![]() ![]() For more information, contact more information, please see the SEC’s Web Site Privacy and Security Policy. You can also sign up for email updates on the SEC open data program, including best practices that make it more efficient to download data, and SEC.gov enhancements that may impact scripted downloading processes. Please declare your traffic by updating your user agent to include company specific information.įor best practices on efficiently downloading information from SEC.gov, including the latest EDGAR filings, visit sec.gov/developer. Your request has been identified as part of a network of automated tools outside of the acceptable policy and will be managed until action is taken to declare your traffic. To allow for equitable access to all users, SEC reserves the right to limit requests originating from undeclared automated tools. The experience and concepts we are losing in forcing a single protocol, monolithic network are going to be costly in the long run.Your Request Originates from an Undeclared Automated Tool This seems to lead to the rabidly anti-NAT mentality, which is short-term depressing and long-term stupid. If you could solve the “6to4”/“4to6” NAT problems, you just stick two of them back-to-back, and you have solved the “4to4” NAT problems. On the face of it, such technology would speed up the adoption of IPv6 on the backbone, but conceptually it starts removing the need for “getting some more bits”. The problem is if a useful “6to4” NAT was made, then one could do go through a “4to6” NAT from an IPv4 network, over an IPv6 backbone, then through an “6to4” NAT to get back to another IPv4 network. You are correct that we need “6to4 ‘‘nat’’ boxes”, and frankly, we have for a while, but the pro-IPv6 crowd cannot allow themselves to think about those too much, even if they would speed IPv6 adoption. ![]() It will be fun to see the rather in-grained hierarchial format of the IPv6 address meet the real world of non-hierarchial networks. We will need application level gateways and 6to4 “nat” boxes. We will need support for both IPv6 and IPv4 here and there in the network. What people have to remember though is that IPv4 and IPv6 are two different protocols, and too many people building networks today do not remember when we had more protocols than IPv4. And should be enough for having more people looking into IPv6. We need something new.īut “just getting some more bits” is not a bad thing. Everyone is connected to everyone else, and our routing protocols can not handle that. From a strict hierarchy to a mesh, and now to a hypercube. The largest problems we have with IPv4 has to do with the fact that the overall topology of the Internet is changing. ![]() Except we will not have any addressing problems because of scarcity of addresses. We will have the same problems with IPv6 as we have with IPv4. It works like IPv4, it quacks like IPv4 etc. Possibly also the starvation problems in the world, and the CO2 emission issues. It is also the case that unfortunately people that push for IPv6 claim IPv6 will solve all different kinds of problem. In reality, as he points out so well, we will not run out. My friend Kurtis writes in his blog some points he has been thinking of while discussing “when we run out of IPv4 addresses”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |