Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


What's holding back the prophesied low-end price hike due to IPv4 exhaustion? - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

What's holding back the prophesied low-end price hike due to IPv4 exhaustion?

2

Comments

  • @serv_ee said:

    @hzr said:

    "For example, that‘s the IPv6 of our Looking Glass: 2a0d:f300::4"

    I mean..if youd have to actually tell someone that (not write) which would make more sense? That thing or just saying "uh yeah its 144.76.xx.x"

    Maybe im just overthinking this.

    Is it really that much harder to say
    "two, a, oh, d, f, threehundred, four"
    then to say something like
    "one hundred forty four, seventysix, twentytwo, one hundred seven"?

  • @rcy026 said:

    @serv_ee said:

    @hzr said:

    "For example, that‘s the IPv6 of our Looking Glass: 2a0d:f300::4"

    I mean..if youd have to actually tell someone that (not write) which would make more sense? That thing or just saying "uh yeah its 144.76.xx.x"

    Maybe im just overthinking this.

    Is it really that much harder to say
    "two, a, oh, d, f, threehundred, four"
    then to say something like
    "one hundred forty four, seventysix, twentytwo, one hundred seven"?

    Not harder at all but just more complicated compared to v4. Just my personal opinion.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited September 2020

    @rcy026 said:
    Is it really that much harder to say
    "two, a, oh, d, f, threehundred, four"
    then to say something like
    "one hundred forty four, seventysix, twentytwo, one hundred seven"?

    It makes no sense to focus just one issue.

    IPv6 has a new notation -and- way too many addresses -and- at an unreasonably high cost -and- has tried to change significant parts of how things works (e.g. DHCP).

    Had IPv6 only extended the address space it would highly likely enjoy by far more acceptance. Had it also done that sensibly that is to "only" 64 bits and keeping the notation, we'd all use it by now IMO.
    But that's not what happened. What happened is that some morons changed way too much on too many levels in order to achieve wet dream goals that virtually nobody shared. TL;DR: very bad deal in a very unattractive package plus very significantly increased cost.

    The result: very low and very slow uptake even though they used dirty tricks like fear mongering.

  • oplinkoplink Member, Patron Provider

    Curious.. Do you guys feel IPV6 is a must have when buying/selling VPS/ded in 2020?

    To this day I still dont think its being used as much as the HYPE about IPV4's death.

    It seems like the standard is to hand off a /64. Is there a really a need for that many IPs to a vps?

  • AC_FanAC_Fan Member
    edited September 2020

    @oplink said:
    Curious.. Do you guys feel IPV6 is a must have when buying/selling VPS/ded in 2020?

    To this day I still dont think its being used as much as the HYPE about IPV4's death.

    It seems like the standard is to hand off a /64. Is there a really a need for that many IPs to a vps?

    Not a must have, but it's a nice item to check off.

    Not a need per se, but I believe the specifications dictate that a minimum of /64 should be provided per unique device, which is why most providers stick to that.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @oplink said:
    Curious.. Do you guys feel IPV6 is a must have when buying/selling VPS/ded in 2020?

    To this day I still dont think its being used as much as the HYPE about IPV4's death.

    It seems like the standard is to hand off a /64. Is there a really a need for that many IPs to a vps?

    No, of course not. But what do you do when you have but one item that might be potentially attractive (and also addresses the "more is better" attitude of many)?

    Well, you offer that one item and put it to the shop window front.

  • @jsg said:
    No, of course not. But what do you do when you have but one item that might be potentially attractive (and also addresses the "more is better" attitude of many)?

    Well, you offer that one item and put it to the shop window front.

    But I think we might be going to the same place as with IPv4, wasting IP's. I think the attractiveness of that is the shortness of the IP. For a 64 bit block, you would only need to remember half of the address. So it is a lot lot shorter.

    But it Is just plain waste like they did when IPv4 started. When it started no one thought it could be use fully, we believe the same of IPv6 and we are waisting thousands of blocks. Maybe history will repeat itself?

  • @Hosterlabs said:

    @jsg said:
    No, of course not. But what do you do when you have but one item that might be potentially attractive (and also addresses the "more is better" attitude of many)?

    Well, you offer that one item and put it to the shop window front.

    But I think we might be going to the same place as with IPv4, wasting IP's. I think the attractiveness of that is the shortness of the IP. For a 64 bit block, you would only need to remember half of the address. So it is a lot lot shorter.

    But it Is just plain waste like they did when IPv4 started. When it started no one thought it could be use fully, we believe the same of IPv6 and we are waisting thousands of blocks. Maybe history will repeat itself?

    See the size of the IPv6 range. Even with a /64 per person, we won't exhaust a significant portion of it.

    Thanked by 1raindog308
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @AC_Fan said:
    See the size of the IPv6 range. Even with a /64 per person, we won't exhaust a significant portion of it.

    And with something like IP4 but extended to 64 bit addresses each and every person on this planet could have far more than their own /16 which should be more than plenty sufficient.

    Thanked by 1raindog308
  • @jsg said:

    @AC_Fan said:
    See the size of the IPv6 range. Even with a /64 per person, we won't exhaust a significant portion of it.

    And with something like IP4 but extended to 64 bit addresses each and every person on this planet could have far more than their own /16 which should be more than plenty sufficient.

    I was just answering his doubt, I can assure you that I have no special place in my heart for IPv6 (mostly because it's numbers and letters combined; school made me hate that).

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • We'll run out of petrol before IPv4.

  • @hzr said:

    @serv_ee said: Like saved putty sessions or similar or actually just typing in v6 addresses from your memory?

    typing v6 addresses from memory. i remember them just like v4; it's really only 7-8 characters to remember, shorter than a full v4 addr. but i don't randomly generate full xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:..etc.

    if i am doing anything like that (full automation), it will be doing dns resolution automatically, like in kubernetes, so i can just access a service like "webapp.namespace.svc.local" from anything else in the cluster.

    The double colons are an endless source of typos.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @sundaymouse said: To date that doesn't seem to have happened, with $15-20 a year VPS with dedicated IPv4 on sale everywhere,

    If it wasn't for Micfo going under the waiting list would be +400 more entries deep.

    You don't see a lot of those deals outside of places that had large stashes of IP's though. Colocrossing hosts, someone that got some holdings before hand, maybe some companies that are sitting on a bunch.

    There was plenty of hosts that got blocks that everyone knows they couldn't justify. One provider got a 15 one month, and then a /14 a month later. A couple months after that they leased the whole damn /14 to GVH for spammer hosting. I mean, colocrossing got a /14 at the end and that thing hit Spamhaus wicked fast. It sat on there for a year.

    There's still very large buys/transfers going. Since things have run out Amazon has bought an entire /8+ with all the other cloud providers buying as much as they can. Microsoft has bought tons, OVH gets fairly large blocks.

    Cogent is now charging $0.50/IP month+ for all of their IP's and providers like Zayo and Cox are $2 - $3/month per IP.

    Lets not forget the handful of providers abusing AFRINIC for ranges too.

    Francisco

  • @jsg said:

    @rcy026 said:
    Is it really that much harder to say
    "two, a, oh, d, f, threehundred, four"
    then to say something like
    "one hundred forty four, seventysix, twentytwo, one hundred seven"?

    It makes no sense to focus just one issue.

    IPv6 has a new notation -and- way too many addresses -and- at an unreasonably high cost -and- has tried to change significant parts of how things works (e.g. DHCP).

    Had IPv6 only extended the address space it would highly likely enjoy by far more acceptance. Had it also done that sensibly that is to "only" 64 bits and keeping the notation, we'd all use it by now IMO.
    But that's not what happened. What happened is that some morons changed way too much on too many levels in order to achieve wet dream goals that virtually nobody shared. TL;DR: very bad deal in a very unattractive package plus very significantly increased cost.

    The result: very low and very slow uptake even though they used dirty tricks like fear mongering.

    Yet, you are only focusing on one issue. :smile:

    Address space is not the only issue with IPv4. Humongous routing tables, subnet sizes, addressing, configuration, encryption...the list goes on and on. And IPv6 solves all of them. The fact that you mention DHCP just shows that you do not fully understand IPv6, since there is no need for DHCP in IPv6.

    IPv6 is not a "IPv4 but with more addresses". It's a completely new way of addressing devices, designed for the networks of today and tomorrow. IPv4 was obsolete basically the day the internet was invented, we have simply adapted everything we do around the shortcomings of IPv4 since we have had no other alternatives. To simply extend IPv4 to 64 bits would only temporarily solve one of the issues. That would just be a whole lot of work for very little gain.

    The only increased cost of IPv6 is that you have to replace the "old school" people that cant or wont keep up with progress. Once you understand IPv6 and implement it correctly, everything is easier, and hence cheaper.
    The very slow uptake of IPv6 is simply because of these "old school" people that are unwilling (or unable) to learn something new.

    Thanked by 1TimboJones
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @rcy026 said:
    [TL;DR Old school people are stupid and the culprits]

    Sorry, but pointing at some allegedly guilty party and blaming them is not gonna cut it nor is it a level I accept as basis of a discussion.

    You see, it's them "old school stupid" people who created the internet in the first place and the "obsolete from the beginning" IP4 is what kept the internet running for decades and still keeps it running.

    And YES, the problem (TM) is that we are going to need more addresses, albeit way less urgently than many seem to think.

    Have a nice day

  • @jsg said:
    Sorry, but pointing at some allegedly guilty party and blaming them is not gonna cut it nor is it a level I accept as basis of a discussion.

    You see, it's them "old school stupid" people who created the internet in the first place and the "obsolete from the beginning" IP4 is what kept the internet running for decades and still keeps it running.

    And YES, the problem (TM) is that we are going to need more addresses, albeit way less urgently than many seem to think.

    So you are free to claim slow adaption and slow uptake as major problems, but I am not allowed to point out the reason for that? That's a strange definition of the word "discussion". ;)

    I never said stupid. I said old school. I am one of them, calling myself stupid would be...well, stupid.
    And yes, we created the internet (I was about 10 years late so I take no credit for the creation, I just claim to be part of the "old school"). And yes, IPv4 is what the internet has been running since then. Like I said, there have been no alternatives. But trust me, if the creators of IPv4 could even have imagined the kind of networks we are looking at today, IPv4 would have looked a whole lot different.

    I understand where you are coming from. I hate IPv6 too. I have 30 years of experience in networking that is now basically obsolete and worth nothing. It sucks, but that's the way it is. But even if I hate IPv6, I fully understand and accept that it's coming. Roll with it or get left behind, simple as that. And even if I hate it, I cant just ignore that it is a far superior protocol, in every way. Trying to claim otherwise is just plain wrong.

    Yes, IPv4 was awesome. It has scaled to millions of times the size it was designed for. But that doesn't mean we should just keep using it forever. With that kind of mindset we would all still be running 386sx with 512KB of RAM, since that's what Windows started on. But software evolved, and so did hardware. It's time for networking to keep up.
    It's called progress, and it's inevitable.

    Thanked by 1TimboJones
  • stefemanstefeman Member
    edited September 2020

    Just wait when Ford and other auto industry companies sell / are forced to sell their /8 blocks, and then we have ipv4 for years again.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @sdglhm said: Can we just slap a few extra zeros and call it a day?

    Computers do not think in decimal. If you stop looking at IP addresses as xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and start looking at them as 32-bit binary numbers, things make more sense.

    @yoursunny said: I'm developing the new internet that does not use addresses. The network can send packets using their names. It can support infinite number of devices just like you can have infinite number of domain names.

    Great. Now just make it work as fast as IP-based systems and you're done. I loved this part of that web site:

    "Yet another dimension of scaling challenge is packet forwarding speed. Decades of research have proven it possible to engineer ASICs to forward IP packets at wire rate, even for the fastest wires. We think that much of that research plus some new techniques can be used to achieve wire rate forwarding of NDN’s longer and variable length data names."

    1. Invent new protocols

    2. Magic to solve the engineering issues

    3. Profit!

    Thanked by 2jsg yoursunny
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited September 2020

    @rcy026 said:
    So you are free to claim slow adaption and slow uptake as major problems, but I am not allowed to point out the reason for that? That's a strange definition of the word "discussion". ;)

    No, you are of course free to point out the reason, but that's not what you did. What you did was to tell your hypothesis and in a way that seemed to make IPv6 opponents look like stupidity was their problem.

    I never said stupid. I said old school. I am one of them, calling myself stupid would be...well, stupid.

    ... you do not fully understand IPv6 ...
    ... "old school" people that cant or wont keep up with progress ...
    ... "old school" people that are unwilling (or unable) to learn something new ...

    I'll be fair and assume that it was not your intention to call us stupid but you should be fair enough to see that one could easily read it like that.

    But trust me, if the creators of IPv4 could even have imagined the kind of networks we are looking at today, IPv4 would have looked a whole lot different.

    Well, they seem to have imagined a need for an IP address space for (back then) almost the whole earth's population.

    I understand where you are coming from. I hate IPv6 too. I have 30 years of experience in networking that is now basically obsolete and worth nothing. It sucks, but that's the way it is. But even if I hate IPv6,

    For me that isn't even an important point because it largely boils down to using another data type. But then, my point isn't about me and my situation.

    I fully understand and accept that it's coming.

    That seems debatable. I've heard that it's coming and rolling over IP4 since more than a decade ...

    I cant just ignore that it is a far superior protocol, in every way. Trying to claim otherwise is just plain wrong.

    I'll politely refrain from commenting on that other than stating that many disagree.

    Yes, IPv4 was awesome. It has scaled to millions of times the size it was designed for. But that doesn't mean we should just keep using it forever. With that kind of mindset we would all still be running 386sx with 512KB of RAM, since that's what Windows started on. But software evolved, and so did hardware. It's time for networking to keep up.
    It's called progress, and it's inevitable.

    Pardon me but, NO, that's not progress. If it really were then the newer Windows (or linux) running newer applications on newer (and doubtlessly much faster) processors wouldn't feel roughly the same speed as back then.

    Fact is that we do have a working internet even with enough addresses and good enough to run pretty much everything on it, from government over companies to private households.

    Let me point you at 2 just real problems and culprits for increasing address scarcity: (a) extensive ignorant address waste due to relatively few entities (e.g. colleges, corporations) holding more IP4 addresses than whole (poorer) countries, and (b) a DNS system where A records only hold an address but no port (or the lack of an 'A+' record) which leads to massive IP4 waste for http servers (which are among the most heavily used programs).

    If those 2 issues, both of which could be solved without turning the internet upside down, are solved we'll be good for another 20 or 30 years, which should be enough time to push the IPv6 morons aside and to let some proper engineers design IP4+ (or as I call it IP5) which definitely is 64 bit based. Simple reason: that's the largest word size of common processors for a long time.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited September 2020

    @raindog308 said:

    @yoursunny said: I'm developing the new internet that does not use addresses. The network can send packets using their names. It can support infinite number of devices just like you can have infinite number of domain names.

    Great. Now just make it work as fast as IP-based systems and you're done. I loved this part of that web site:

    "Yet another dimension of scaling challenge is packet forwarding speed. Decades of research have proven it possible to engineer ASICs to forward IP packets at wire rate, even for the fastest wires. We think that much of that research plus some new techniques can be used to achieve wire rate forwarding of NDN’s longer and variable length data names."

    .

    1. Invent new protocols

    2. Magic to solve the engineering issues

    3. Profit!

    :smile:

    Thanked by 2raindog308 Abd
  • @jsg said:

    Pardon me but, NO, that's not progress. If it really were then the newer Windows (or linux) running newer applications on newer (and doubtlessly much faster) processors wouldn't feel roughly the same speed as back then.

    Are you kidding me??
    My laptop, which truth be told have a few years under its belt already, boots from scratch to desktop in less then 10 seconds.
    I remember a time when booting a computer took close to an hour!
    Roughly the same speed? No progress? What are you talking about? :lol:

    Fact is that we do have a working internet even with enough addresses and good enough to run pretty much everything on it, from government over companies to private households.

    No, we do not. There are loads of tech out there that is severely limited by todays networks. I work in government, and there are situations today where IPv4 is actually holding us back, so we are running everything we can on pure IPv6 already.

    Let me point you at 2 just real problems and culprits for increasing address scarcity: (a) extensive ignorant address waste due to relatively few entities (e.g. colleges, corporations) holding more IP4 addresses than whole (poorer) countries, and (b) a DNS system where A records only hold an address but no port (or the lack of an 'A+' record) which leads to massive IP4 waste for http servers (which are among the most heavily used programs).

    HTTP servers? Are you kidding me? You see that as a problem? That's a fucking fraction of the addresspace.
    Think about the number of cellphones in the world. The number of watches, fridges, TV's and washingmachines. Or just the number of cars, trucks and other vehicles. Now you are starting to understand the kind of addresspace the designers of IPv6 was aiming for. IoT is basically just starting up, we cant even imagine the things that will run over our networks in 15-20 years.
    And keep in mind that we have already exhausted the IPv4 addresspace many many years ago. Ever heard of NAT, the emergency solution to the exhausted IPv4 space? How many addresses do you think we would have left without NAT?
    And yes, I know that you are going to argue that NAT is fine, not everything needs a routeable address. Well, that's simply bullshit coming from someone that can not fathom the possibilities that IPv6 brings.

    If those 2 issues, both of which could be solved without turning the internet upside down, are solved we'll be good for another 20 or 30 years, which should be enough time to push the IPv6 morons aside and to let some proper engineers design IP4+ (or as I call it IP5) which definitely is 64 bit based. Simple reason: that's the largest word size of common processors for a long time.

    To call it IP5 would be a bad idea since it would easily be confused with the so called IPv5
    (RFC 1190) that was tested and scrapped.
    And yet again, you are only focusing on addresspace. IPv6 solves so many other problems then just addresspace! Nobody is "turning the internet upside down", they are improving it and making it work faster, better and cheaper then ever, and at the same thing making it futureproof! Yes, a lot of people (like myself) have to relearn what we do, but that's just healthy.

    PS. You get offended when I use the term "old school" to describe IPv4 advocates (which I even admittedly considers myself to be part of) but it's OK for you to use "IPv6 morons"? Really?

    Thanked by 2vimalware TimboJones
  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @jsg said: Let me point you at 2 just real problems and culprits for increasing address scarcity: (a) extensive ignorant address waste due to relatively few entities (e.g. colleges, corporations) holding more IP4 addresses than whole (poorer) countries, and (b) a DNS system where A records only hold an address but no port (or the lack of an 'A+' record) which leads to massive IP4 waste for http servers (which are among the most heavily used programs).

    This is very accurate. Changing DNS is a far, far easier change to roll out with little or no disruption.

    On the other hand, changing ip protocols is probably the most painful path possible.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @rcy026 said:

    @jsg said:

    Are you kidding me??
    My laptop, which truth be told have a few years under its belt already, boots from scratch to desktop in less then 10 seconds.
    I remember a time when booting a computer took close to an hour!
    Roughly the same speed? No progress? What are you talking about? :lol:

    You are cherry picking.Sure some things are faster - but many aren't, due to many factors, mindless bloat being a major one.

    No, we do not. There are loads of tech out there that is severely limited by todays networks. I work in government, and there are situations today where IPv4 is actually holding us back, so we are running everything we can on pure IPv6 already.

    (a) Well, you can use IPv6, but what we discuss here is whether IPv6 should and will replace IP4.
    (b) Honest example please.

    HTTP servers? Are you kidding me? You see that as a problem? That's a fucking fraction of the addresspace.

    It is a very significant fraction of the address space that needs to be publicly routable and probably reason nr. 1 why many people don't like/accept NATed VPSs.

    Think about the number of cellphones in the world. The number of watches, fridges, TV's and washingmachines. Or just the number of cars, trucks and other vehicles. Now you are starting to understand the kind of addresspace the designers of IPv6 was aiming for. IoT is basically just starting up, we cant even imagine the things that will run over our networks in 15-20 years.

    Sorry, boring attempt. The vast majority of these need not be publicly routable and if they do NAT is good enough.

    And keep in mind that we have already exhausted the IPv4 addresspace many many years ago. Ever heard of NAT, the emergency solution to the exhausted IPv4 space? How many addresses do you think we would have left without NAT?
    And yes, I know that you are going to argue that NAT is fine, not everything needs a routeable address. Well, that's simply bullshit coming from someone that can not fathom the possibilities that IPv6 brings.

    Funny, anyone who simply doesn't agree with the IPv6 proponents arguments - usually leaving out the cost - is accused of not being able to "fathom the possibilities that IPv6 brings". That's BS.

    For a start even most IPv6 proponents have called address exhaustion to be the major or even single problem IPv6 wants to solve. The rest is just what happens when (a) morons are let loose, and (b) morons are trying to increase the number of bullet points on their side. (see below re "morons")

    Well fact is that even if "2^32 isn't enough" is considered to be the problem "2^64 to the square(!)" is not the right solution. One reason for that is that 128 bit addresses don't fit in the register width of the processors we have ... and will have for a long time, which translates to lower performance and higher energy use. Another reason is that we do not need an IP for each atom in our whole galaxy. A third reason is that the "we neeeed!" blathering of marketing drones does not indicate real need.

    If you want discuss the hypothesis that we need more than 2^32 IP addresses, welcome. If however you want to tell us that we need enough IP addresses for every atom in the whole bloody milky way you should be prepared to meet hard resistance.

    To call it IP5 would be a bad idea since it would easily be confused with the so called IPv5
    (RFC 1190) that was tested and scrapped.

    I'm less clueless than you seem to think. I know that but I also know that the vast majority of people do not know it, plus "IP5" is a useful moniker to transport the message "more than IP4 but certainly less than IPv6".

    And yet again, you are only focusing on addresspace. IPv6 solves so many other problems ...

    Bullsh_t! IPv6 solves "problems" its proponents have blown up or basically pulled out of thin air.

    PS. You get offended when I use the term "old school" to describe IPv4 advocates (which I even admittedly considers myself to be part of) but it's OK for you to use "IPv6 morons"? Really?

    No, I get offended when you call people with another view (that's contrary to yours) stupid. I didn't do that; I called the morons who came up with IPv6 and pushed it through the committees morons- Because they obviously are. "Engineers" who come up with a "solution" beyond even current common processors register width are morons. I do however not call you, who has an opposing view, a moron but I treat you with politeness.

  • So much drama about IPs..

  • @raindog308 said:

    @sdglhm said: Can we just slap a few extra zeros and call it a day?

    Computers do not think in decimal. If you stop looking at IP addresses as xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and start looking at them as 32-bit binary numbers, things make more sense.

    Uh, zero is binary. You can slap some extra zeros on the end and that certainly makes a bigger number, but they'll need to slap some one's on the end, too.

  • @jsg said:
    "a very long rant"

    Since I started to post in this thread, I have received pm's from several people telling me not to argue with jsg. I will take their advice and back down, and let time tell if we will run IPv4 forever and simply adapt to its shortcomings, or if we will move on and evolve.
    Live well and prosper. :smile:

    Thanked by 1TimboJones
  • @rcy026 said:

    @jsg said:
    "a very long rant"

    Since I started to post in this thread, I have received pm's from several people telling me not to argue with jsg. I will take their advice and back down, and let time tell if we will run IPv4 forever and simply adapt to its shortcomings, or if we will move on and evolve.
    Live well and prosper. :smile:

    lol, I on the other hand love arguing with him.

  • rcy026rcy026 Member
    edited September 2020

    @stefeman said:
    lol, I on the other hand love arguing with him.

    Then you are more then welcome to continue this argument.
    I think we left off at me claiming that IPv6 is the future and jsg claiming that computers have made no progress since the late 1960's. :smile:

    Thanked by 2vimalware TimboJones
  • serv_eeserv_ee Member
    edited September 2020

    @rcy026 said:

    @stefeman said:
    lol, I on the other hand love arguing with him.

    Then you are more then welcome to continue this argument.
    I think we left off at me claiming that IPv6 is the future and jsg claiming that computers have made no progress since the late 1960's. :smile:

    That's not what he was claming tho..

    Thanked by 1jsg
Sign In or Register to comment.