4 ms·

Well I noticed today that some random hotel in Germany I was thinking of staying at was on ipv6, and it is way more popular than IE6... People want connected de

Well I noticed today that some random hotel in Germany I was thinking of staying at was on ipv6, and it is way more popular than IE6... People want connected devices, in way more numbers than there are ipv4 addresses, and end to end connectivity is the internet.

andreasvc 12y ago
I'd say putting mobile devices behind carrier-grade NAT goes a long way. > end to end connectivity is the internet. It was definitely the original idea of the internet, but I'd say it no longer is the reality. People want to access Google and Facebook. The vast majority of users don't need or want their device to be directly reachable from the internet but communicate through cloud services.
- inopinatus 12y ago
  On the contrary, the statement seems correct. End to end connectivity is the Internet.... and by contrast, privately addressed networks are not on the Internet but must reach it via gateways. Reaching one another via centralized services rather than distributed federation is a problem, not a solution, in communications protocol design. See also: Everyone Hates Facebook.
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    You are stating an opinion/ideal as fact. If you'd look at actual data, you'd see that the vast majority of internet use by consumers is client to server, not peer to peer traffic (e.g., youtube vs. bittorrent), which means there is no need to be "on the internet" for most people. Distributed federation is great and it does not require end-to-end connectivity for everyone. > See also: Everyone Hates Facebook. I don't know in what kind of bubble you are living but 1.3 billion people are on Facebook; whether it's cool to hate it is not germane to the topic at hand.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      I'll point out that much of the reason for most traffic on the Internet being client-server is that most users are behind home routers which make P2P traffic difficult or impossible, slowing innovation dramatically. IPv6 could solve this by giving every computer their own IP address on the actual Internet. Sticking with IPv4 continues to slow innovation.
      - e12e 12y ago
        Also note that most uses of p2p are illegal. Then again, much of youtube use is just as illegal -- but people assume (correctly) that they won't be sued for watching or downloading something from youtube (youtube might, or uploaders might -- in theory). So, users are stuck behind asymmetric dsl lines, behind poorly functioning NAT routers and couldn't use p2p for what they want to use p2p for ... legally. There are exceptions of course, like this project: http://vodo.net/pioneerone http://vodo.net/pioneerone or: https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs But after decades of stagnation, and even regression, in the ISP industry -- getting working p2p solutions to catch on is an uphill struggle. And when people don't have software they can, or want, to run as a service -- the demand doesn't exist either. Contrast this with how people used to run their own BBS back in the day...
      - andreasvc 12y ago
        I don't think the client-server model is popular because people are behind home routers, but because it reflects the inherent asymmetry of producers and consumers. People being behind home routers is not a cause of that, but a state of affairs that is not-noticed by or tolerable for most because of this asymmetry. This asymmetry is not caused by any technical limitation; even on Wikipedia, which is probably the prototypical crowdsourced site, editors are vastly outnumbered by readers. I don't disagree with the ideal of everyone being able to serve their own content directly to the internet, I just don't think it reflects reality, specifically the abilities and inclinations of most people. I'm curious how people come to hold on to such beliefs when they are so incongruous with actual human behavior.
        12y ago
- regularfry 12y ago
  If end-to-end is the default, you don't have to be Google or Facebook to play. It's not about the majority, it's about the capability.

andreasvc 12y ago

I'd say putting mobile devices behind carrier-grade NAT goes a long way. > end to end connectivity is the internet. It was definitely the original idea of the internet, but I'd say it no longer is the reality. People want to access Google and Facebook. The vast majority of users don't need or want their device to be directly reachable from the internet but communicate through cloud services.

inopinatus 12y ago
On the contrary, the statement seems correct. End to end connectivity is the Internet.... and by contrast, privately addressed networks are not on the Internet but must reach it via gateways. Reaching one another via centralized services rather than distributed federation is a problem, not a solution, in communications protocol design. See also: Everyone Hates Facebook.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  You are stating an opinion/ideal as fact. If you'd look at actual data, you'd see that the vast majority of internet use by consumers is client to server, not peer to peer traffic (e.g., youtube vs. bittorrent), which means there is no need to be "on the internet" for most people. Distributed federation is great and it does not require end-to-end connectivity for everyone. > See also: Everyone Hates Facebook. I don't know in what kind of bubble you are living but 1.3 billion people are on Facebook; whether it's cool to hate it is not germane to the topic at hand.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    I'll point out that much of the reason for most traffic on the Internet being client-server is that most users are behind home routers which make P2P traffic difficult or impossible, slowing innovation dramatically. IPv6 could solve this by giving every computer their own IP address on the actual Internet. Sticking with IPv4 continues to slow innovation.
    - e12e 12y ago
      Also note that most uses of p2p are illegal. Then again, much of youtube use is just as illegal -- but people assume (correctly) that they won't be sued for watching or downloading something from youtube (youtube might, or uploaders might -- in theory). So, users are stuck behind asymmetric dsl lines, behind poorly functioning NAT routers and couldn't use p2p for what they want to use p2p for ... legally. There are exceptions of course, like this project: http://vodo.net/pioneerone http://vodo.net/pioneerone or: https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs But after decades of stagnation, and even regression, in the ISP industry -- getting working p2p solutions to catch on is an uphill struggle. And when people don't have software they can, or want, to run as a service -- the demand doesn't exist either. Contrast this with how people used to run their own BBS back in the day...
    - andreasvc 12y ago
      I don't think the client-server model is popular because people are behind home routers, but because it reflects the inherent asymmetry of producers and consumers. People being behind home routers is not a cause of that, but a state of affairs that is not-noticed by or tolerable for most because of this asymmetry. This asymmetry is not caused by any technical limitation; even on Wikipedia, which is probably the prototypical crowdsourced site, editors are vastly outnumbered by readers. I don't disagree with the ideal of everyone being able to serve their own content directly to the internet, I just don't think it reflects reality, specifically the abilities and inclinations of most people. I'm curious how people come to hold on to such beliefs when they are so incongruous with actual human behavior.
      - 12y ago
regularfry 12y ago
If end-to-end is the default, you don't have to be Google or Facebook to play. It's not about the majority, it's about the capability.