Because the clocks internal to GNSS receivers are not that accurate, if they're not at the "targeted" location they'll see that all satellites are off by a given time offset, and think that their clock is just off by that much.
Yes - delay SYNs until an authenticated reverse lookup confirmed the IP was owned by a trusted domain. With caching to reduce common-case latency, which would otherwise be intolerable.
It was a somewhat flippant (given that GitHub doesn't implement DNSSEC either) dig at the idea of using hand-entered/hand-updated IP addresses for access control, rather than having the access control system look addresses up in the system designed to securely attest owner/ip mappings.
> You don't exactly need a translation layer. If they just gave me 1.1.1.1:: in v6, anyone migrating v4 to v6 would have the same route to me as before, and other changes like DNS6 could be gradual.
Think about this on a concrete, packet by packet level - I, from a v6 network, with a 128-bit address that cannot be represented by IPv4, decide to open a connection to 1.1.1.1. 1.1.1.1 doesn't have v6 set up, and so can't read my v6 packet and craft a response packet, because its address is invalid in v4. We need a gateway in the middle that will translate the packets from one format to another and perform the NAT function from one address space to another. This is an irreducible complexity.
> a lot of people don't even want public v6 addrs for hosts, they just want NAT/DHCP.
People don't care about whether their address is public or not, they want connectivity. SLAAC gives that to them; it is you that are insisting on adding complexity for the sake of having a non-routable address. As a user, I enable IPv6 on my router and go on my merry way; as an ISP, I assign my customer's router a /60 or /56 via DHCPv6 instead of a /24 and go on my merry way. Running an IPv6 address allocation system is a an easy, solved problem and has been for decades.
The hard problem is dual-stacking, and there is no way around that.
IPv4 addresses are in fact a subspace of IPv6 (that's NAT64). They were not by fiat declared invalid. The actual thing I think you're complaining about - the necessity for NAT64 at all - is unavoidable, because you need a NAT/protocol-translation layer for packets to actually move between the new address space and the old one.
SLAAC-by-default is not, in my experience implementing IT automation, an actual barrier for adopters. You have a router sending out RS instead of a DHCP server, to an admin this is not a meaningful change.
The problem has nothing to do with over engineering, or really anything to do with the actual contents of the IPv6 standard. It is just devilishly hard to make any backwards-incompatible change to layer 3, and address expansion is always going to be backwards incompatible.
Assuming you're both referring to the events of 19 March, they did not eject from the F-35. I know of no event during this war where an F-35 crew ejected.
Commander-In-Chief is not a career military post, it is an elected politician. Your barefaced assertion that he would have professional-level knowledge is resting on one an array of assumptions - that he has an interest in the details, that he respects and listens to professionals, that he has the attention span to read written briefings - that reporting indicated are false.
The Nigerian type scams typically prey on greed; time pressure isn't part of the draw.
There's another class of scams where the draw is fear - "your son is in jail", "your bank account is under investigation and will be closed in 24 hours if you don't act now", &c. They rely on time pressure to prevent the victim from reaching out directly to the parties they're lying about and disproving the scam.
This is aimed at that particular type of scam and that particular type of victim.
It gives preferential treatment to Jews regardless of their religious practice or lack thereof.
Its self-definition as a "Jewish state" is deliberately vague about its definition of "Jewish", and is in practice closer to Western ideas of ethnicity/nationalism than to "religion".
The Paris Agreement included an explicit clause allowing parties to exit it after giving notice of withdrawal. It did not go out of effect immediately on Trump's election, but the administration went through the legal procedure.
The NPT has much stricter terms for withdrawal, which in any case Iran has not followed.
(The better and much more relevant analogy would be the JCPOA. That's what happens when the US does foreign policy by "executive agreement" instead of treaty. Foreign countries should not value them more than the paper they're written on.)
1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional" (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left.
2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism.
But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.
Because the clocks internal to GNSS receivers are not that accurate, if they're not at the "targeted" location they'll see that all satellites are off by a given time offset, and think that their clock is just off by that much.