* Posts by phicoh

9 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Oct 2016

Have you tried restarting? Reinstalling? Upgrading? Moving house and changing your identity?


Hot fruit

Similar thing with a macbook. The macbook decided to completely overheat and basically refuse to do anything after connecting an external monitor. No matter have low the resolution of some of the old monitors I tried. This being a work laptop, work said, please ask apple.

Apple customer service knows about dozens of ways to clear settings. Apple customer service doesn't know about boot passwords, so then they get really confused when there is one. But in the end, nothing worked. So they resorted to, just completely wipe the disk and re-install macos. That's where I gave up.

(then a colleague remarked, did you clean the fans? After cleaning the fans, the macbook gets insanely hot even at low resolutions, but it doesn't overheat anyore)

IPv6 is built to be better, but that's not the route to success


Re: IPv6

CIDR was part of IPv6 from day 1. The tier 1, tier 2, thing was a completely new invention for IPv6 that had no parallel in the IPv4 world. It was meant to keep the size of the default free routing table (in BGP) small. In the end, the (IPv4) operators said no way, and refused to implement it. Then the IETF backed down, there was already a formal split with IETF designing protocols and operator running networks.


Re: "The Internet existed long before IPv6."

IPv4 to IPv6 is similar to Python 2.x to Python 3.x.

Some breaking changes are required. However, then there are a lot changes that just seemed like a good idea at the time, making is hard to support both at the same time.

Python 3.x had weird changes that were not back ported to Python 2.x. IPv6 has weird things that make it more incompatible with IPv4.

What is bad with IPv6 is even when it became clear that there would not be a quick transition, nobody cared about how IPv6 was needlessly incompatible with IPv4.

For example, DHCPv6 cannot provide the host with a default router. This is obviously not a hard feature to add, but it was flat out denied when requested. There is obvously also the issue that DHCPv6 is not required, so Android leaves it out.

Why is fragmentation in IPv6 different? It made sense at the time. But why was it never brought back in line with IPv4?

Ultimately, should cannot make IPv6 compatible with IPv4. So discussion often starts with that and then fails. You can however reduce friction, and that doesn't happen. Too many vocal IPv6 fans in the IETF refuse to make changes to IPv6 to make it look more like IPv4.

However, in the end, people are just looking for an upgrade path that is zero effort. In any well maintained network, running dual stack costs hardly any extra effort. All the people who are hand coding firewall access rights, or are manually verifying reachabiliy of service should modernize a bit.

Many ISP have migrated from dial-up to ADSL (which has ATM) to VDSL (ethernet) to fiber (GPON), yet cannot handle IPv6.

Or content has moved from on-prem to the cloud, but cannot handle IPv6.

Yes, IPv6 can be annoyingly different from IPv4. But it is only an annoyance. Supporting both at the same time is absolutely no problem at all.

Internet overseer ICANN loses a THIRD time in Whois GDPR legal war


Re: Not legally binding...

I don't see why the EU would sue ICANN at this stage, but there seems to be enough to connect ICANN to the EU to allow EU courts to claim jurisdiction: for one ICANN decided to sue in the EU. The second is that ICANN hosts meetings in the EU. A third is that ICANN is formally responsible for all the country TLDs, which includes the EU countries.

So it would be hard for ICANN to claim that it doesn't do business in Europe.

ICANN pays to push Whois case to European Court of Justice


Re: The problem here...

ICANN does not run the 13 root DNS servers. There are quite a few root servers operated by independent organizations.

The EU and the US basically agree on how the internet should governed. And that does not include governments having direct influence over the core aspects of the internet (IETF, DNS gTLDs, RIRs).

The problem is of course that the GDPR directly affects ICANN. But at the same time, the WHOIS service is not traditionally considered a core part of the internet.

So US government is in the tricky position that it doesn't like the effect of the GDPR on WHOIS and at the same time, interfering with the operation of the DNS gTLD would have massive world wide implications, which may cause damage way beyond losing WHOIS.

Report estimates cost of disruption to GPS in UK would be £1bn per day


Re: That said ..

With GPS a navigation system tells me where to go next.

Without GPS, I can turn it into a digital replacement for a paper map, which is more up-to-date and more accurate than a paper map.


Re: That said ..

I convert openstreetmap data to Garmin format and put it on my Garmin 62s. So in this case, if GPS would be unavailable, I only have to hook up my Garmin to a laptop and have a nice interactive map in BaseCamp. No need to actually buy any paper maps.

How many Internet of S**t devices knocked out Dyn? Fewer than you may expect


Maybe some basic math?

Assume a 1 Tbit/s attack, assume 100000 devices, what's the average attack bit rate per device?

Well, that's just 10 Mbit/s.

Can an internet connected video camera do 10 Mbit/s or better? Very likely if it is HD or better. Even for tiny processors 10 Mbit/s is nothing these days.

Can an internet connection upload 10 Mbit/s or more. Yes, lots of people have that kind of bandwidth.

Internet handover is go-go-go! ICANN to take IANA from US govt


Re: Doom I tell you

I wonder how you think the Russian government would manage IP allocations. They cannot get addresses from IANA, and there is also no policy in the RIPE region (or any other RIR) that allows governments to requests large blocks of addresses.

Note that the DNS root is managed by a US company and that none of the root servers are managed by companies in Russia or China. Worse, interfering with DNS causes DNSSEC validation to fail. Short term, just getting people to disable DNSSEC will work, long term that is probably not a good idea.

Which leaves Russia or China trying to influence ICANN. But by and large, ICANN decides what new names to add to the root and which company can operate that space. There is no direct influence on existing domains.

In contrast, the US government has proven multiple times quite willing to violate people right by directly interfering with the operation of the .com zone.

For for me, as someone living outside the US, the US government is actually the worst government in the world when it comes to interfering with the operation of the internet. Needless to say, other governments would love to have this power, but don't have it.

But still, the US government is currently abusing this power. So much for free speech.