Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 6, 2013
there are even people who have been saying this (some of them very vocally) since the plan was presented, before it was voted on.
Why DJB's plan fail
Posted Jan 27, 2011 23:38 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
Yet it was voted on and accepted by IETF. DJB's plain failed to do even that.
Any transition depends on acceptance. Which plan is better: the one which was adopted by committee or the one which was adopted by few fanboys? Yes, the committee is not always right (sometimes industry implements something totally different from what the IETF or ISO proposes), but current trends show the situation clearly: IETF's plan is adopted by millions while DJB's plan was not adopted by anyone (I know few crazy fanboys who talk about it constantly but noone who ever tried to actually implement it). So if our current translation plan is "failure" DJB's plan is "failure of such an epic proportion that it's not even funny".
Posted Jan 28, 2011 0:17 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
> So if our current translation plan is "failure" DJB's plan is "failure of such an epic proportion that it's not even funny".
So, people that were warning about the dangers of sub-prime mortgage markets, default swaps, pyramid selling etc. (i.e. the plan that was _not_ put in action) are a failure of epic proportions? Not the ones that caused the GFC? You are really funny.
Posted Jan 28, 2011 0:44 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
So, people that were warning about the dangers of sub-prime mortgage markets, default swaps, pyramid selling etc. (i.e. the plan that was _not_ put in action) are a failure of epic proportions?
Not the ones that caused the GFC?
"The ones that caused the GFC" architected the Reaganomics to kill the USSR. Plan successed brilliantly, but GFC become unevitable at this point. "People that were warning about the dangers of sub-prime mortgage markets, default swaps, pyramid selling" and other "atrocities" just described what they see - they had no idea what they are talking about, why the structure they are talking about was created and how it works in first place. All these "atrocities" posponed the GFC by about 3-5 years, but made it more profound. Was is good trade-off? Well, it's hard to say, but it gave people few more years of respite before decade (or may be two) of suffering.
Just like with IPv6: people who are moving it forward are solving real problems while clueless people like DJB complain that the plan has unintended consequences. Well, duh - but what is your plan?
Posted Jan 28, 2011 0:59 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
Here is my plan. I have this program called ping on my system. With it, I can check whether my Internet connection works. I tried it with ipv6.google.com, but it didn't work. I'm pretty sure my connection works (it's been on for many years now). I can also ping pretty much everything out there. So, it must me some kind of a software problem.
I'd like to get a series of software upgrades so that my connection works with ipv6.google.com. Yeah, I know - I can't get that. It was a rhetorical request anyway.
So, back to the real world. My plan is to wait and see. Maybe my ISP will do something so that I can really see IPv6 world without wasting hours and hours on currently useless effort of enabling IPv6. Maybe I won't need to because they'll just whack several layers of NAT in between. I dunno.
Or maybe they'll tell me I have to do all this useless work after all. I'll have to "connect again" although I have a perfectly good connection.
That's my plan. Pretty much anything goes. Isn't it grand?
Posted Jan 28, 2011 1:33 UTC (Fri) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
Actually, you can. If someone made a software upgrade which installed and enabled teredo (which needs no configuration to work), your connection would work with ipv6.google.com. On Windows, there is no need to install teredo at all, just enable it - and I heard some Bittorrent clients did enable it for you automatically. And teredo works perfectly with ipv6.google.com.
Posted Jan 28, 2011 1:57 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
Posted Jan 28, 2011 2:53 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
Actually, scrap that. The ping would not have come from my IPv4 address, so it doesn't really count.
Posted Jan 27, 2011 23:43 UTC (Thu) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)
The very fact that no credible alternatives to IPv6 have gained traction (at least since NAT appeared in the mid-'90s) kind of suggests that the problem is not as easy to solve as you insist.
Posted Jan 28, 2011 0:12 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
People did come up with alternative ideas, they were not accepted. Sometimes such mistakes happen. For instance, we had this thing called GFC in 2008. Huge carnage all around the world, caused by a similarly bad plan.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds