco market and a long record in Internetery chairing the Government Advisory Cttee? Seems to me there would be many much worse choices, given that the GAC exists at all.
My own cheesy comment is that the GAC has, fortunately, had very little impact on ICANN one way or another, and long may this continue.
Re: HTTP or HTML?
> I'm certain that Tim invented HTML (I was with him at CERN)
And I'm certain that Tim and Robert Cailliau invented HTML together (I worked at CERN too and knew them both well). At the time, CERN's "official" text formatting method was IBM's SGML/Bookmaster so we were all familiar with <angle/> brackets already. Tim was familiar with a markup language that Robert had designed some years earlier.
HTTP was mainly Tim, I believe (essentially it started as a fairly quick hack on top of Telnet).
See the book: How the Web was Born, James Gillies and Robert Cailliau, OUP, 2000.
Re: why is using alt dns stupid?
Because that way lies a fragmented network with some people arbitrarily cut off. Why do you think China runs an alternative root? Because it prevents global connectivity, of course.
I don't approve of the pointless extension of gTLDs; never have done and never will. But if new TLDs exist, I absolutely need to see them as a seamless part of the *the* Internet. Otherwise, it isn't the Internet at all.
What's wrong with .us, apart from the fact that the USA has lamentably failed to make good use of it? There are some perfectly valid domains in there with legit mail users (I have friends/colleagues with addresses in ca.us, ma.us, va.us, and chicago.il.us).
.me is being exploited, but how can you arbitrarily block all email from legitimate users in Montenegro?
Re: I think this is a cunning plan
Nah, it's the same plan as always: copy IBM strategy, but several years too late.
It's clear to all
"Irreversible encryption will make it very difficult — maybe even impossible — for law enforcement to obtain evidence, and I am not sure this reality is clear to all."
Yes it is, thanks. Actually, that's the point. It's even more clear in countries with authoritarian regimes and not even the tattered remains of the Magna Carta that we have in the US and UK.
Apparently the AG never read http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1984
Re: Not really a dumb question
Um, it's a bit more complicated than that. The techniques that site seems to be discussing (Teredo and 6to4) are pretty much obsolete - they were useful a few years ago when very few ISPs supported IPv6, but today you should really scream at your ISP that you want native IPv6 support. That would apply whether you are a domestic user or an enterprise customer.
> I thought that IPv6 networks were completely isolated from the IPv4
Er, no, that would have been a silly plan. The actual plan was that every ISP would go dual-stack (IPv6 and IPv4 on the same wires and boxes). That works -- it's what many ISPs do already -- but for some it appears more expensive than going straight to IPv6 and supporting legacy IPv4 by tunnelling or translation. What is sad is the number of ISPs who are now being left behind -- most of the UK, for example. What's even sadder is major players who are only accessible by legacy IPv4: shame on the BBC, and even more shame on Vulture Central.
Re: US is right, unluckily it can't sustain its position after the NSA debacle.
Yes it can, assuming the people at the other side of the table are capable of holding two ideas in their head at the same time:
1. USA was wrong to let the NSA act illegally.
2. USA is right to argue against governmental control of the Internet.
Idea 1 is of course a very strong argument in support of idea 2.
Re: The difference is not traffic priority....
The trouble is, that quote from RFC 791 has been obsolete since RFC 2474 in 1998. That RFC is called "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers" and its whole point is indeed what Huawei says: give different types of traffic a service level that suits that traffic. And it isn't about precedence (or priority) - it's about delivering an audio stream with low jitter while competing with a background download, for example. And yes, horror of horrors, some services might cost more than others.
Re: Wait a sec, that's Geneva
When they are outside WIPO's site they are subject to Swiss law, except in the course of their duties as international civil servants. otoh, the Geneva police are always very careful when dealing with internationals, because they know where Geneva's bread and butter comes from. What is more important is whether WIPO is indeed riding roughshod over their staff's rights, and that's very hard to judge from outside. For the staff to appeal directly to the member states is par for the course.
btw most NGOs in Geneva are *not* tax-exempt. The UN treaty organisations and CERN are generally tax-exempt, so that the tax payers of other countries do not effectively subsidise the tax payers of Geneva. Salaries are supposed to be calculated allowing for the absence of income tax.
Excellent! What else is there to say?
Re: They are probably right
Especially since allegation was that the taps are in Auckland and at a location north of Auckland, whereas the S Cross cables enter the water at two different locations. Who wants to tap the whole fibre anyway? A few DAGs in the equipment racks are what you need.
However, the PM's defence that NZ doesn't have the capability of analysing a tap rings true. Most likely the relevant taps are at the other ends of the cables. That they exist somewhere is pretty much obvious.
Yes, you could be wrong...
> if this happens i can see IPv6 never taking off
I think you're wrong for 2 reasons:
1) IPv6 has actually taken off in the last year or so. Just because you don't see it on *your* screen doesn't mean it's not there and growing fast.
2) NDN is a completely different and *much* more radical change; it won't have any impact on the need for ever more layer 3 addresses, and if it takes off outside the academic world (which is a *big* if) it will co-exist with the non-NDN network for, at a conservative guess, 25 years or more. By which time you will either be using IPv6 or runnning everything via 4 layers of NAT44.
Don't misunderstand me; I think NDN is a very cool design (and not even remotely comparable to OSI) but it's too radical a change to have an easy start.
Re: Could he consider
On the other hand, if Cam Slater was in the UK, we wouldn't have to deal with his biased selection of stories here. The whole thing is quite funny though: a left-wing conspiracy (alleged) outing a right-wing conspiracy (alleged) using (alleged) hacked emails, tweets and FB postings. The good news for the (alleged) left-wing conspiracy is that in the last few days, the Teflon (TM) coating on the Prime Minister John Key has been visibly flaking. The election might even be interesting as a result.
Please justify your statements with facts
"The US has recently asserted their control over the .com .org and .net domains in several court cases."
Can you please give specific citations to prove this statement?
"So I don't see ICANN's role changing much."
Since NTIA has specifically said that it wants to drop its existing contract with ICANN next year, there is certainly a good chance of significant change in ICANN's chain of accountability. And its role is mainly independent of its agreement with NTIA anyway.
"There are also agreements in place which guarantee continued US government involvement."
Again, please give specific citations.
Re: Call me naive, but ...
It certainly means you're grabbing data from an ARP cache, a neighbour discovery cache, or something in the DSLAM etc. In other words you are poking around much closer to the target machine than the normal Snowden-style snooping. Or it means that they have no idea what they're talking about....
Thank the Democrats
"This still leaves us with plenty of room to argue about state or planned involvement in basic technology, in the funding and finding of inventions. These can be helpful, but we crucially need to have that market bit as well: we might be able to do without the state part in invention but we simply cannot do without the market part in innovation."
The reason there's a market in this case is because the US Govt, in the shape of the Clinton Administration, notably V.P. Al Gore and Ira Magaziner, took explicit steps to open the Internet up as a competitive space in 1995. It didn't happen spontaneously or by chance. The "state part" was essential. (And if the web hadn't come along when it did, some other form of information infrastructure would have filled the same role. Technology details aren't really essential.)
A derivative work is a version that has been *changed* in some way, and the person who makes the changes can claim copyright in the changes, but not in the derivative work as a whole. When you licence your next novel, make sure you forbid derivative works as a condition of the licence.
Couldn't happen to a nastier company
I'm sad that it's only 20% though.
Re: Don't pretend it's a freedom of speech issue
Actually it's more serious than that. It's a freedom of the press (a.k.a media) issue. Where does the Eurocabal get off claiming that public notices and public news stories can magically become private data if the person involved is ashamed of them? This is the thin end of a slippery slope, to mix a couple of metaphors.
I have to give Google credit though: Google "Google removes 12 BBC News links" and you get the BBC page containing those links.
Re: Fixing at the wrong layer
No. Fixing it at layer 2 (or 3) is much worse than fixing it at layer 4. Actually the successful work at MIT on coded TCP proves this very neatly. If you detect errors at layer 2 (which is by definition hop-by-hop, not end-to-end) then a burst of bit errors followed by layer 2 retransmission (which is very common on a radio link) will result in a dramatic increase in the transfer time for a packet. This is a common problem on WiFi or 4G connections. Vanilla TCP will see a dramatically increased RTT, mistake this for congestion, and slow down as a result. Your performance goes down the tubes. That's why the MIT people figured out how to switch off layer 2 retransmission to get their factor 20 gain in throughput (Google "coded tcp" to find the evidence). The work reported in this story seems to be along the same lines.
Re: IPv6 like OSI is far more complex than necessary
" camel was a horse designed by a committe."
Actual, the camel was selected by evolution because it is very well suited to living in a desert where sources of water are few and far between. So it's a pretty good design for its environment, and the complexity compared to a horse adds value.
If you were stuck in the desert, would you rather see a horse or a camel approaching?
The analogy with IPv6 is perhaps not so bad.
It's really time to stop bitching about IPv6 being different
"simply added more bytes on the left"
Yet again I have to point out that this "simple" change would make all un-updated systems incompatible with all the new ones with bigger addresses, and therefore *all* the tricky problems of v4/v6 coexistence that we have been dealing with would have occurred just the same (dual stacks, tunnels, NAT64,...).
Also - contrary to the article, multihoming IPv6 sites without NAT is not a problem:
It's really time to stop bitching about IPv6 being different and just run it, already.
Longer version: Filtering of long prefixes is going to get quite a bit more aggressive in the next few days/weeks/months. Some paths will get longer as a result, and some black holes will appear as a result.
"Do these things that are broken by MPTCP support IPv6?"
Well, NAT doesn't, but we don't need or want NAT for IPv6, so that's fine.
Apart from that I think MPTCP is IP-version-agnostic. Also consider that multiple paths *require* multiple addresses, which are much more likely to occur with IPv6. So it's really the other way round: Is MPTCP actually any use for IPv4, considering that multiple paths are extremely rare?
"ICANN does not own the property it sells."
I suspect that if you read the small print, what they are selling is the right to use a slot in a database. But they didn't ever sell the right to use the slot named "ir"; ccTLD registrations cannot be sold by ICANN, because they have always been presumed to be for the exclusive use of the territory concerned, with any dispute settled within that territory.
The name "ir" is defined by an ISO standard (IS 3166). The right to use it, I think you will find, is a matter of international law and the UN Charter.
Quite different from the name "xxx", which came out of a process defined by ICANN.
That's pretty wrong about several aspects of v6, but in particular:
"strip away any hope of privacy from the average job by making damned sure that an IP in fact DOES map to a person."
Not so. Firstly, the worst case is that it maps to a MAC address, but even that is going away with the widespread adoption of pseudo-random interface identifiers that change at a reasonable frequency. Secondly, most privacy breaches happen at application level anyway (that's this metadata stuff that Mr Snowden brought to our attention). The IP version is a detail.
As for the other comments: yeah, we could have done a bit less engineering, but once you change the address length, you're incompatible anyway and most of the resulting transition problems would be just the same. Really.
Re: Late April Fool?
Well yes: "uses standards such as HTTPS, Restful APIs and JSON as a data format." In other words, fig-leaf security, a sloppy transaction model, and a very prolix data format. Not what I expected for cheap, low-end, battery conserving devices. Internet of Heavyweight Thingies, more like.
Dave Clark's a US citizen who lives in the Boston area. You may recall that they rejected a King, and the UK Parliament, some time ago. Rejecting Presidents and voting would still be contentious I guess. But the real message here is that if the opinions on a technology standard are split 51:49, the discussion isn't done yet. Voting on technical choices is a really dumb idea.
respect the existing rules for naming wine
Why does anybody, including even the dumbest French politician or fonctionnaire, imagine that any court judging a trademark or appellation violation would see any distinction whatever between misusing (say) champagne.com, champagne.fr, champagne.vin, champagne.wine, or for that matter champagne.xxx?
These new gTLDs are idiotic, but they don't change intellectual property law.
Re: This is not the ruling the press is making it out to be
On the contrary, there's nothing vague about the demolition job in paragraph (3).
<<Because petitioner’s system and media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, they too are patent ineligible... This Court has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting §101 “in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’ ” >>
IANAL, but that could be used against any number of junk patents.
Re: I don't see why?
I take it you mean the existing hooks in Cisco, Juniper, etc. They've been providing those hooks for years as an unwritten condition of their own US market share. Probably Huawei's real sin was failing to offer such hooks.
Re: We learned from the best
Huh? The Germans were way behind the 5 Eyes countries in cryptanalysis during WW2. A lot of scientists were whizzed across the Atlantic though: look up Operation Paperclip in your favourite search engine, or see this URL:
Re: When did computing & networking close?
I'm guessing that the old Mathematics Division morphed into http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/mathematics-modelling-and-simulation/.
You might like David Yates' book: D.M. Yates, Turing’s Legacy: A History of Computing at the National Physical Laboratory 1945–1995, Science Museum, 1997.
Shouldn't there be a Turing icon available?
Re: I'm curious
If you speak geek, try https://www.sixxs.net/
Re: IPV6 Sucks
> I miss NOVELL
You should be pleased then, because IPv6 borrowed its separation between the routing prefix and the interface identifier from Novell, who borrowed it from Xerox XNS. The automatic configuration of IPv6 hosts was also inspired by Novell, along with Appletalk and DECnet.
As I noted in an earlier comment on this thread, backwards compatibility is dreamware. Phones have always used variable length addresses, so adding digits was pretty easy. IPv4 uses strictly fixed length addresses, so adding extra bits is automatically incompatible.
Yes, I'm an old fart too, and I am fed up with glitches and limitations caused by NAT. Fortunately my home ISP and my work network both have native IPv6. It isn't hard, it doesn't suck, so let's all just do it...
Re: Too complicated for Non-BPFHs
It's generally recognised that homenets will soon be much more complicated than today, with several routers and several physical links (wires, glass or wireless). So Joe Sixpack's problem will get a lot harder. It will get solved by IPv6 (for more felxibility and features than IPv4+NAT) and smart routers that configure themselves. It's not science fiction; there's running code.
Re: two errors
> 1) RFC7040
That's only one out of many, many specs for tunnelling v4 over v6 or v6 over v4, going back almost 20 years. A mixed infrastructure has always been assumed.
> When they ask for an allocation, they should have been told to prepare an IPv6 plan
afaik, the registries have been at the forefront of inciting ISPs to prepare for IPv6 for about the last ten years. The fact that many ISPs and large enterprises simply chose to ignore the problem is definitely not the fault of the registries.
Re: A Win Win solution!
> making IPv6 back compatible with IPv4
Do you seriously imagine that wouldn't have been done if it was physically possible?
An IPv4-only host cannot interpret or create a packet that is not in IPv4 format. So there is no such thing as a backwards compatible solution whereby an IPng-only host can communicate directly with an IPv4-only host. Logically, that requires that we have some or all of dual-stack hosts, IP-in-IP tunnels, and IPv4-IPng translators. We have all three.
You can argue that IPv6 could have been more similar to IPv4, but it was physically impossible to make it backwards-compatible.
HP "Wasted" IP ranges
I expect you'll find that they have ranges originally assigned to DEC and Compaq, and to other minor acquisitions. IP address space has been treated as an asset in mergers and acquisitions for many years. And who says that large companies with hundreds of sites and many thousands of machines are wasting space to a significant extent anyway? You have to structure your address assignments somehow. Also, renumbering to release a "spare" range is an operational nightmare generally reckoned to cost megabucks for a large enterprise network.
Oh, and when will I be able to reach Vulture Central via IPv6?
Re: Excuse the philosophical question...
It turns out to be quite amusing to ask Eugene that question over and over:
Q. Can the Turing Test be automated?
A. Oops! I don't have an answer... It might have been stolen by malicious android!
Q. Can the Turing Test be automated?
A. Don't repeat yourself, please:-) Could you tell me about your job, by the way?
Q. Do you know about Spinoza?
A. Dutch philosopher. It looks like you didn't go to school. So you don't know anything about Baruch Spinoza.
Q. Can the Turing Test be automated?
A. Ummm... Frankly, I didn't get your question:-(
Q. Can the Turing Test be automated?
A. Could you rephrase your question? I've been bewildered a bit!
Q. Can the Turing Test be automated?
A. Don't repeat yourself, please:-) Oooh. Anything else?
How could anybody be misled for a moment by this?
And meanwhile, the number of hits on "Mario Costeja Gonzalez" continues to rise (212,000 on Google today, many of which explain the content of the article he objected to in the language of your choice). An almost perfect shot in his own foot.
"taking bandwidth away from others"
Er, that is how the Internet has always worked. It shares the available capacity out dynamically. That's what the congestion control aspects of TCP are all about. If you rent more bit-carrying capacity from the underlying carriers, you are thereby increasing your potential throughput. So what? That's physics. If Apple's competitors want to increase their potential throughput, they can do the same thing. Whether they can afford to do so is economics. It's kind of hard to argue against the facts of physics and economics.
Re: he has a point
One point the Reg story doesn't make quite clear is that Peter isn't saying that we don't need strong crypto. He isn't saying that weak crypto is good enough. If we had good security practices and weak crypto, they'd attack the crypto. He's saying that we need strong crypto AND good security practices.
re HeartBleed: just too recent to have made it into the slides, I think, since it's such a perfect illustration of his point.
(I wasn't at AUScert but I have heard the talk previously. It's ROTFL material.)
...I think you'll find that a search for "Mario Costeja Gonzalez" gives many more hits today than it did a few weeks ago.
Be careful what you ask for
Um, it isn't coincidence that this comes after the recent news about network "neutrality" in the US. What else do you expect carriers to do if they aren't allowed to manage traffic rationally? Under capitalism, they will charge for it.
As always, be careful what you ask for.
(And I'm still not a shill for any carrier, as somebody suggested recently.)
Re: "it can't really work any other way"
Actually the reason the original RFC 791 type-of-service never got much use is that it was fairly useless, except for giving absolute precedence to routing-protocol traffic, which was (and is) quite widely supported. But don't worry, help is on the way. RFC 2474 defines a replacement called "differentiated services" that works identically for IPv4 and IPv6, and allows a network to support various classes of service (such as one class for audio, another class for video, etc.). That's completely neutral as far as service providers and content providers go, but it avoids things like a big file transfer screwing up your phone call. It's used quite a lot to support IP telephony within enterprise networks, and is slowly, slowly getting attention from ISPs (who are far from early adopters of anything these days). There are even recommendations on how to make differentiated services work for traffic between different ISPs. And drafts on how to make it work for real-time web traffic. We'll get there.
Why they do it
Why they do it is probably money. I'm out of touch with current Canadian and US pricing for long lines, but certainly some years ago trans-continental capacity between Eastern and Western Canada was considerably cheaper via the USA.
In the end, judges are the last people in America still sometimes allowed to apply common sense. If the patent said something like "separated by approximately one hundredth of a cubit" the judge could rule as a matter of common sense whether, say, a device with a separation of 0.03 cubits infringed. In other words, the patent could have been written as an *implementable* specification without allowing an x+delta imitation to squeak through. On that basis, I think Mary Wilson and her colleagues could easily strike down the vague patent with the observation that it didn't need to be *that* vague. (BTW, it's the original patent examiner who blew it.)
- YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
- Human spacecraft dodge COMET CHUNKS pelting off Mars