Its called progression, long time since the Trojan room coffee pot.
By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
151–160 of 188 posts
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#152A lot of fuss, but if you look at the presentation slide in the middle of the page ( https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PyyPpTv1p7g/WU7hMEBnm4I/AAAAAAAAE... for reference) it is clear that MIT is not stifling anything or shutting anyone's mouth. MIT is just moving to IPv6. Actually... MIT forcing an entire generation of future engineers to deal with IPv6... That will literally push innovation.
Moving IPv4 to NAT and moving to IPv6 seems orthogonal.
IPv6 is the standard way to preserve end-to-end connectivity when IPv4 NAT breaks it.
You're free to see these as orthogonal problems, but if enough people think as you do (moving IPv4 to NAT without first deploying IPv6), then the Internet as we know it is dead.
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#153Projects have broken over this, with no real gain for implementing it. You would expect more rationality from MIT, of all places.
MIT's faculty and students are MIT faculty and MIT students/
MIT's admins are just admins. Same mentality you find in all the rest of academia, and they're actively hostile to everything that distinguishes MIT.
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#154I'm all for supporting innovation and community services, but I think author is not mentioning other possible causes, like DMCAs, malware and spam (including unintended), which could have damaged the reputation. I just wonder why MIT didn't give more time to move and why it doesn't provide a replacement in eg cloud credits.
Cloud credits aren't a replacement for local servers.
Things I got to try at MIT that would be a lot harder on AWS:
- set up a TOR exit node
- set up a single-system image cluster across five 1U servers
- set up a ZFS box with RAID-Z and dm-crypt
- played with a real lisp machine
- put a raspberry pi on the internet (something I did for several projects)
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#155I moved to student housing in Sweden in 2004 when they had aging network infrastructure (all 100 MBit but that also applied to the shared links to the housing areas[0]), and by the next year they just ditched the school-sponsored network and moved to making students pay for third party internet (distribution to rooms was still Ethernet-based but now with a citywide fiber backhaul run by the municipal power company sh…
Do you have to pay $10 per server you set up?
Also, by acting as the ISP, it also gets to be more protective of its log data than an outside provider might be.
It's not that an outside ISP couldn't provide the same level of service and speed at the same or less cost, while protecting the interests of the MIT community, it's just that I don't expect it's as likely.
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#156Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am almost positive I saw IPv6 in the release notes for the latest Google Wifi app update, am I crazy?
You are correct: http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/06/22/google-wifi-onhub-up...
Thanks! I enabled IPv6 on my Google Wifi router. I see a Global inet6 addr in my ifconfig. IPv6 websites work. I can ping6 my machine from the outside. I can ssh -6 into my machine from other machines on the LAN. But unfortunately I still cannot ssh -6 into my machine from an outside computer.
It probably is firewalling all incoming IPv6 connections (?). The Google Wifi app has no settings about this. Googling and stackoverflowing for 10 minutes didn't find a solution. That's when I give up.
Sorry Google and the IPv6 community but I have more important things I need to be working on than dealing with this BS that never works the first time. Back to IPv4 and port forwards, which is working fine for me right now, and will let me get back to my work. :-/
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are replacing their /8. They want to make sure they are never constrained.
With their IPv4 /8 they had 2^24 IPv4 addresses to work with, or, from a network perspective, 2^16 /24 (65K) networks, each network containing no more than 254 hosts. If they had requested a boring /48 IPv6 allocation (that anybody can have just by asking) - they would have had 2^16 /64 networks, and each network could have had basically an infinite number of hosts. But, this is the IPv6 world, so I would have expect…
I don't see what the problem is. The IPv6 address space is so large it doesn't matter at all.
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
NAT will make future sales of IPv4 blocks easier? As you say, MIT doesn't need all those 8 million IP addresses, and eventually will adopt IPv6 anyway. Might as well sell surplus v4 space while it's still valuable.
But why is MIT making money on those addresses more valuable than giving its students an opportunity to experiment and innovate? Why would selling those "unused" spaces to Amazon further the cause of IPv6? Also MIT hasn't even rolled out IPv6 yet...
[deleted]
Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
#160"The Library has the entire Net 18 address space registered at many hundreds of publishers of licensed e-resources. With no prior notice, we have been forced into non-compliance with our licenses with every such provider." I wonder what if the publishers actually sued MIT and Amazon, with maybe a injunction preventing Amazon from using the space.
Oh no, they have to tell the publishers their new subnet. The drama.