> five networks: Meta, Akamai, Google, Netflix, Amazon (I don’t know there is a decent name for these but i’ve been calling them the The “Magna” networks)
At a time when Meta was Facebook, there were FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) and FAANG (with Apple), but it seems to be more used in a finance context.
AGPL and Apache are both open source licenses. So I’m not getting what the confusion would be as an end user, who won’t be modifying the software or packaging it for sale.
Combining source code under different licenses into one product is a nightmare.
You have to follow the AGPL "no additional restrictions" clause while also following the Apache License, and the Apache License might have require you to follow additional restrictions.
Honestly this has never been an issue for me, sure I have had to explain the limits of the licenses and check that I understand them. I guess it depends on your use case, so I am still uncertain when this has become a problem for you.
Yes, but you would be surprised how many people want to change static final fields for various reasons - be it testing, or other things.
When telling those that it doesn't work, and that it can not work without violating the semantics of the JVM, they will wave their hand and say "look, it does work here". And it looks like, yes, if the stars align in that specific constellation, it may work.
I would love full transitions to be easy enough to work. DNS64 breaks DNSSEC without updates to the spec, so that's not going to fly for me today. A competent DNS configuration would fail to resolve my IPv4 domains at the very least (though all of my public domains have an AAAA record, obviously). The only solution is to do DNSSEC validation at the DNS64 level which in my opinion defeats the purpose of DNS security all together.
For internal networks, IPv6 seems like an obvious choice. If you already have company wide subnets, you may as well set up some ULAs/GUAs and use IPv6 internally. Full IPv6 may be better but people worry about adversaries mapping internal networks for some reason so NAT66 may be necessary to placate those fears.
The problems you still keep around by using some kind of dual stacking (DS-Lite being the cheapest) ensures compatibility with servers and entire countries that haven't even begun upgrading their networks yet. You incur the IPv4 penalty, for sure, but only towards services that don't have IPv6. This provides an incentive for the world to move on without breaking existing infrastructure entirely.
Yes, it does. While in theory you could "undo" the translation and verify against the re-synthesized A record, nobody is going to do that.
464XLAT shifts the "make an IPv6 address from an IPv4" to the CPE or even end device (Apple Devices are known to work well with 464XLAT). For this the device discovers the prefix, and if software wants to make an IPv4 connection, it sends it to the NAT64 using the prefix + IP. DNS64 would be no longer needed.
Back in the day, your uptime was a source of pride. So much so that I remember using samurize to display my PC’s uptime right in the desktop… my Linux workstation of today isn’t impressed at all.
reply