So, for those that don't know, the last of the version 4 IP addresses were distributed in February. ISPs and other large service providers (Google, Microsoft, et al) are hoarding what IP4 blocks they have. My guess is we will see far fewer 8 address (5 usable) IP block allocations from ISPs over the next months and years. I wouldn't even be surprised if ISPs come back saying that they want to reduce the contracted number of IP addresses.
With that in mind, and in my humble opinion, the ISPs created, or at the very least exascerbated, this problem themselves. The way they have chosen to provision IP addresses has turned this into a serious problem.
As an example, they have chosen to provision the IPs at the client-edge devices instead of in a head-end room somewhere. This means that each client-edge device needs a minimum of 3 IP addresses + whatever the customer needs, in blocks of 1, 5, 13, or more. So for a customer that needs 1 static IP address, they now are using up 4. For customers that need at least 2 static IP addresses, they are using up 8.
They use up the extra 3 IP addresses because they need a network IP, a broadcast IP, and a gateway IP for their modem or device that sits at the customer site. Then they give the customer the last IP, for a total of 4. This creates a /30 subnet or in long form, 255.255.255.252.
So then if the customer needs 2 static IP addresses, they do all of the above, taking up 3 IP addresses, plus the customer's two IPs. But the next highest block available is the /29 block, or 255.255.255.248 in long form. So now they are burning up 8 public IP addresses instead of just the 5 they needed.
Most clients only need 1 static IP address, but because of this subnetting and provisioning scheme the ISPs have cooked up, that means 4 or 8 IP addresses get used.
If, on the other hand, the ISPs did the subnetting or provisioning at the head-end room, there could be subnets of 128 or 256 IP addresses. They'd still lose 3 IPs: 1 to the broadcast, 1 to the network, and 1 to the next gateway in the lineup. But that would be 3 IP addresses lost out of 128, leaving 125 usable, or 3 IP addresses out of 256, leaving 253 usable. This would result in a ton less wasted IPs.
The downside to this is that the client-edge devices would no longer have outside, routable IP addresses anymore. It would just be a bridge device between the ISP and the customer's firewall. By the way, this is how AT&T does their bridged DSL modems. The modem has no IP address, but the subnet mask for the customer is /32 or 255.255.255.255 instead of /30 or 255.255.255.252, /29 or 255.255.255.248, or /28 or 255.255.255.240.
Subnetting was originally meant to allow logical parsing of IP blocks within companies and control broadcast traffic. These days companies use internal IP addresses and NAT, and broadcast traffic is controlled by Layer 2 or Layer 3 switches. The time for subnetting things down to a micron are dead. But rather than fix the problem, we're doing what typical Americans do; we throw away the old system and invent a brand new, bigger (but not better), obfuscated system that will allow for more sloth and laziness on the part of the ISPs and network admins. And then we shove it down the rest of the world's throat. IPv6 sucks. IPv4 makes sense, but it's been mismanaged for years.
This problem was avoidable!!
Everyone that knows next to nothing about IPv6 has been infatuated with it for years.
Everyone that has had a chance to play with it thinks it sucks and doesn't want to transition to it. The addresses and address schemas are difficult to follow and impossible to remember.
This whole IP6 vs. IP4 infatuation is a guage I use to tell where someone is technically. If they think IPv6 is awesome and they're excited for the change, I know they're still a little naive. If they're generally not happy about the whole thing and dreading the change, I know they're past the honeymoon stage on IPv6.
I for one will keep customers on internal IPv4 networks until it becomes next to impossible to stay there.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Ohio Senate passes concealed carry in restaurants, Other changes
Yesterday (April 13th, 2011) Ohio's Senate passed two bills that will allow licensed concealed carry holders to carry their gun in establishments that have liquor licenses that allow people to consume alcohol on the premises, as long as they are not consuming alcohol and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You can read the story from the Columbus Dispatch here, if you'd like.
Bill for concealed guns in bars advances in state Senate
For the record my wife and I are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Our licenses are from Florida. There's a reason I won't bore you with here, but there are a lot of people that get their Florida CCW instead of their Ohio CCW. The Florida CCW does more and is licensed for a longer period. I tell you this because at present there are about 217,000 people in Ohio with their CCW from Ohio alone. There isn't a great way that I know of to get the number of people like us that have licenses from Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania, or other states. If you added them up I'd guess you'd get a number around 400,000 people licensed that are in Ohio at any given moment.
Take that number and look at how many of them lose their license because they are convicted of a crime. The number is astonishingly low. Perhaps once I'm done typing this I'll go dig the figure up, but it's like 150 people per year. If you use the official number of people that have an Ohio CCW (217,500) and divide that into 150, you get .068%. Of those people, most lost their license because they accidentally carried their gun into a place with a posted no guns sign and they got the police called on them.
Again, the stats don't tell us how many of those 150 people were Ohio CCW licensees and how many were licensed in other states.
The point is, overwhelmingly most CCW'ers are very conscientious about the law and making sure they are abiding by the law. Most of us have too much money wrapped up in our gun, our license, and our education expenses to make it something we want to lose.
The laws have changed significantly regarding where CCW'ers can carry as well. For instance, it used to be illegal to be on any school grounds while in possession of a gun. This meant that before I pulled up in my car to drop my daughter off for school, I would have to stop somewhere else and secure my gun in the safe under my seat. Once I dropped her off, I could stop somewhere else again and put my gun back in my concealed holster. A provision was enacted to fix this problem. When it came to the House and Senate for a vote, a bunch of anti-gun folks jumped up and down and stated that it would increase gun violence on schools. The law passed, and guess what? No additional gun violence.
Before 2006, Guns in parks used to be illegal, too. A reform law was proposed, the anti-gun advocates screamed and cried about increased violence, and yet the reform law still passed. Since then... anyone see an increase in violence? Nope. The violence level has remained the same or gone down. Why? Because the people that would carry a gun in a park with the intent to do harm would it whether it was legal or illegal, and because the people that are now legally and peacefully permitted to carry a gun in a park can protect themselves now.
So when the Ohio Restaurant Association opposes the passage of the bill in this Columbus Dispatch article, stating that:
"We simply feel that alcohol and guns are not a good mix," Richard Mason wrote in the missive. "We encourage you to vote against this or any proposal that would allow guns in restaurants with liquor permits."
and Sen. Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus) states:
"I see too many deaths in this community where there are guns and alcohol."
... I'm thinking they aren't really aware of who the bill will affect. It won't let gangbangers and non-licensed people carry a concealed weapon... well, not any more or less than they already do... remember, those folks don't care about the law. But it will let someone that has been fingerprinted, background checked, and trained in the use of their weapon and the legal aspects of carrying that weapon - do so. These folks really aren't the ones you should worry about.
Along the same lines, I recently emailed United Dairy Farmers regarding their policy on not allowing weapons in their stores, even by licensed concealed carry holders. I love their ice cream, and I'd love to continue giving them my business. But the response I got back, while polite, let me know that the management at UDF was not going to change their policy anytime soon. As a result, I now get my ice cream from Youngs Jersey Dairy. I get my soda and other things I would have gotten from UDF from Speedway SuperAmerica, who does not have such signs.
There's a group in Ohio called the Ohioans for Concealed Carry. They have a slogan on one of their cards that they give to businesses that exclude weapons, including CCW'ers. The card says "No Guns = No Money."
Well, perhaps the Ohio Restaurant Association should consider this as well. There are over 217,000 documented, licensed concealed carry holders in Ohio. More if you consider those of us with out of state licenses. Presently I'm required to disarm if I want to eat in your restaurant, and that does play into my decisoon on where to take my family of 5 to eat. At the moment I'll disarm if I really want your food, but that takes a little effort. If it turns out that Ohio passes this latest law and you then actively put up signs to keep CCW'ers out, that's fine. We'll be happy to avoid your restaurants. I wonder what 400,000 or so less people coming to your restaurants will do to your bottom line?
Bill for concealed guns in bars advances in state Senate
For the record my wife and I are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Our licenses are from Florida. There's a reason I won't bore you with here, but there are a lot of people that get their Florida CCW instead of their Ohio CCW. The Florida CCW does more and is licensed for a longer period. I tell you this because at present there are about 217,000 people in Ohio with their CCW from Ohio alone. There isn't a great way that I know of to get the number of people like us that have licenses from Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania, or other states. If you added them up I'd guess you'd get a number around 400,000 people licensed that are in Ohio at any given moment.
Take that number and look at how many of them lose their license because they are convicted of a crime. The number is astonishingly low. Perhaps once I'm done typing this I'll go dig the figure up, but it's like 150 people per year. If you use the official number of people that have an Ohio CCW (217,500) and divide that into 150, you get .068%. Of those people, most lost their license because they accidentally carried their gun into a place with a posted no guns sign and they got the police called on them.
Again, the stats don't tell us how many of those 150 people were Ohio CCW licensees and how many were licensed in other states.
The point is, overwhelmingly most CCW'ers are very conscientious about the law and making sure they are abiding by the law. Most of us have too much money wrapped up in our gun, our license, and our education expenses to make it something we want to lose.
The laws have changed significantly regarding where CCW'ers can carry as well. For instance, it used to be illegal to be on any school grounds while in possession of a gun. This meant that before I pulled up in my car to drop my daughter off for school, I would have to stop somewhere else and secure my gun in the safe under my seat. Once I dropped her off, I could stop somewhere else again and put my gun back in my concealed holster. A provision was enacted to fix this problem. When it came to the House and Senate for a vote, a bunch of anti-gun folks jumped up and down and stated that it would increase gun violence on schools. The law passed, and guess what? No additional gun violence.
Before 2006, Guns in parks used to be illegal, too. A reform law was proposed, the anti-gun advocates screamed and cried about increased violence, and yet the reform law still passed. Since then... anyone see an increase in violence? Nope. The violence level has remained the same or gone down. Why? Because the people that would carry a gun in a park with the intent to do harm would it whether it was legal or illegal, and because the people that are now legally and peacefully permitted to carry a gun in a park can protect themselves now.
So when the Ohio Restaurant Association opposes the passage of the bill in this Columbus Dispatch article, stating that:
"We simply feel that alcohol and guns are not a good mix," Richard Mason wrote in the missive. "We encourage you to vote against this or any proposal that would allow guns in restaurants with liquor permits."
and Sen. Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus) states:
"I see too many deaths in this community where there are guns and alcohol."
... I'm thinking they aren't really aware of who the bill will affect. It won't let gangbangers and non-licensed people carry a concealed weapon... well, not any more or less than they already do... remember, those folks don't care about the law. But it will let someone that has been fingerprinted, background checked, and trained in the use of their weapon and the legal aspects of carrying that weapon - do so. These folks really aren't the ones you should worry about.
Along the same lines, I recently emailed United Dairy Farmers regarding their policy on not allowing weapons in their stores, even by licensed concealed carry holders. I love their ice cream, and I'd love to continue giving them my business. But the response I got back, while polite, let me know that the management at UDF was not going to change their policy anytime soon. As a result, I now get my ice cream from Youngs Jersey Dairy. I get my soda and other things I would have gotten from UDF from Speedway SuperAmerica, who does not have such signs.
There's a group in Ohio called the Ohioans for Concealed Carry. They have a slogan on one of their cards that they give to businesses that exclude weapons, including CCW'ers. The card says "No Guns = No Money."
Well, perhaps the Ohio Restaurant Association should consider this as well. There are over 217,000 documented, licensed concealed carry holders in Ohio. More if you consider those of us with out of state licenses. Presently I'm required to disarm if I want to eat in your restaurant, and that does play into my decisoon on where to take my family of 5 to eat. At the moment I'll disarm if I really want your food, but that takes a little effort. If it turns out that Ohio passes this latest law and you then actively put up signs to keep CCW'ers out, that's fine. We'll be happy to avoid your restaurants. I wonder what 400,000 or so less people coming to your restaurants will do to your bottom line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)