> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships?
* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.
* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.
* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.
* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?
* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.
> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc.
There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).
> What I argued was that IPv4 could be embedded into IPv6 address space if they had designed for it.
Like:
> Addresses in this group consist of an 80-bit prefix of zeros, the next 16 bits are ones, and the remaining, least-significant 32 bits contain the IPv4 address. For example, ::ffff:192.0.2.128 represents the IPv4 address 192.0.2.128. A previous format, called "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address", was ::192.0.2.128; however, this method is deprecated.[5]
> It’s clumsier than ipv4. It’s unnecessary since NAT was invented.
This is a privileged view of someone whose ISP has enough money (or was around early enough) to get enough IPv4 addresses to assign one to every customer's WAN interface. Not everyone is so lucky.
A lot of folks get non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10[1] on their WAN interface with no way to do hole punching because they're behind CG-NAT.
Can I have it on my home network connection for $2/month? I could do VPS+VPN, but that's another company to deal with, another bill to pay, and several more things to break. And more latency too.
> Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6.
All of those things exist in IPv6.
And it is physically impossible for DNS to be the same, as you have to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A7" address (for "IPv7" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.
> IPv6 feels like we just can't admit to ourselves that it has been a failed transition. What would it take to come up with IPv7 which takes in the lessons of IPv6 and produces something better that we can all agree is worth transitioning to over IPv4.
Per Google, quite a few countries (including the US) are at >50%:
So I'm not quite sure where "failed" enters the equation.
And what exactly would be different with IPv7? Anything that needs more address bits would have to update DNS to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. (A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A7" address (for "IPv7" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.)
You need to update socket APIs to hold new data structures for longer addresses so your app can tell the kernel to send packets to the new addresses. Just like with IPv6.
> The first thing in the IP header is the version number.
So you just change the version number… like was done with IPv6?
How would this be any different: all hosts, firewalls, routers, etc, would have to be updated… like with IPv6. So would all application code to handle (e.g.) connection logging… like with IPv6.
I was addressing the narrow claim that you cannot distinguish ASCII from UTF-7. You can distinguish IPv4 from IPv6 by looking at the version field (and I forgot to mention the L2 protocol field is out of band from IP's perspective). Obviously if the receiver doesn't support UTF-7 or IPv6 then it won't be understood. Forward compatibility isn't possible in this case.
This is a myopic view of engagement options. "Understanding Irregular Warfare":
* https://www.army.mil/article/286976/understanding_irregular_...
"Defense Primer: What Is Irregular Warfare?":
* https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1256...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military
The Afghan Mujahideen / Taliban didn't need planes, ships, and missile launchers to force the Soviets/Americans out.
reply