Posts by Roland6 10749 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Apr 2010
The rough plan was to get IPv4/IPv6 stacks on client systems, routers etc., convert the backbone carrier network IPv6, use tunnelling to pass IPv4 over it then get the ISPs to adopt IPv6. This way many of the issues - still outstanding in IPv6 circa 2010, could be worked on and solved, before IPv6 hit the primetime, ie. generally released to end users.
However, not been aware of any great impetus in recent years to actually move things forward other than the regular cries of "we're out of IPv4 addresses - people must start using IPv6". Suspect part of the reason is the takeover of ICAAN, IETF, Nominet et al. by money extraction interests.
>IPs would be used like IMEIs/IMSIs/MACs? No, that's specifically not what IPs are used for
There is a important distinction between what IPv6 addresses are now being used for and the ideas that were swimming around in the 90's when it was envisaged that IPv6 addresses could be static and thus could embed IMEI's, MAC addresses, phone numbers etc. to allow all of these to be used in IP communications. It is only a small step to say that the IMEI, MAC etc are just short forms of unique IPv6 addresses and thus say IPv6 addresses could be used as IMEI, MAC etc.
>doesn't mean we can diss IPv6 just because it does fully support NAT.
Well RFC-6296 (2011) is still listed as being "experimental" and the IPv6 purists still publicly deriding NAT - wanting the Internet to work the way they thing it should "the right way" and not the way network tech's want and need it to work in the real world.
>"You can't invent a way for a machine that believes all addresses are 32 bits long to receive or send packets with longer addresses."
Backward compatible means that the new version will work with the old, not that the old will work with the new
Compatibility depends on context and the style and level of interoperability desired. However, the emphasis on end-to-end security in recent years has made things a lot more complex than they were in the early to mid 1990's when most traffic was unencrypted.
If you sanction the use of intermediate systems/gateways it is perfectly possible to get a client system to initiate communications with a system that uses longer addresses. However, expect some things to break, just as they break today with NAT.
>If the leading 4 bytes are padding then there's no point in them being there.
There was no point to IPv6 until now! ie. when the IPv4 address space becomes exhausted.
Back before the popularisation of the Internet to the masses in circa 1995, the academic institutions ran the show. So it was known that for the next 5+ years there would be no need to actually route outside of the IPv4 subnet of IPv6 addresses... So in this period a forced transitioned to IPv6 with everyone only using the IPv4 subnet was possible. Once the Internet went mass market and commercial entities got involved in running the backbone such a transition became much more problematic if not impossible.
>I don't think you could've done that in 1995. Even 1985 probably would've been too late for that.
I use circa, the key is some things were possible when the academic institutions ran the show and effectively could agree between themselves and tell everyone else what was going to happen and when commercial entities got involved in the mid-1990's. In any case those involved in the specification of IPv6 weren't going to be rushed into delivering 'IPv4 enlarged address space' and so the window of opportunity closed.
All of this baggage, historic design compromises just means TCP/IP is the networking world's QWERY keyboard.
>That's what NAT does - it adds two extra bytes (the port number) to the address. That's a kludge.
Not really a kludge, NAT simply treats the network behind your router as a single multi-user system (*), simple and elegant.
(*) On a multi-user system each user would use the IP address of the host, but different ports on that host. NAT just allows those users to be network attached systems rather than RS232 attached terminals.
>X.25, just like the original Janet.
Well with a decent update, a CONS network service has much to offer particularly if QoS is important...
Although, a downside of X.25 was the by the byte/octet billing....
Sending 5 floppy disks (1.44MB) of data London-Montevideo over X.25 in the early 1990's, cost more than sending a courier on a first class return flight, plus overnight hotel. For some reason, we got sign off for the X.25 transfer, not for the flight...
>IPv6 to IPv4 adapters!
Given how many client systems have included an IPv6 stack for circa two decades, the problem is slightly different, namely getting ISP's to both support IPv6 and supply routers with IPv6 enabled.
In fact we are probably at a point where an ISP could supply a IPv6 WAN only router and many consumers would not experience any issues. This would largely remove the need for domestic IPv4 address allocations (could let people have one at extra cost if they discover they have devices that only support IPv4 for Internet access).
>who somehow think it's possible for v4 to be forwards compatible with v6...
Well there was a window of opportunity for this to have happened, however that was circa 1995 and was predicated on being a (relatively short) transition period after which IPv4 would be turned off, something that was possible when the main Internet infrastructure was owned and operated by academic institutions and not commercial interests.
Also that the only real difference was the length of addresses, with the leading 4 bytes effectively being padding and thus could be simply discarded or padded as necessary.
>Large format printers i.e. those 44" to 60" wide can easily costs in the range $3,000-$10,000 or more.
At those prices, you are talking about small volume print runs, need to add a nought or more for the high volume stuff and 4+ colours...
>It's a digital replacement for an offset printer
It's not stated whether this is a replacement to an existing printer or as you suggest some bright sparks idea of bringing the process in-house.
In either case, I doubt any one actually thought whether the best home for such a device and its supplies was the same building as the Parliament (or did someone think that you could install this in the basement and it would provide under floor heating...)
Mind you, given the size of the beast, I assume its new home is on the ground floor; I do hope someone did do the necessary floor (point) loading tests and calculations...
>"A standard 32bit [integer]" - Get off my lawn...
Agree, anyone who knew their K&R would know that 2,147,483,647 is the minimum value of a long (signed int), although depending on machine architecture and compiler options, it might actually reserve more than 32bit's of memory (so values align on byte/word boundaries to improve memory access efficiency).
> people using potentially-lethal cutting devices without using proper PPE - I've heard enough horror stories from OldestBrother about that happens if you don't.
A tree surgeon friend swears by his kelvar reinforced trousers and boots - mainly because he knows it works - he still has full use of his feet and legs.
>Uber has a rule that they won't carry unaccompanied people under the age of 18, so I doubt many kids are hailing Uber cabs as they will get rejected 99 times out of 100.
Given the reason Uber is being refused a licence because its understanding of rules and their implementation is deeply flawed, this is a totally flawed line of reasoning.
Uber having a rule doesn't mean it is actually abided by the "self-employed" drivers.
Uber may have a rule, but is there evidence that Uber is policing this and that drivers are enforced (at the 98+%) it ie. on turning up to pick up a lift, refuse the fare.
How many teenagers/young adults have been asked to provide proof of age?
I suspect there is plenty of evidence of U18's using Uber, just not officially recorded...
This was one area where 123-Reg did their customers a service, by pre-registering .uk domains until October 2019. Having got on the ball back in 2017, I was able to talk to my clients about their .uk domain and their branding.
Interestingly, what people are forgetting is that .co.uk only got first pick, after June 2019, owners of other .nn.uk domains have a pick. the real fun and games will start when <ACME>.co.uk decides to take on <ACME>.uk formerly known as <ACME>.org.uk.
>The other 3 states comprising the UK aren't going anywhere.
Well given the Kingdom of England only came into existence in 927AD, from the unification of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms; England alone could continue to call itself the UK.
The only question is whether UK(England) would continue to wave the Union Jack or adopt St.Georges cross...
>Most WiFi enabled printers now have over the interweb printing...
Okay for the one off, now try and configure several printers distributed over several sites serving say 30 users...
Google Cloud print will be missed, but there are other on-the-go cloud print services.
Query: is the Google Cloud Print source code open source, as given the amount of third-party investment , there would seem to be an opportunity for someone to put up a fully compatible cloud hub and charge a subscription - whilst the revenues probably wont' be in the stratosphere, I'm sure they will be sufficient to keep a small business going.
Cont.
It would seem that in getting DoH "out there", Mozilla have stepped over a boundary with their client implementation; a boundary it would seem Google and MS are being a little more respectful of.
I anticipate that once MS deliver a W10 build with DoH support, Mozilla will fall back into line.
However, this just leaves a small problem, MS are only implementing DoH in a future W10 build (but still no word on W10 DNSsec) - increasing the impetus to migrate away from W7 et al, so surviving W7 & 8 systems may benefit from a current Firefox style client that avoids the host systems DNS resolver. Additionally, it is not clear which versions of Windows server will get support for DoH.
Aside: interesting article here from MS: Windows will improve user privacy with DNS over HTTPS - key quote "we are making plans to adopt DNS over HTTPS (or DoH) in the Windows DNS client.", so may arrive in a couple of years.
Interesting article on How To Geek.
Basically, there are three issues down to implementation choices.
1) The protection of DNS traffic, in this respect the only real difference between DoT and DoH is the use of different TCP/UDP ports.
2) How a client selects a DNS service.
3) The default out-of-the-box behaviour and the extent to which it can be overridden.
These last two are in the hands of the developer and I think aren't specified in the RFC.
Mozilla have decided that Firefox will default to using the Cloudflare DoH service and thus bypass host system DNS settings, the user has to actively either change the default DoH server (can still bypass host system DNS settings) or disable DoH (and use host system DNS).
Google with Chrome are saying that they will use the host systems DNS server using either DNS or DoH depending on what that DNS server supports.
Microsoft are saying they will implement DoH at the OS level, ie. the Windows network client will natively support communications over DNS or DoH depending on the DNS server configuration - I assume there will be some security protocol/procedure that will enable a client system to negotiate an appropriate level of communication security (I wonder if the MS solution will also include DNSsec).
>Currently it resolves to 104.16.248.249 and 104.16.249.249.
and the IPv6 variants...
It is easy to forget about when your ISP doesn't support it.
However, it can bite you, on one client site just changed ISP and all the lights went on, they now have a totally unprotected IPv6 connection to the Internet - fortunately as the line isn't connected to the office LAN (yet) it can be mitigated in a considered manner...
>Your argument for Google (or A.N.Other DoH provider) being prosecuted would seek compliance potentially with a prosecution as well, but I am not sure a DoH provider is breaking the current laws.
Well given the current UK laws, it can be argued a DoH provider is an "electronic communications service (ECS) provider", so subject to the relevant UK laws and regulations...
I suspect, browser vendors who include IP address details of DoH servers outside of the UK/EU may fall foul of the law...
>My assumption (which could be incorrect) is there will be a standard DNS request to look up the hostname associated with the DoH provider
From a previous El Reg article, I remember it being said that the browser (Firefox/Chrome) shipped with a hard coded DoH server IP address.
DoH being mingled in with https means they need to block a (huge) list of alternative DoH servers.
Bet it is a lot shorter than the list of adware/malware sites that corporate firewalls currently block...
The real problem with everything over HTTPS is that it effectively moves functionality that is currently handled by lower layers of the network stack into the application with all the processing overheads and security ramifications of doing system stuff in user space.
Although in this case it would seem the primary requirement is for Congress to have some appreciation of Hollywood Accounting practices.
Wouldn't be surprised if Hollywood Accounting practises contributed to MS doing away with the traditional Windows delivery model (ie. include 10+ years of free fixes in product purchase Windows).
>Your experience with handsets is not mine at all. ATT and T-Mobile phones have each other's bands quite well covered (if not completely).
It was more of a problem with the early 3G and 4G phones - I seem to remember it was a problem that arose with one of the iPhone releases where if you travelled between say Europe and SE.Asia then you would need a particular variant, which wasn't necessarily the variant on sale in your country. However, even a few years back not all phones sold in the UK for the UK market handled all the frequencies being used by the four UK operators - with each operator selling a variant which had a selection of radios chosen to get the best out of their network plus a few key frequencies (ie. the 2G frequencies) to enable roaming albeit with limited functionality.
With 5G and the proliferation of frequencies, I suspect similar will apply: phones sold in a particular region will have variants that 'work' on Provider X's network and the agreed roaming frequencies. However, the buyer will need to investigate the spec's to determine the extent to which an unlocked variant will work on other Providers networks and the extent to which international roaming may be supported.
>Stops them roaming to other places as well
No, you can use a suitable phone loaned to you from your Provider.
This is exactly what Orange (UK) did back in the 1990's, everytime I went to the US, I got Orange to courier me a US compatible phone into which I dropped my UK SIM. Mind you back them Orange did this as a service to their customers and so charged a user friendly rate for the phone.
>Parliament doesnt appear to be doing its job
Actually parliament is doing its job, just that the Conservative Government (May & Johnson) aren't doing a very good job of taking Parliament with them - both just wanted Parliament to rubber stamp whatever they wanted, without giving Parliament a chance to actually see the meat...
>What I also find disappointing is this GE is being hobbled by brexit...
It was always going to be, just like the 2016 election, both are fundamentally pointless exercises.
As for the future of the UK, it is notable that no one (other than the Libdems) are talking about the EU relationship dimension of that future...
>it would have been pointless making our own version of GDPR
That was because the UK version was going to take a different stance, one that would have facilitated (government) eavesdropping etc.
>Banks, nobody should be subjected to this kind of privacy intrusion/criminal behaviour.
Banks actively chose not to be a nobody when he decided to undertake criminal activities...
>Funny, Leavers mis-invoking a EU regulation...
Can't see how Twitter have broken GDPR rules when, from reports the account was accessed through a SIM swap.
Yes, someone hacked something not belonging to them and accessed a twitter account, also not belonging to them, but no one is claiming that they hacked Twitter's systems to gain the information.
Well given the fun and games people are having with the Xhelper malware - factory reset doesn't remove it. I suspect an app checking tool won't actually do much.
Mind you once people work out how Xhelper hides, don't be surprised if on applying the learnings to Windows we start to discover other stealthware that has been quietly doing its work for decades...
>They had two data centers in an “active/active” configuration, which neither Sabadel (the Spanish parent bank) nor IBM UK had done before.
Don't know about Sabadel. but IBM UK had certainly done active/active DC's in the UK banking sector, suspect those with experience have either retired or weren't involved in TSB.
Another ~6,500 and potentially 20,000 sites breached...
Up to 20,000 ecommerce websites at risk of Magecart attacks following Volusion server compromise
A search of the online list of those affected by the security breach indicates that Macys.com is on the list...
I wonder if the networks have configured different caps depending on mast/cell location, working on the suddumption that in some locations the important criteria is handling large numbers of users doing 'normal' stuff that works with speeds of sub-20Mbps...
>...next sentence
"And the reason it was privatised wasn't ideology."
The EU might have played a part, but we can be sure ideology played a far larger part , given the Conservative's under Thatcher was ideologically committed to reducing the state and the privatisation of state businesses...
>Google is entitled to argue a defence of it being in the public interest to keep the search results. What if the spent conviction was for criminal damage but the detail was arson and ABC wanted to start a property disposal firm?
Yes Google could argue that, however, that also means Google doesn't understand just what "spent" means in this context and I would expect a UK court to throw Google's case out with no leave to appeal.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
