I have found that the art of writing depends mostly on the environment you have. At least for me it does. Calligra is very crashy but maybe it will work. I tried Pagemager (7.0) on Windows but what a hideously old and ugly program. And every other application is definitely illegal unless you pay a sum every month (I mean the Adobe applications). Anyone who is not a professional can never use these programs.
Writing is so hard these days. There are not many beautiful programs to write in. Sometimes I wonder if everyone should just write on the web since these environments are the most beautiful these days. I feel I've lost my time already since I was not willing to do what I needed to do, which was... nevermind.
Op 22-3-2016 om 20:48 schreef Tore Anderson:
Correct. When looking up «somedevice.home», I'd want IPv6 ULAs to be returned (assuming ULAs are enabled in the first place) as well as IPv4 RFC1918 addresses (again, assuming IPv4 is enabled). Note that fixing this issue is just an implementation tweak in the OpenWrt Homenet code. It's defintively not a fundamental flaw in any protocol like HNCP or IPv6 itself.
Well of course this makes sense. But the broader issue was a type of addressing that crosses boundaries. If you use .home addresses (hostnames) in this sense there is no issue, because you are not intending to cross boundaries with that.
I'm sorry if I failed to understand that it was just about OpenWRT.
Huh? This does not reflect reality, or I misunderstand you completely.
From my laptop, sitting in an Homenet topology using NM-1.2, I see:
$ ip address list dev wlo1 scope global
4: wlo1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether b4:b6:76:17:2e:83 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 10.0.72.155/24 brd 10.0.72.255 scope global dynamic wlo1
valid_lft 26681sec preferred_lft 26681sec
inet6 2a02:fe0:c420:57e1::c68/128 scope global dynamic
valid_lft 1005367sec preferred_lft 400567sec
inet6 fd65:557c:6f31:2d:483f:37b7:98ea:1036/64 scope global noprefixroute dynamic
valid_lft 485sec preferred_lft 185sec
inet6 2a02:fe0:c420:57e1:30f:919e:64d9:138f/64 scope global noprefixroute dynamic
valid_lft 7179sec preferred_lft 1779sec
There are two sets of stable internal addresses, IPv4 RFC1918 (from
10.0.0.0/8) and IPv6 ULA (fc00::/7).
In addition there are the ISP-assigned addresses from 2a02:fe0::/32,
which change from time to time.
These addresses do not «sit in the same 128 bit field», they are
completely independent from each other.
I didn't mean that. Thank you for your consideration.There are people here that want every device (let's say every device on a certain network) to be globally addressable. The issue is that if they have the same (IP) address both inside and outside of some boundary, -- I mean, both FROM the inside or outside (that means to say, from within the subnet or from without it) --- then that means that wherever the OTHER device is located, it will be able to find that node.
It will be able to find your device.Because the address is global, and in a sense even, universal (that is its intent right).
I know they probably didn't think of exploring space, but some of them must have.
Now there are really two basic problems as I alluded to before.1. The reason you want a global address for this kind of service, is that you have devices that can be anywhere, both inside and out of your own prefix or network.
The issue is OTHER devices being able to reach YOU. YOU at this point are just sitting in your network, stationary.Now first that implies that your service will stop working (let's forget about DNS now) if ever your global address fell away (ie. a disconnect from the internet). One of two things can happen, either your prefix remains stable and known so that your internal devices can continue to operate on it, or it falls away.
And really I'm incredulous that people cannot see the madness of IPv6. If you would have designed it, would you have designed the same. If not, why do you support it so?
But let's get back, that was just a thought in between. It's a bit hard to do this with pictures though. I wonder if I have UMLdesigner installed here.....
And I wonder if I can even make something like that with that..... :(. <see attached file>The picture should make it immediately clear that the internal addresses cannot or should not depend on either "out 1" or "out 2". If your internal addresses depend on your connection with out1, and you have your devices configured to use that address, at some point you'll get in trouble when your connection to out1 falls away. Particularly since they won't be reachable from the outside anymore. Supposing that you would switch your devices then to out2. Now the addresses you use depend on the prefix you've got from out2. You might have some clever naming scheme that gives you DNS names for these devices and you can switch it automatically between out1 and out2, based on some preference or which one is currently available. But if your naming scheme is dependent on either out1 or out2, that won't work. Now you need a consistent naming scheme that is independent of both and that still won't change when either of them falls away. But if you wanted your global address for consistency and stability, you've already lost that. The device nodes (addresses) are already changing depending on which connection is up, since your internal addresses that you use FOR the global addressing continually change (in this sense). You don't have any addresses that are independent, since those ULA or IPv4 RFC1918 addresses are not even usable from the outside. Now you can choose to ignore the prefix altogether, but that won't work, since you cannot address it from the outside, and even if you did (supposing you did have a prefix, but it will just get ignored when addressing your internal network) -- it means your devices are now actually WITHOUT a prefix, and they have an address that is solely dependent on the network (internally). This might not be a problem, and it is almost the same as what I would propose, but from the OUTSIDE you still need a prefix that is going to change depending on what connection is live, so even supposing a device D could be addressed like A:D, or B:D, simultaneously -- where D is the unique (SLAAC) address (supposedly, or for example) all of your devices are going to need to be configured to use both A and B whenever or whatever the one is that is available at that time (or both).
Tim said in the other email (I haven't addressed it yet ;-)) (pun intended) that any form of configuration that requires devices to know where they are in order to find something (my words), a messy or buggy thing.
But if your devices are not going to be able to know about the various access paths to your internal network (and I disagree with Tim that there are no real boundaries, clearly a physical connection or entry point can determine a boundary right?) -- I feel the model should follow the physics, and I think UCI itself (of OpenWRT) does a poor job of that, but that's beside the point here perhaps.
If your devices are not going to know about those access points (and why should they) it means that they require a configuration apart from all this that DOES know about the current access paths into the network (and/or the addresses of devices on it, if they are going to depend on the access path (the reason for those randomized addresses, right?). So what is THAT going to be? I haven't seen it yet, but maybe it has been mentioned.
Now you could very well and may say that this is always going to be the case: addressing from any global or broader standpoint is going to need about the address itself that it can reach the network by, so any devices that want access at all times and that use that address, will see it changed or needing to find another access path to the same if one access path falls away. Nothing special in that sense right.
But. Except. And here it gets a bit tricky perhaps, because it falls into my personal life and what has gone wrong with it. Not sure If I can tell here..... But I'll try.
You would assume that now we need a seemingly external thing to update our devices (that are mobile) to consider the new address of our network and in a sense that is what every DNS (Dynamic DNS) service has ever done: give some external party the authority and credit to know about our address from the viewpoint of something that is dependable and doesn't change. Right.
But what if that external party is going to shut us down? What then? And why is this special to IPv6 (or v4)?.
I can't really say, but I love that girl ;-). And I've been convicted of stalking her, but what does that have to do with this then.
The enemy knows about your addresses as well. Why? Okay this gets weird. Let me try.
If you want someone to find you, they must know about it right. This is the same for friends and family, as well as for colleagues and enemies. I won't share those two in the same boat, but they can be ;-).
An enemy can be a real enemy or it can be a fake enemy. The fake enemy only has to pretend to be an enemy, but is going to be a friend if that was possible. Right. Follow me here. It is weird but follow me here please. Cause I want that girl back ;-). Yeah, it was just a young girl, but it pertains also to this. I don't know why yet, but it does.
What it comes down to is that you need multiple access paths regardless, and many ways of finding them too.
Why is this interesting or involving. It's not. Just for me it is I guess. But bear with me here still. I'll try.
Anybody can run into the situation where an access path falls away and with it the address you can be reached by. That means you depend on an external factor to find you, but that's not possible, because you are an internal being. What do I mean by that.
If you had a system based on one actor to resolve your address for you. Because a node on your network is responsible for alerting that authority to your new whereabouts. Everybody is going to know about that authority. And the ones in power about that authority can shut it down too, for you perhaps alone.
That means, in a sense, that if you want an authority that can't be harmed, it must not be findable.
It means of course that it must be something distributed in a sense. And someone has Mentioned NamECoin.
I think I should leave the rest to you. I don't know anything really about NameCoin yet, and I haven't used BitCoin even once.
But why does it revolve back to (for example) IPv6?That's also for you to find out I guess. Let me give you a hint. If an identity has to be internal. And NameCoin ensures that all identities of websites become internal (the bit dot thing). It ensures that YOUR internal identity becomes internal to other parties as well and there is no longer any external party in existence in that sense. Should then still your address depend on ANYTHING external? Should it depend on any external access path or not?
The answer is in the secret. The secret is this: there is no secret. Your internal addresses should not be a secret. Let's leave it at that then?I think I depend on others to find this out, my brain is not good enough. And I also don't know enough about BitCoin (or any at all) and it depends on that too.
The real reason we can be found is because someone loves us. If someone loves us, we are going to be inside of them (internal to them).In a sense, they don't have to find us, they already know where we are. Brighter minds than me have already solved this problem perhaps. I have been late, in life, recently.
I think that Jeremy Rand would know, if you asked him. I think he knows what this means, perhaps.
With dot-bit, your address is already on someone's computer.Even if you did change access path, it would make it to that person's computer pretty quickly again.
But would they do it if they didn't love you, that's the question?. Why would anyone go to the lengths to enable or use this system??.And why it is important about the markup of IPv6 (and IPv4 too, but more to or about IPv6).
Why is the problem solved, in a way, if you use internal addresses (like 192.168.1.1) and NAT, but not with IPv6 in itself, unless you add something?
What is that thing you need to add? It's a form of translation, again.You see, we are being translated onto ourselves. And ourselves is internal to us. All of life is a translation.
Anyone who wants us, who wants to be with us, must translate into us.What does it mean to the girl? It doesn't, she is dead now, long also. She can't live, because she has died, to the whole system we are destribing. But there is one answer too, and it lives in the heart too.
It is suicide in a way, both for her and mee. Now this may sound very creepy and all but I don't mean it that way really.
BitCoin just gives me a filthy feeling still.Just like that CGA gives me a filthy feeling still, you know. Can't shed it off, it's everywhere, all around.
Anyone who would recognise this would see that ....... only love can heal, and only love can be around.
But BitCoin is not love just yet, it is very vile.In the end, if you want to be addressible through various access paths, even an internal one, it makes no sense to pick either one, both, or all of them simultaneously with no translate by becoming "more of you".
Why would you pick an internal identity based on anyone outside reference to yourself? You could pick one, you could pick all, it doesn't matter. Why an external one?
We have talked about ULA and we conjure that they should only be used from within, not from without. But wait a minute, if that's the identity we pick for ourselves, that is who we are.
I previously ventured (somewhere, in my own time) that in any tree (or graph, perhaps) the identity of any node you are connecting to does not really depend on that nodes internal identity (to you) but only to the name it has for you. The name typically then would correspond to the path towards it, its number if you will, its path. How do you get to me? That's my name for you.
Yet at the same time, that means that first, we may not know all the names we have for others. Second, if we did know all the names, or even if we were to pick an arbitraty one, we still need any outsider to exist to even have a name.
In my tree every node had a reference to itself as well. The self reference if you will. If the node wants to reach itself, it uses the self path. It does not use any of the external paths.
Sorry if this is getting too long, I hope it is an interesting read and not too disturbing, but my mind is holding quite well together for a change (if not perfect).
Maybe simply because I have been to a café today ;-). Was fun, in a way, a lot.
Anyway. I still need to make the picture now, then I'll send it.Having either an ULA with .home addressing (for instance) OR an external address using whatever DNS system you want, is creating a gap and schism to who you are to yourself, and who you are to yourself the moment you are somewhere else. If there is no connection to the outside world, you have to use an ULA (or something similar). If there is a connection, you have to use some external prefix, or all of them, or a few, or whatever. Arbitrary really.
If anything is arbitray, it is probably not going to be good, I tell you that.
Now suddenly the amount and reliability of your internet connections becomes THE reason to choose either one of them. That is very random thing you know. Why would you make a fundamental choice based on that?
Why would this girl make that choice? She wouldn't it makes no sense. So you see, in order to get her back I have to get myself back buuuu :p.If she wants me, she will choose me but not based on any external factor such as whether there are links to me or not. It has to be an internal choice in essence. External factors will follow the internal choice in that sense. The heart leads, it does not follow.
It does not follow reality, it determines it.I just hope this system can be designed on some higher spiritual truth, and not just a way to make money you know. If it is designed on something higher, it will mean freedom for all.
Anyone reaching your inner network should see his addressing method being translated into something else. This can be quite meaningful and deterministic too. The name he uses for you on the outside, is not the name you use for you on the inside. It would be completely arbitrary to pick inner names and identities on some set or subset of available external names.
That is why I separated the "left 64 bits" from the "right 64 bits" in that sense. That's my answer to the question I guess. I hope you enjoyed any part of it, if not all, if not nothing. I'm not sure I did, but it's better than usual I guess.
So I was not alluding to two different addresses being "put into" one 128-field. No. I was talking about what Identity you must have to yourself, and how others can know you also.
And I would suggest that you need an identity that is COMPLETELY determined by internal factors and that the outside name should have no bearing on that whatsoever. This is the system I would design.
If you want that to be the ULA, fine, but I would pick something more.... funky.
Then the translation part. Is this tricky or not?Before I said that your internal addresses should not be a secret. Your identity should not be a secret.
You could imply that this means that your internal subnet or prefix should not be a secret, but starting from yourself you do not need a prefix unless you subdivide you know, you already see that and we are not in disagreement with that.
The other person in the other mail mentioned having a /60 prefix with 4 bits available to create any number if /64 subnets.
You could of course also do it beneath /64 and make 4 bits and /68 subnets. Hope I'm doing this right. You could turn your host ID into 60 bits instead of 64.
Those numbers are really irrelevant but the meaning is important. I'm just doing this in my spare time you know, I have no spare time but that's all there is.
You can pick the numbers for your subs, some people used to pick 0 as the first, I disagreed and didn't like it and have almost always used 1 as the first number.
If your hosts have any number and I intend for them to have meaningful numbers although this flies in the face of autoconfiguration mostly.
And why do you really need those big networks you know. Anything that is important to you you will really give a name. Those numbers are names. My current PC is 192.168.1.5 probably. I don't know why, it is just a name. My NAS is 192.168.1.3. My server apparently is 192.168.1.2. My Squeezebox has something random above 100.
Remind me to turn my server off. It uses too much electricity I guess :p.Even if you had a large number of devices, you could give them names. They might be called "n1, n2, n3, ..." etc. I have to leave it at this at this point I guess. You would also do the translation using a bitcoin thing. Using a bitcoin derived thing.
But in a general sense it would be easier if you just used NAT, but if you want an impeccable identity, and if you want it to scale beyond what a human could do, You would have to use a system like that. But it would still need to be a translation of sorts.
I don't know why Bitcoin is so filthy. Maybe by what it is used for. I mentioned the kiddy porn earlier. We all know about the silk road and all of that shit. We know anything is available anywhere if You go Into it. We know typical people using this might not be as good or as proper.
Using Bitcoin you can easily buy stolen PayPal accounts. No problem at all. Spending your money is problematic, but buying it is not (I mean making use of the stolen account you have acquired). If you are really solid in this, if you are really solid in this system, it must mean something is not right with you you know ;-).
I've been on one public sort-of-like-child-porn website once and the comments those men made on that site were so filthy. Everything about it is so filthy. The pictures of the children are so filthy. Not even sexual pictures. Just pictures of children. Nothing sexual about it. And it is filthy. Bah.
I want to wash my hands even talking about it. Maybe I'm a stupid person talking about this. I probably am. Anyway.You know there is a high chance anyone using Bitcoin or paying with it, is probably going to have a reason for it other than just to be safe in the general sense. And the ones most in need of that are probably going to be criminals in one way or another. I'm not saying that's the only use. I'm not saying that's the target audience. I'm just saying those people have the most to lose if they can't use something like that. I'm just saying I know few people or can think of few people that legitimitely use it to become a free person away from authority just for the sake of living their life to the max. Even buying Bitcoin is rather shady, especially if you have not been dealing with it yet.
Makes me think of that game I was playing that is mostly about Bandits. The game is called Guild Wars 2. In the Human kingdom when you start, there are really only two kinds of enemies: bandits and centaur.
There is an NPC in the game of WoW but this guy's name I don't know. There is also an NPC in some forest I just saw, and his name is slim. He is a Shady Dealer. He says "I'm neither slim nor shady. As a matter of fact, I find both references insulting. Now, get out of my sight before I plant my staff up your backside.". But yeah, using Bitcoin does feel like being a Bandit ;-).
You don't have to search for child porn to get onto those websites. Just regular porn or teen porn, just to clear that up. Ooops ;-).
What kind of beast aM I now? Anyway, enough nonsense.Bitcoin just makes me so filthy. And now I want some candy again. Like lil' Candy ;-).
(Just a reference to some name some porn stars habitually choose). We have a guy called Lil Kleine. He is a rapper. He thinks all Teenagers should do MDMA ;-). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_swivbEsD50 :p.
Attachment:
in-out-out.png
Description: PNG image
