r00ty

Yeah, but they’re not. That’s the modern world. But also even if it was a web server there’s usually ways to advertise the IP for the app to connect to. I’ve seen other stuff do that. So getting an IP is easy. Once the app knows the IP and if you really want to allow connections from outside to your IOT devices (I wouldn’t) it could remember the IP and allow that.

You really don’t need to give a fixed IP to everything. I think I’ve given 1 or 2 things fixed IPv6 IPs. Everything else is fine with what it assigns itself.

Only if you’re a masochist.

Hah. But to be fair, ATM did have a specific use that it worked great for. That is the move to digital voice circuits. The small fixed cell size and built in QoS meant that if you had a fixed line size you could fit X voice channels, and they would all be extremely low latency and share the bandwidth fairly. You didn’t need to buffer beyond one cell of data and you didn’t need to include overhead beyond the cell headers.

ATM was designed to handle the “future” or digital network needs. But, the immediate use was about voice frames and that likely dictated a lot of the design I’d expect.

You should only assign static ipv6 to servers, in theory you could just define a host id and use a prefix too. But, most people at home really aren’t running enough servers to make that worthwhile. Everything else should just pick up new addresses fine using ND.

I think this really comes down to whether the employee was IT (and to an extent part of the network team). If so, I’d say there’s a lot of questions to be answered here. If not, there’s also a lot of questions to be answered but not from that employee :P

Both, each have their place. I have a desktop in my office. Decent recent spec and kept fairly up to date.

Laptop I have a reasonable “gaming” spec in the lounge we both use it.

The laptop will always be a compromise. You cannot shift the dissipated heat from a full power gpu at all in that form factor, and most cpus are going to also be lower power editions because they need to work on batteries as well as connected to power. But they’re still for sure usable.

Desktop will always outperform. Even the stock cpu and gpu options will perform at a higher tdp, and you can usually improve cooling in a big case to either improve stock boost frequencies, or over clock.

Physics is the limiting factor for laptops, both in terms of power delivery, and heat dissipation.

Yeah, I was thinking more if there’s either an evolutionary improvement or revolutionary (or some movement toward AGI). For me it’s better if not, so I get to keep my job for a few more years. But, my general feeling is with the cash injection, there’s some chance of a breakthrough.

I mean if LLM/Diffusion type AI is a dead-end and the extra investment happening now doesn’t lead anywhere beyond that. Yes, likely the bubble will burst.

But, this kind of investment could create something else. We’ll see. I’m 50/50 on the potential of it myself. I think it’s more likely a lot of loud talking con artists will soak up all the investment and deliver nothing.

Wow, an alien ion drive formula! Try to get warp drive out of it too!

But this is another interesting thing. Dynamic IP addresses made sense, when we were dialling up for internet, and the internet wasn’t the utility it is now.

Back then we’d dial up for a few hours in the evening or weekend. Businesses that didn’t have a permanent presence would connect in the day to send/receive emails etc. So, you could have 500 IP addresses to around 1500 users and re-use them successfully.

But now, what is the real point in a dynamic IP? Everyone has a router switched on 24/7 sitting on an IP. What is the real difference, in cost in giving a static IP over a dynamic one? Sure, CGNAT saved them IP addresses. But, with always on dynamic just doesn’t make sense. Except, that you can charge for a static IP. The traffic added by the few people that want to run services is usually running against the tide of their normal traffic. So, that shouldn’t really be an extra cost to them either.

If everyone that ran a website did the extra work (which is miniscule) to also operate on IPv6, and every ISP did the (admittedly more) work to provide IPv6 prefixes and ensure their supplied routers were configured for it, and that they had instructions to configure it on third party routers, IPv4 would become the minority pretty soon. It seems like it’s just commercial opportunity that’s holding us back now.

But new IPv4 allocations have run out. I’ve seen ISPs that won the lottery in the 90s/2000s (when the various agencies controlling IP allocations just tossed them around like they were nothing) selling large blocks for big money.

Many ISPs offer only CGNAT, require signing up to the higher speed/more expensive packages to get a real IP, or charge extra on top of the standard package for one. I fully expect this trend to continue.

The non-move to IPv6 is laziness, incompetence, or the sheer fact they can monetize the finite resource of IPv4 addresses and pass the costs onto the consumer. I wonder which it is.

I’ve seen a few isps here in the UK doing some weird pointless stuff with ipv6. Like dynamic prefixes. Why? What’s the point?

But you can get good ones. I’ve had the same /48 prefix for 10 years now.

I always saw open source as more socialist than specifically communist. Similar to volunteering in your community. Except the community is the whole world, and you don’t need to leave your house. Bonus!

If you’re using the ETF as a long term investment and you believe EVs are key to our future then you shouldn’t worry about this too much (unless the ETF is made up of mostly TSLA in which case I’d not be too happy).

You’ve not lost money until you take it out of your investment.

You’re right, that sounds better than the average HR rep.

I remember moving to mumble from teams peak because it allowed pretty cool levels of configuration.

Back in the late 00s and early 00s I was doing world of warcraft raiding. I had the server setup to have one key for main raid and another to talk to only officers. Quite useful especially in bigger raids.

Also as I recall for any remotely large ts server you needed to pay. The self hosted one was always gimped. Mumble you could self host with no limits.

No no. This kind of automated “protection” is only used against their users, who are their product. Not the advertisers, who are their customer!

I would tend to agree. But I think we definitely need to define a line in the sand now, not declare there is no line. Which seems to me to be what such statements say about us.

I would say no-one is sending troops yet. I really dislike any country ruling it out entirely, better to just say nothing. If the conditions change, we (NATO/Europe) will need to act. Otherwise, our leaders may well be judged by the same yardstick as the leaders keen to appease a certain country in the late 30s.

Yes, I don’t agree with the no way to mitigate statement.

I suspect on windows the only real defence is something like.

• Check if the network has suspicious multiple routes setup from the DHCP
• If so, either use the IP/Mask/Gateway with manual IP config (to not receive the CIDR routes) or steer clear of an at best questionable network entirely.
• Maybe use the windows firewall to block all traffic outbound EXCEPT from the firewall program (with perhaps exceptions for local networks as per below linux example). For whatever reason the windows firewall doesn’t seem to have a way to specify an interface. But you can specify a program.

I did look for some way to control Window’s handling of DHCP options. But it seems there isn’t anything obvious to limit this otherwise. I do not know if the windows firewall has this kind of fine-grained control with its own fire

For linux, I used to have my own blackout firewall rules. That only allowed the specific LAN range (for mobile use you could include all RFC1918 ranges) and the specific VPN IP out of the internet facing interface. Only the VPN interface could otherwise access the internet.