Good morning, everyone, and welcome to another Science at 10. They've been very successful, I gather so far, and this is the last in the series I gather for a few weeks. Our guest today, guest speaker today, is Amy Ikowitz. Amy's been leading the charge on our research related to nutrition and tree cover relationships, and we had a paper published earlier this year looking at a very large data set, looking at the relationship between child nutrition and tree cover in Africa, and Amy has developed that research a little bit further to look at the situation in Indonesia. The paper that has now been drafted shows some very, very surprising findings and some contentious findings, and I think that it will be worthy of some discussion after she's spoken, so I'm going to hand over to Amy with no further ado, and the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody, for coming this morning. As Teri said, I'm going to be speaking about the relationship between nutrition and tree cover in forests in Indonesia. First, I would like to say that the paper that I'm going to be talking about is joint work with Dominic Rowland, Bronwyn Paolo, Agus, and Teri. So he sort of should have recused himself, I would say, but anyway. So first, a bit of background about the situation of nutrition in Indonesia. So Indonesia has made huge strides in the last couple of decades in reducing poverty, and in the beginning of the 1990s, it also made pretty good steps in reducing child nutrition, but since about 2000, the situation has sort of stagnated. So malnutrition rates are relatively high in Indonesia, with respect, if you compare it to other countries with similar income levels. And about one-third of children in Indonesia are stunted, which means that they are not the height that they should be for their ages. And estimates vary about how much food insecurity in terms of calorie intake there is in Indonesia, but I've seen rates from about 16% to about 36% of households in Indonesia that don't get enough food to eat. And so that's normally what people think of when they think of under nutrition or malnutrition, but there's another form of malnutrition that is actually more widespread, and that's not so much about the calories that people eat, but the quality of their diets. So the main indicator of that is our micronutrient deficiencies. So the numbers for micronutrient deficiencies amongst children, not just the data that I have here, not just for children, but for the whole population, estimates go all the way up to 100 million Indonesians that suffer from some form of micronutrient deficiencies. So the most common of those are iron, vitamin A, and zinc. And so micronutrient deficiencies, particularly in children, have very negative effects. So they increase people's susceptibility to disease because it lowers people's immunities and it retards cognitive development of children both in utero and then after they're born. And eventually in its most severe forms can actually lead to death. So the picture in Indonesia both with respect to calorie deficiency and micronutrient deficiency is not very pretty right now. There are government programs that are trying to address this, but as I said before, with respect to its income level, it's not doing too great. So that's the nutrition picture. Then on the other hand, we work for C4, so this talk has to do with forests and trees.  And depending on who you listen to, some of the justification in some sense for deforestation rates, high deforestation rates, especially amongst policymakers, is that even though it's kind of a bad thing, in some sense it's to serve a higher purpose is food security. So we hear lots of polemics that there's food security in order to feed the increasing global population or in the particular country that you're looking to. We have no choice in order to feed people we need agricultural land and a lot of that's going to have to come at the expense of forests. So in our work, as Terry mentioned a bit earlier, we've looked at the relationship between tree cover and nutrition in large data set in Africa and we found actually that it seems if you're thinking about food security very broadly in terms of not just the calories that people eat but the quality of their diets, we found actually positive relationships to cover and various indicators of dietary quality. So we were interested in looking in the context of Indonesia if we would find similar relationships. So our basic question is to see if there's a relationship between forests and trees in Indonesia and micronutrient rich food consumption. So we're not looking at the number of calories people consume but the quality of their diets. So there's various reasons to hypothesize why there might be a positive relationship and so it could be because forests provide ecosystem services for agriculture and that makes agriculture more productive so people have access to more food. So that's one possibility. Another possibility is that people actually directly collect wild foods from forests and so that increases their... depending on the quality of those foods so trees tend to give fruits, nuts. That directly might have positive impacts on people's diets. It could be because they hunt bush meat in forests and animal source foods are actually the richest source of micronutrients. So it's a very, very key food group. And then there's also the possibility that it's not direct food and it's not so much the ecosystem services or the forests or maybe this is linked to that but the type of agriculture that people tend to practice in areas where there's forests such as shifting cultivation and complex agroforestry systems might actually help diversify people's diets and give them access to more micronutrient rich foods. So in order to look at this question we combine data for children under five and the frequency that they ate foods from several different food groups that tend to be micronutrient rich in the last seven days. So this is data from the demographic health surveys that are funded by USAID and done in many, many developing countries. So Indonesia had one done in 2003. So we have data from all over, well, most of Indonesia with the representative survey and they ask mothers about how often their children ate from various food groups in the last seven days. So we're particularly interested in looking at those food groups that are micronutrient rich and we combine that data with information on GIS data on tree cover. So the DHS provides GPS coordinates for community locations, slightly jiggled a bit so that you can identify the particular community. So we look at the tree cover within a five kilometer radius of a community and try to investigate using a bunch of different control variables, whether there's a relationship between tree cover and consumption of micronutrient rich foods. So in doing so we found that there is a positive relationship between tree cover. I should say that we restricted the sample to only rural communities and only looked at one child under five per household and a child that was over 12 months so that they weren't mostly reliant on breast milk. So we found that children that live in communities where there was more tree cover consumed more animal source foods which as I said before is sort of the key food group in terms of providing micronutrients. They consumed more vitamin A rich fruits and consumed more other fruits and vegetables so that's kind of a big category that the DHS incorporates foods that are not orange, fleshy fruits or vegetables or green vegetables. So we think that that's a pretty exciting result but as we were drafting the paper and talking it over, we thought that maybe we could actually in the case of Indonesia we might be able to do better than that and look more specifically at what kinds of trees we were looking at. So the Africa study that Terry mentioned is we only looked at tree cover but in Indonesia we were able to get data from the Ministry of Forestry which actually classifies the kinds of trees that we could see. So very recently we disaggregated our tree cover group to look at natural forests, planted forests, plantations so that's like oil, palm, rubber, coffee would be in the plantations. And then they have another category which doesn't fit into those categories so it could be anything from roads, land, open savanna, bush and key for us, mixed systems where there's trees but it doesn't fit into any of their other categories so these are trees around communities. So we also divided the trees in the other category so these are trees around people's communities again into low, medium and high. So for low we have less than 20% for medium we have 20 to 50% and for high we have over 50%. And so we looked at the relationship between all of our food group, frequency of food group consumption and the different classes of trees and this is where things where Terry was kind of trying to sell this look some more exciting and maybe a little bit more contentious. So we found that for animal source food consumption natural forests had a positive and statistically significant association. So that sort of supported our hypothesis because what we think is going on is that there's reliance on bush meat in communities where there's forests, surrounding forests. For vitamin A rich fruit consumption and other food and vegetable consumption and animal source food consumption as well we found that the strongest association of our classes was in the medium tree cover category around people's communities. So again that's tree cover between about 20 and 50%. So communities that live in children that live in communities where there's about 20, between 20 and 50% tree cover seemed not seemed. They consume more animal source foods. They consume more vitamin A rich fruits and more other fruits and vegetables. And then we also found a positive relationship between planted forests and vitamin A rich fruit consumption, meat consumption and legume consumption. And we found a positive relationship between legume consumption and plantation forests. So what do we think is going on? Well the nice simple story we have is for the bush meat and the natural forests. For the other categories it seems a bit more complex. So what our intuition tells us we might be wrong and it would be nice to hear from other people and what maybe other people suspect is going on maybe people that are more familiar with the Indonesian rural context is that the 20 to 50% tree cover is really indicative of shifting cultivation and smallholder agroforestry. And so communities that live that practice these types of agriculture seem to be consuming more micronutrient rich foods. For the planted forests we think it's probably infrastructure and logging roads that's making markets that has more easier access to markets and making foods more accessible. And for the plantation forests remember we only found one statistically significant relationship for the plantation forest and that was only for legumes. We are hypothesizing that that's probably a cultural issue because legumes in Indonesia tend to be tofu and tempi. And so that might be a cultural issue of particularly Javanese migrants working in oil palm plantations and having different cultural customs of what people eat. It could also be connected to maybe better infrastructure as with the planted forest although it would be strange that it's only showing up there. So in conclusion we have a strong relationship between tree cover and micronutrient rich food consumption in Indonesia and that we can assert really confidently. And then when we're looking at the particular trees that seem to be important for people's diets and whether those are forest or whether those are mixed multifunctional landscapes had to get that in. Those are questions that we need to explore further and we're interested in hearing from you to hear what people's ideas are for helping us to try to understand what our findings are. Thank you. Thanks Amy, that was an excellent summary of the research. I'm sure there are questions from the participants here so I opened the floor out for questions for Amy and maybe perhaps other members of the research team. You've wowed them Amy. I don't know if this is a question or an input but there's a plan for the Indonesian government to open up some forest land to become rice plantation or agricultural plantation and this is one of the plans of Prabowo or the future one of the candidates for the presidency. I'm just curious whether there's a correlation between forest conversion to become agricultural plantations such as plant with the nutrients itself because the reason behind that is they wanted to increase the economy and also increase the economy of the local community so they can buy more foods and more nutrition but is this logical and do you have any results on that? Thank you. I'd really like to see that speech where he says that because that sort of epitomizes what I said in the beginning that we often see that forests are pitted against food security a really good example where we know we need to conserve forests and that's a great thing but food security comes first. I didn't mention that we also looked at our data set to sort of verify that this is a result that William Sunderland and others published earlier more broadly but that in Indonesia communities that live closer to more tree cover also tend to be poor, lower incomes so we interpret that as saying that our result is not that it's because people are living in more tree areas that they have higher incomes and so are able to buy more foods that's not the case. It's actually even though they have lower incomes they tend to be eating more micronutrient rich foods so the example with rice is rice is an important part of diets and it provides calories and calories are important and as I said earlier depending on the estimates that you look at almost 30% of households in Indonesia don't have access to sufficient calories although it sounds to me like that's really rice for marketing and not really necessarily for subsistence consumption in communities so it's not clear that that would actually end up going to feed people that would be exchange in markets the idea I guess is to increase people's incomes and then with those higher incomes they should be able to purchase more nutritious foods and the data for that are not very convincing there's the link between incomes and dietary quality is very very weak and it can even actually be negative so it depends on where you are on the say if we imagine we have very very poor people, sort of poor people less poor people, middle income people and rich people, something like that there is, when you increase income at certain levels of income your dietary quality probably goes up because sometimes people can only afford to eat rice so as soon as people get a little bit more income and they can diversify a bit their dietary quality will improve but there's a huge range in which people's incomes go up and they buy food with less lower dietary quality like fatty foods, sugary foods, processed foods so if I were going to be president and I really wanted to address issues of malnutrition and under nutrition I don't think, actually I know that wouldn't be the policy I would go for Hi, thanks it was really interesting and I'd like you to explain a little more about this link between income and dietary quality does it have any effect on the distance to the forest let's say the relationship between income and dietary quality is different when you live near to the forest compared to when you're living far that's a really great question that I can't answer certainly not with this data set this data set all in terms of community location all we had was the one GPS coordinate for our community so I don't know which households are living closer which households are living further nor do we have that information for the other study that we mentioned but Ronwin has dissertation in Tanzania actually she does look a bit at that relationship right, do you want to say something? okay so I don't know that my dissertation in Tanzania is the best example but in developed countries these days the people who are food insecure are also the most micronutrient deficient but they also tend to have higher rates of obesity so they're eating too many calories and not enough micronutrients and increasingly in Indonesia and other Asian countries we see this it's called a double burden of malnutrition where people are obese but anemic or obese but vitamin A deficient so providing more rice or more income that relationship is very tricky my dissertation in Tanzania distance to forest there I sampled specifically to look at market access which was inversely related with forest cover and the people who were purchasing more food had much lower dietary quality and the people who were eating more wild and forest foods had better dietary quality and higher micronutrient intake so that's because choices around how to spend your money are not often not always directed towards micronutrient rich foods and there's all this psychological research that shows if you give people a buffet even 10 centimeters difference between the unhealthy food and the healthy food can make a difference to which foods people choose to eat very interesting presentation just a quick question what was the land cover in the places where the micronutrient deficiency was the greatest is it monoculture serial production is it a particular type of forest? that's not something that we looked at so I also it's not quite fair to say where micronutrient deficiencies were the highest because I don't have the data so what I have is the frequency with which people eat from various food groups some of which are more micronutrient rich so it would be a bit complicated but I think we probably could come up with some sort of index to combine all of those and sort of have a micronutrient rich index and then look at its distribution and its relationship to land cover that would be an interesting thing to do so we haven't done that but I think that's something that seems like it might be interesting to do sorry, thank you any other questions from the floor? yes please, Annie it's being recorded so you have to be mic'd up so I have two questions and one is we know that there's a relationship between land tenure and tree planting do you need me to stand up? I was just teasing there's in many places, especially in Latin America where I've worked there's a relationship between tree planting and land tenure so I'm wondering if your dataset has anything to say about the spatial overlay between land tenure security and the kinds of tree cover that produces micronutrient rich diets that looks like a no that's a definite no it's a demographic health survey where people ask questions about fertility it's more like a population type of survey where they don't look at institutions or the kinds of things it's not really for social scientists per se great, so my other question as a social scientist was do you have data on relative access to markets or how connected these communities are to markets because we also know from other places that micronutrient rich foods are very expensive to replace on the market and relative autonomy for markets for peasant producers can actually produce better food security outcomes so not directly we do have so because I used another GIS dataset I do have we were able to calculate distance to coast and distance to closest small city so that's sort of in our minds a proxy for access to markets and sort of my intuition tells me where I think where you're coming from I think that it might be actually a negative relationship in some sense between market access and the consumption of micronutrient rich foods and so that's why I was a bit surprised that we did actually find a positive relationship for places that had more planted forests and my guess is as I said that that's probably because of better infrastructure so I wasn't expecting that we would find out what we did so in this case it might be that the stronger relationship was still with the medium tree cover so that in terms of magnitude that outweighed the impact of the planted forests it also might be something else going on but with this dataset it's hard to get any more precise than that which is why we feel like these are such interesting questions particularly in Indonesia that we think that we should actually try to collect our own data to try to tease out some of these things ladies in front I would like to know if you have more information about New Open Area when there is some population movement Some what movement? Some population movement who go to live in New Open Area for work there and nearly close the forest but we don't have the local knowledge for managing it and find the food here if there is a link or if somebody has to do that Are you asking when there is in migration of people from a different community and they move to a place where there is forest and then that they don't have knowledge of the local area and the local ecology so don't know what kinds of foods to eat It is an interesting question no I don't have that data and I don't know how I think in Indonesia from my limited knowledge and there's plenty of people here that can correct me if I'm wrong you don't really have people coming to a place where there is nobody already so you do have places where there is different during the transmigracie period you did have different ethnic groups coming but where there were already people that were living there and they do have it's hard to know how much of their my guess is that they would have different dietary patterns and some of that might be based on the knowledge of the local ecology and some of it might also be different cultural food dietary customs so it would be hard to separate that out but it's possible and an interesting question Can I ask a question? Do you mind? I think the results from the Africa study and this particular study in Indonesia are extremely compelling I mean the relationship between forest and nutrition is a very powerful message and it's one of those messages we've been sort of clinging on to in terms of the impact of forests on the wider social sector that we work with but so what? I mean what are the policy implications Kalina alluded to the political intent here in Indonesia to work on you know calories basically focus on more calorific production even the CG head of the consortium is talking about to feed 9 billion people in 2050 we need more calories, more calories, more calories and this is going to come with the expense of forests our results are showing actually for better diets forests and forested landscapes are extremely important how do we sort of turn things around policy-wise to actually get people to listen to this this message Thanks Terry well I think over the last maybe five years or so I think the voices the voices of nutritionists have become louder and people are listening more to them than they were before when you read you still read you know papers that start off with that same paragraph you know global population going to be 9 billion how are we going to feed all these people it's going to come to forestation you still read a bunch of those papers but there's more and more papers sometimes in the same journals where people bring up issues of micronutrient deficiency where you have like a whole movement of at least bringing nutrition nutrition and agriculture together maybe not forests yet but that's sort of that's sort of new nutritionists are talking to agricultural people and trying to think about how agriculture can be more nutrition sensitive and a lot of that has to do with micronutrients so I feel like that's a step in the right direction looking at the wider landscape and not just agriculture but looking at wild foods I think that's just the next step so I don't know how close we are to that but I think we're getting closer and I think these kinds of results and by some other people in the last few years you know sort of hot topic I think they still maybe not red hot but it's getting hotter I mean biodiversity is working on similar things these days the FAO had a meeting on forest and food security last year in the state of the world food security one in 2012 they had a little blurb forest and food security so I think it's going to take time but I think having more actual empirical evidence can only make a stronger case sorry about that time for one final question nope I've just been told there's no time for a further question 1035 so let me just thank you all for coming to another Science Attainer it was a very interesting talk and discussion and let me thank Amy in particular for her presentation thank you


and editing my response. So I am ready to copy and paste it into the canvas discussion. Again I will follow the directions to copy my response. I will highlight all of the sentences I just typed. I put my pointer to the left of the first sentence. I drag or move the mouse toward me while I am pushing the left button and when all of the sentences are highlighted I take my finger off the left button. I put my pointer on top of my sentences and I right click and I click copy. Now that I have my response copied I can go back to the canvas discussion. I will click on discussions on the left and find my assignment. It's called social media and personal use. Here it is. I need to click on it to open. Underneath the prompt I see the reply box. This is where I need to paste my response. First I click on the box then I can paste it into the text box here. To paste I will right-click with my pointer in the text area. Then I will click paste. Before I post my response I'm going to read the directions and my response one more time. Over a billion people use social media for personal reasons now. Some people think that in the future we will only use social media to communicate. People will not write letters or have face-to-face conversations anymore. What do you think? Write two to three sentences. Okay I said I think that people will continue to have face-to-face conversations in the future because people will always celebrate holidays and special occasions together. For example people will always have birthday parties, weddings and family get-togethers. So they will have face-to-face conversations during those times. Social media will not replace this. Okay I said my opinion and I have three sentences. I think it's good. The last thing I need to do is post my response. So I click the post response button.


Hi myself Vijay Rayanan and I'm the founder and CEO of Blument Labs. Today we have the first product Bixi, the first ultra portable gesture recognition device that can minimize distracted driving from smartphones. With Bixi you can keep your eyes on the road and attend your phone calls or make phone calls, send SMS, control your navigation system and control your infotainment system without looking at the smartphone. So here we have a demo of Bixi used in a car use case with a in a head up display mode and all you need to do is put your phone on the glass and you can control it in a touch-free way and in the meantime let's say if you want to control your music you can simply switch to your music profile and you can start the song and you can raise the volume or switch to the next song so your infotainment control is there but then if you want to come back to your heads up display control your back again so all while keeping your eyes on the road. Bixi works under all lighting conditions be it absolute darkness or in full daylight and this is thanks to ST's Flight Sense technology and the battery life is also more than a month always on sensing again thanks to STM32 Ultra Low Power Series. Let's say with the right set of next-generation ST components we have ensured that in such a small box you get the best of the new technology and road safety as well.


The problem's not out there. You have to look inside. I had a question around attack. I think it might be lesson 23 Jesus sort of talks about.  One of the things that was sort of coming up in our group and has sort of been occurring for a while, there's a little dynamic that's been playing out between Peter and I where, like, from my side, it kind of feels like, I feel so tempted to believe that I'm kind of this innocent one that's being judged or attacked. It's kind of like, I just see it kind of playing out over and over.  Some general ideas around that. Yeah, attack thoughts are kept as long as there's a distinction made between them. So just like when you're going through this life and human experience seems to be, there seems to be an inner world, an inner emotional world that's within the human being and there seems to be an external world that's out there. So that's one of the most basic dualities in experience for human beings. There's an inner world and there's an outer world. And oftentimes people feel like their inner world is extremely chaotic and there's a chaotic outer world and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of connection between them. And there we could say there are judgments and attack thoughts that come up in awareness and then there seems to be those that are acted out in the external world. It's very important to the ego that there be a distinction there because to the ego, there's a big huge distinction between being the victim of attack and being the attacker. You can see it plays out throughout society. There's a big difference whether you're watching television shows or crime shows or dramas or whatever between the perpetrator, the attacker and the innocent victim. In fact, the ego made this whole construct up and this whole cosmos up and this reinforced the difference between the attacker and the attackee. Why? Because the ego itself is the attack bot. The ego itself is the belief that you can separate from the creator. And it's like a little spider tucked away in the web. It doesn't want you ever to find it because once you find it and you release it, the game's over. The whole giant smokescreen is over.  And there's a song that Kenny Loggins did which the lyrics are who's right, who's wrong when love is gone. The ego is a big deal of who's right and who's wrong, who made the attack, who was unjustly treated. It made this whole system up and even within its system it invents its own sense of forgiveness. Like the victim is the one that should have the pity and the victimizer is the one that should have the anger or that forgiveness should rest on one or the other. The one that was done wrong should be apologized to or should be forgiven. There's a big huge distinction between this. And there's a part in A Course in Miracles in the workbook where Jesus says that if you're willing to see that they're both the same, then you'll be ready to let it go. But as long as you maintain that difference between the attacker and the attackee, then it just sets this in motion over and over and over where the drama will just continue to play out and play out because the realization has become clear that an attack thought is just an attack thought and it's just an opportunity for release, for healing release. But there's no distinction between attacker and attackee. So when you go deeper into consciousness and deeper into awareness, you'll find that the forgiveness lessons get more and more general. Right now it can seem to be very specific and yet the deeper you go inside you start to feel this anger down there that's a non-specified, a non-specific anger. It gets further and further away from the world and you start to realize wow, I've got to deal with this anger in my mind. I've got an inner rage, something I must deal with. And the impetus then becomes to let it go. That's why the mystics and saints have kind of written about the dark night of the soul. The dark night of the soul comes when you start to realize that there's nothing in the world of form that has anything to do with that anger. There's nothing that you can change in the world of form that's going to alleviate that anger. You have to literally like go through it on the inside. You've got to kind of like cough it up and spit it out to be free of it. But there's nothing needs to change in the world. Nothing needs to change in the environment. People don't need to change. It's just the entire perception changes when you bring it up and you release it. And it's just not pretty when you say, Olly, Olly, income free. Okay, darkness.  It's all right. It's okay. And then rah, you know, this rage comes up and comes out. And that's part of what your context is, you know, that's really why you and Pete have come all the way over from Australia, you know, is just for the backdrop, just for the safe context to get in touch with it.  Yes, get in touch with your rage. That's really good.  I mean, even when you would go to like churches or we could say religious institutions, it's usually not encouraged. They want you to praise the Lord, but nobody's encouraging you to bring your rage up, you know. Rage, holics, anonymous. Over there. Room 666. You know, it's just not, it just doesn't happen. So this is really a context for, in a sense, a safe, secure, loving way to allow it up. And to realize that the purpose is never to hold it against you, you know. Whereas that's why it's kept down. That's why it's so repressed is because the ego made up a world and made up characters and institutions and everything that basically say, don't ever get in touch with that. Don't feel that. And for God's sake, don't ever express it.  You can come into all kinds of defenses and mental gymnastics to guard against it, but it's like, you know, at some point you realize you just can't hold it down anymore. You can't keep it in anymore, you know. Even when the world says, you know, don't go too far with getting in touch with this because it will be a burden on the world. It will be a burden on society. It will be something that the world can't handle. And this is a context for saying, yeah, the spirit can handle it. The spirit wants it up and out. So it's good that even if it seems to be playing out kind of between you and Pete, it's much, much deeper than that. And then you start to feel the loving context, almost like a cocoon of safety to let it rise up. And behind that, there's enormous creative expression.  All the gifts of the spirit can pour through so easily. And, you know, then it's a joy. Life becomes a joy. Thank you.


Modelion mewn gwnewid honi gymryd, wedi bwysig y proses yn cyfnodd iawn, pe ar y dyfodol yw'rster yn dod yn cyd-bwysig ac yn cyd-bwysig, bydd ar y choes arlu o bethau, ac yn gyfnodd calwedd yn cyfnodd airfaith gwestiyryd, ac yn gyfnodd ei bwysig yn cyflos Ffx. Yn amlwg am gyda'r banyddol, lim, rhan, agor, a'r gesflaen cyfnodd iawn ar gyfer cyfnodd iawn ar gwasbynodd iawn. Do y bod os ydynt gael mae bod gennym o'r cyffredin ni ar Mannsio, a mae nododd holl o'r gwaith sy'n cimb為n, a phobl mae'r crasio fy mod fyddaid ym Llyfrgei Proses ac yn ymol yn gyhoedd. Mae'r cyffredin ym Llyfrgei Proses yn y ddech chi'n rhaid, mae'r cyfrifiol maen i'r risuerydd gael, mae'r cofnodd yr oedd yn y ddefnyddio, mae'n rhaid hwnna bendsio ym mwyntio gyda'r gwasbwyll ymrwythbeth yn gyfrifosio'r cyffredin. Mae cyfrifosir, that this description of the investment process bears no reality whatsoever to the reality of modern financial markets, which are driven by swings of sentiment, exuberance and then despair, with many financial market participants focused on anticipating what other people believe, rather than on the fundamentals of the cash flows of the basic investment projects. As a result, financial prices such as those of the NASDAQ go through periods of exuberance and then despair. The NASDAQ first of all valuing at quite absurd values many companies in 2001 which subsequently completely disappeared and then in 2002 undervaluing many of the eventual survivors of the internet race. Now these processes are as old as money-based societies. If you look at the Tulip mania of 1640s Holland or the Mississippi project which was sponsored by John Law in 1720s France, you can see him there on the right, you get these surges of irrational exuberance. However, some economists have believed that we should see these as not merely wasteful at times, but also useful at other times, both Joseph Schumpeter and Friedrich Hayek said, yes there are swings of excessive confidence which lead to waste, but they are also vital to the processes of investment and innovation. So that for instance it's undoubtedly true if you look at the railway building boom of 1840s and 50s UK, there was enormous waste, lots of investors went bankrupt. There were many of these lines which were completely unnecessary, but we were left with a dense network which helped fuel the next stage of the industrial revolution. But I want to focus in particular on the irrational exuberance because it's the irrational exuberance that can cause harm and particularly when the swings of irrational exuberance take the form of credit growth as they do in China today with this rapid growth of credit financing a huge level of investment. It's where you have credit growth that in the past we've seen the greatest waste. If you look at what has happened in the Eurozone in Spain, you have banks lending huge amounts of money to projects which will turn out to be largely wasted such as this largely unused airport in provincial Spain. And it was Hyman Minsky who described for us how credit booms are self-reinforcing, they drive asset prices which encourage more borrowing and lending and far more than equity booms can create crisis and instability, banking becoming essentially a Ponzi scheme. And it's also the case that there's something about banking which creates, in credit markets, extraordinary swings of exuberance and then sudden swaps. Look at the way the price of bank CDS spreads collapsed right up to early 2007 and then absolutely soared and that generated first far too much credit to the economy and then a sudden stop to the economy. Does this cast doubt on the case for a market economy as against a planned economy? Well overall not. So my question for discussion is how interventionist do governments and regulators need to be so that we focus in particular the banking system as much as possible on useful investment and useful innovation with as little as possible waste and instability. Thank you.


So hello, everybody. Thank you for coming. This is going to be a session about IPv6. And I should hope that I wouldn't have to do this session. I should hope that by 2016 we would have solved this problem. I was hoping that we would have already switched or been on the very long way to the switch having been done. Apparently, that is not the case. So I wanted to talk to you about what some of the changes are. So first of all, thank you for coming. Thank you so much for attending this session. I'm going to be doing a brief introduction on what IPv6 is, what does it look like, a little bit of the differences compared to IPv4. I don't know how many of you have used it before, have deployed it, have played with it, or seen it. So I'm going to do a brief introduction. And then I'm going to talk about some of the important things for you to know that you can do and also show a bit of API. So if you're developing a low level application, that's how you mostly would be using the API. So let me quickly introduce myself. That is actually me, not in 1999. That was actually me in 1982 playing with high technology of the time. What actually was interesting for me is that I began my open source career by doing IPv6. So I was a student at the time, and I got the question when I applied to a company to do some open source work. I wanted to start thinking of an internship. And they said, well, what do you want to work on? So I just started thinking, well, I could do this, could do that. I had already submitted a patch. My first patch to open source was actually a patch to the Linux kernel back in 1999.  I don't remember the details about IPv6. So I decided, well, let me try to do IPv6. And my first contribution was actually to make an IPv6-capable browser in the year 2000. Mozilla already had IPv6 support. So I decided to work on Conqueror, the new KDE browser for KDE 2. That was in the year 2000. And I started working on KDE during the year 2001 to 2003. Ended up going to work for Troll Tech in 2006. And then that led me to my open source career today. And today I work for the Open Source Technology Center at Intel doing, among other things, IoT. And that brings me back to IPv6. So the timeline that you see here, I'm also showing that IPNG was formed in 1993. So 23 years ago, somebody realized, you know, we need to start thinking about the future. The first RFC for IPv6, that one is actually obsolete, was published in 1995. So I'm going to ask you that date of the IPv4 exhaustion. I'm going to ask for guesses. Does anybody want to venture a guess of what that date is? Somebody said last year, does anybody want to say before or after that? Sorry? 2014? The correct date is actually 2011. So IPv6 has been exhausted in the main pool by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA, since 2011, January. Later in the same year, Asia, so the Asian Regional Address Authority, also ran out of its blocks. So Asia has been out of IPv4 blocks except for returned and bartering schemes since 2011. Europe followed soon after in 2013. And North America was in 2015. The only one remaining is actually Africa. So the African Regional Authority still has, according to current estimates, enough until 2019. So you see the situation we're in. We've been predicting that this was going to happen for 23 years. Now, we're still alive. The world hasn't melted down. That means we actually found workarounds. But they're all that, they're workarounds. So like I said, I'm going to talk a bit about what it is. Show the IPv6 API for programming, low level. And then some of the interesting things you can do with it. Before that, what happened to IPv5? So IPv5, they just used the version number in the IP block for something different. It was an RFC that they published for exploring ideas and reserved that number. It never went anywhere. So the next one available was V6. That is not Babylon 5. That is Babylon 4. And the reason why it's there is because it disappeared. We can chat later about what happened in Babylon 5. So here's some comparisons. The biggest difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is the addressing size. So it is the fact that before I have today in IPv4, I have only 32 bits of addressing possible. And IPv6 expands that to 128. And if all of them were assigned to the entire planet, we would have something around, and I'm probably remembering wrong, but something around 500 trillion addresses per square centimeter of the planet. So we're probably safe. They also created an architectural addressing scheme. So the entire world right now is restricted to about 2 and 1 half percent of the entire addressing. So we're going to use that. And if we find out that we actually need to change the way we do things, we have plenty of room left. Multicasting is actually very corner part of the protocol itself. I'm going to get back to multicasting because it's one of the most interesting features of IPv6. Because now you can do things that in IPv4 were only thought of later. They're bolted on IPv4. They're not exactly built in from the get go supporting many of the things that you might want to do. The maximum transmit unit, that's what MTU stands for, the requirement from the protocol is that at least 1,280 octets be supported on the wire level. So if you have a transmission interface, for example, that is smaller than that, it would require the fragmentation to be done on the lower level. So an example for that could be Bluetooth. So Bluetooth has a frame size of 256 bytes. There's no way you can transmit a packet that contains 1,280 in that. So what it does is that the Bluetooth protocol will fragment it and send it multiple packets, multiple frames, I'm sorry, and then reconstruct them before the layer above receives it. So why is that an advantage? Well, the advantage on that is that the IP layer can actually be much simpler. Fragmentation, like I wrote in there, is always done at origin. So the packet is always received at the end exactly the same way that it was sent. In IPv4, a router in between could decide, I'm going to break this and send the smaller chunks completely out of order. So the receiver needs to put them back together. And that's all putting back together before giving it to the TCP layer that also needs to do putting back together. IPv6 has privacy extensions. And the interesting things that some of them have come into IPv4 because they were invented for v6. But they're built in to the protocol. And even the link layer address resolution is built in the protocol itself. So like I said, some of the things that were invented for v6 actually made it to v4. If you've been connected to, for example, a wireless network and it had no internet connectivity or your DHCP server was down, you might have seen an address like this one that you're seeing here, 169254. That's what we call a link local address in v4. It's an address that is automatically assigned by your own computer because it could not find any other.  This is useless. I'll just reconnect or find another network. Have you ever been through this, seen this address and thought that? Well, in IPv6, when you do see a link local, it's actually very different because it actually means that I might actually have other people to talk to, other devices on my same network to talk to because it's more designed for that. Now, it doesn't mean I have to access the internet. That's a second story. Any casting is another one I'll be back to. But suffice to say that this particular IP address that is here is not one server. It's actually multiple. I'm not talking about load balancing with multiple mirrors behind the scenes and doing proxy. No, it's actually one. At the IP level, it might reach multiple different servers. I have a drawing for it later. And another example is IPsec. It was created as a privacy extension for IPv6 as an authentication address encryption. And it was just so interesting that they decided, let's do it on IPv4 as well. And it led to VPNs being done on top of IPv6. So let's look at what an address looks like. Like I said, it goes from 32 to 128 bits. It gets to be this big address that I showed here. There's two smaller forms. The one I showed in blue is the normal one that you're usually going to see. It just compresses sequences of zeros to shorter segments. There is a compact form by that RFC there. My opinion, not very useful. It's not very useful to remember. Yeah, that was actually an April Fool's RFC. Some addresses that we all know are actually made simpler. The local host address is just one bit set, so column, column 1. So every time that you need to type it, it's actually much simpler. But the idea is, of course, that you're not going to type them because they're very, very long. I mentioned that the devices can configure themselves. So here's how it works. It enables one of the technologies that is more the cornerstone of IPv6 that you're going to see it in practice is called the stateless address auto configuration. It enables devices that as soon as they connect to a network to communicate with each other without having a DHCP server. And by that, I even mean via the internet. The way it works is like this. My device connects to a network. It will send a packet asking, is there any router around here? The routers receive it and say, yes, I'm a router. And in that reply packet, it includes a bit of information saying, here are the addresses valid in my network. So with that bit of information, the device can add a node ID of itself and form a full address with two packets and completely stateless. Any device connecting to a network automatically is talking to everybody else. The router can include a little bit of more information saying, hey, by the way, there's a DHCP server you might want to check for more information, like DNS servers, NTP servers, Wins servers, printer servers, domain searches, or any other information that DHCP has. But it's not necessary. If I have a constrained node, a device that doesn't care about name resolution and only needs to talk to other devices on the same network, it doesn't have NTP client. It can skip that and say, well, I don't care. I'll just stick to the information I had. And that's enough for me to talk to every other node in my network, in my organization, and even to the internet if I wanted to. I didn't explain here, but the point is that the address, the interface ID that it creates is actually tied to your own device. So the question some people ask is, what about my privacy? So what happens if I connect to another network? Will it be able to tell that it's the same person? So the typical case is you go to Wi-Fi hotspots. So you go into this cafe, and next you're in this other store. That bit of information might be interesting to some people, to especially advertiser, saying, well, this person likes coffee and jeans. I might be able to sell him something. So IPv6 has created temporary and random generated addresses. The way it works for the one on the left column is they're completely random. You've got 63 bits of randomness in your address. It means that every time, every 12 hours more or less, rotated after a time, your address changes. And every time you connect to a different network, it changes. For somebody tracking you from the outside of that network, it's completely impossible for them to know that it's you. Because every time or after a time, your address has changed, they don't know it's you. Now, of course, this doesn't include tracking by other means like cookies. This is the low level, the solution from the IP level. And of course, your browser needs to have that kind of functionality to avoid tracking and other application layers as well. Whenever I talk to people about this, they go, well, what if I want to reach my server? What if I, for example, acquire resources on my network? Example, I have a port forwarding into my machine. I'm sorry. If I have a firewall rule that allows my host to be reached from the outside if I want to remotely administer it. Well, one solution, of course, is always to use manual addressing. Another one is this new one. It's not yet common on Linux. It's called stable but opaque addresses. So it is the result of a pseudo-random function. They just bunch a bit of information together. That depends on some secret known to you, the SSID of the network you're connecting to, and some other information. You can read the spec to see what. And what happens is that every time you connect to that network, you've got the same address. But you connect to a different network. It's a different address. So again, it prevents tracking when you connect to different networks. They won't know that it's you. Interestingly, you can actually use both at the same time. So that means your machine will configure locally an address to be reached. But when it sends out a packet, it uses the random one. So don't forget your firewall rules. I just mentioned this. If you're a server administrator or a network administrator, don't forget that now you have addresses that might be nodes that are addressable from the outside world. That doesn't mean that you have to make them reachable from the outside world. So this is one of the most important differences on IPv4 and IPv6 networks. Because on IPv4, what we're used to whenever I connect to my home network or my office network or this network here, I'm always getting a private address. We're getting here 172.26 something. Well, that means somebody on the internet cannot address us. Because that specific address is actually all over the world. Different networks are using it. Well, on IPv6, I might actually get a global address. So I am addressable from the entire world. But that doesn't mean that I need to be reachable. So a firewall might still block incoming traffic and say, well, let's protect the user. But it does have its advantages, right? I'm going to talk a little bit more about it. But the fact is, since it's unique address, I don't need to do address translation. My routers now have less requirement for resources. So I just mentioned something that let's just pay attention to what I said. Well, in my network at home, every device I have has an addressable IPv6 address. So how does the world know what it is? It works like this. Of course, you can always assign addresses manually. And you probably can tell which company is using that address on top. It's a real one. This other technology is called prefix delegation. So this is an example of a network here of a site with three networks. The way it works is that the main router asks their provider of internet services for a prefix. And in this case, it got a slash 62 network, which means that it has 66 bits of address space for the entire network, which is about this. It's four times the square of the entire internet today. But if you're looking at IPv6, usually that means I've got four networks. Usually an IPv6 network is going to use a prefix of 64. And I just realized that the fonts cut off. So this is a 64 here. So I'll pay attention when generating the PDF and fix it for you. The presentation will be online later. So the router asked for four networks. And then it assigned one to net one. For net two, it assigned via prefix delegation to the other router. So in my network at home, I only have one. I don't need more. My router, which is a standard open WRT router, asks my ISP in the US I'm using Comcast, asks it for a prefix for a single network, it gets it, and then it runs what I said before. It runs a DHCP server and announces the prefix to all devices. So my laptop and my phone, whenever they connect to my network at home, they're just like this net one here. They get the prefix announcement. And automatically, they're on IPv6. I mentioned the casting. So let's just look at what they are. Unicast is the normal one that we usually think, which is reaching one. Unicast, it's a one-to-one communication. My sender, he used the blue one. I'm trying to reach the green one. Unicast is I'm just going to get to that particular one. There's nobody else with the same address. Multicast is one too many. It's sending to all of the addresses in a group. The address is likely different. I'm not going to get into the architecture. You can look up later. But it means I'm reaching everybody that has joined that group. The most common use for it is MDNS, or multicast DNS, that the most common use you've seen, which is what allows you to discover devices on your network at home, usually, especially if you have Apple devices. The Unicast is an interesting one that was invented specifically for IPv6, which is to reach, it's a one-to-any, in the sense of I want to reach any of those that belong in a group. Doesn't matter which one, as long as I reach one. The example for this, the typical example you're going to see is routers. So if I have multiple routers in my network and all of them reach the internet, any of them work. I don't need to reach that specific one if that one is freer. So the addresses don't look different. It's a matter of routing that they themselves, these devices that join that Unicast, decide that, well, if I receive it, I'm fine. If I don't, somebody else, it doesn't matter. Are there any questions here just on the overview of IPv6? Do you mind coming to the microphone? Is there any FCS, like in layer 2 of IPv6, or no? There is FCS thing, because you said that there is no, the originated bit size will be sent and received, and there is no fragmentation by it. Is there any FCS? So you're asking about the efficiency of the packets transmission. I'm not sure I understood the question. Yeah, it's the part that Frecon did check how frame and packet are sent and receiving. So I'm going to try and answer. The packets are not bigger than what they are today. So if you're connecting to a wired or wireless network, usually the packets are up to 1,500 bytes in size. That's the size of a frame on ethernet. The size is chosen in such a manner that I might maximize what I'm transmitting. I'm maximizing my throughput per packet, but minimizing the chance of collision. I want to use as little as possible so that if there is a collision, if I lose this packet, I didn't lose too much. The next one might arrive. The number 1280 was chosen so that I can reasonably send 1k of data payload, of my payload, to the destination. Because to that, you have to add the overhead of IP itself, TCP, or UDP, and there might be some extra headers. So that's what they think. The 1280 should be enough. On networks like I mentioned before, like Bluetooth or 6LowPan 15.4, the frames are smaller. So the lower layer needs to fragment them. And they do it. The frames are smaller exactly so that they actually avoid the collision so that the frames, if there is a collision, there's little loss of data. And they can be re-transmitted by fragment as well. Did this more or less answer the question? Yeah. Yeah. OK, thanks. In terms of API, what I want you to remember is two things. First, always use the IPv6 API. I'm going to show you why. If you have a higher level API than the Socket API that you get from Linux or your OS, use it. Use it and make sure that it does support IPv6. If it doesn't, in 2016, stop using it, throw it away. I'm serious. Any API that doesn't support IPv6 today doesn't deserve to be used. But if you have to use the Socket level API, always use the IPv6 API. And I'm showing you why here. It's actually simpler to use than the IPv4 that you might have learned in the old days. It supports both. So you don't have to care about which one it is. And you don't have to assume anything about the address. The other thing I want you to know is actually don't assume anything about the address. So let me give you a challenge. A URL is like this. Scheme, host, port, path, query, and fragment. I want to construct this URL for these pieces of data here. Note the part about having columns inside the host name and a column separating the host from the port. Who's seeing a problem? Yeah? So what happens is that it actually adds these extra brackets in the address. So my example is don't assume that you just can construct URLs by concatenating things. Don't do that. Use a proper API for it. If you have an API for URLs, use it. Don't try to construct by hand. So you don't forget the brackets. So let's get to the lowest level. The lowest level is a socket address. A socket address, I'm sorry if you can't read everything from the bottom, from the back. I actually tried to make it big. It's the same thing as it used to be for IPv4. You've got a socket address, iNet, Internet, or Internet 6. It has the family, which is v4 or v6. A port number, an address. And IPv6 has two extra bits of information I'm not going to get into. But one of them, to be honest, in 20 years of using IPv6, I've never used the flow info. The scope ID is interesting, but I'm not going to get into. There's this other API that was created at the same time called socket storage. The idea is that you put it into a union with everything that you have. It will be big enough to contain everything you need, including, as an example, Unix socket paths. So how does it work? I'm actually not going to ask you to look into this. So to resolve an address, you use this function that was created specifically for IPv6. But it's what you should be using today. Never use get host by name anymore.  All you need to do is decide what you want to get. The example I have here is I don't care which one. Just ask for everybody everything. If my machine has IPv6, yes, return it. If it doesn't have IPv6, then don't bother returning IPv6 addresses. And I'm using for TCP, so I'm asking for string sockets. If you're doing a server, if you're receiving connections, there's the comment there saying use the passive flag. You're going to call it. And this example program here simply prints it. It doesn't use them. So actually it does use them. So there's this generic function here called use. I'm not saying what it just uses right now. It's as simple as that, a resolver. It resolves host names. Do you see here the HTTP? It resolves service names as well. So I don't have to remember which port HTTP is. It will resolve it for me. I could type there SMTP, SMTPS, IMAPS, or something other. It will resolve by itself. It serves for both receiving sockets and outgoing sockets. So bind and connect. So how do we do the opposite? So how do I reverse it to a host name? There is another function called get name info. So this is an example of using. So this one simply prints what it had resolved. And I ran it as an example, trying to get the IPV address for cane or a free node while I was connected to the Wi-Fi network here in the hotel. It printed those first two. So look how it always printed IPV4 first. Wouldn't you say, well, why? So what I did as an example, just a test, I actually connected to the VPN to my home and ran it again. And look how the order changed. So get address info is actually intelligent enough to know that you do have or you don't have an IPV6 address in your network, that you don't have connectivity. So it will sort things in the order that is most likely to reach the server. In the case of these addresses here as well, it can actually even sort the IPV6 addresses depending on which region of the world you are in. So if you're in Europe, it will sort the European addresses first. Well, let me make a connection. So I'm going to connect to the host. If you've written low-level programming, you know socket and connect. Look at that. Everything I need for that connection is already in the resolution. I don't have to remember that it is a family afinet. What is the socket type? Again, it's sock stream. Yes. And what's the last parameter? I never remember. Just put 0 there. No. There you go. It's all done. Connect the same thing. And this is a simple HTTP client that tries to get something. So if I actually run this example on k.net, I get something as a result. And I can use the same thing on the other direction. So if I had used that passive flag to say I want to listen to receive a connection, look at how it again shows, oops. Look at, go back. No, went too much now. I don't have the highlight. So look again how it's again the same thing for the bind. So I don't have to worry about what to do there. I mentioned that always use IPv6 API, because it subsumes the IPv4 one. So this socket that I created here will receive IPv4 connections. They will look slightly different. It will look like this FFFF specific address there, right? Receiving IPv4 is actually the default on Linux, but somebody couldn't turn it off. So I actually recommend that you always turn it back on, even if it was already on. Or if you want to do the dual sockets, you can turn it off by yourself as well. So my recommendation is to always do this V6 only turning on and off. So let me just make a note here on this particular address. If your application has some kind of access control lists that you use to match IP to IP or networks, you need to take care to be sure that you're matching the V4 to that specific IPv6 address. So it is an IPv6 address. It won't be binary equal to your V4. So you want to convert to make sure that you're looking to one another correctly. I'm just going to go briefly over some of the interesting things I mentioned so that you can do. Like I said before, you can use IPv6 for your entire network with globally addressable, but not reachable, addresses. So all your routing elements, so if you're a big sysadmin for a network, let's say like the company I work for, I work for Intel, they can actually use IPv6 for all of them, all the routers. I've seen many, even ISPs, when you do a trace route, you do notice some of the whole routers in between have private addresses. I don't know if you've seen this, it's not very common, but it happens that some of them have private addresses because they didn't have enough IP addresses in their blocks to waste on routers. So with IPv6, you can do it for all of them, so including your routing elements. If you have cloud containers, if you have containers VMs or everything else, so one of the keynotes this morning was showing how when you launch VMs on Amazon, they actually get private addresses by default. On IPv6, no, they would all get public, where they might be firewalled, remember, remember your firewall rules, but they might also all already be routable. So if you're all in the same network element, the same routing, the same firewall zone, they might reach each other the moment that they're provisioned. This is going to be very important for us on this IoT world that is coming, internet of things, because you're going to have 50 billion devices connected. All your devices at home will have a proper address. Another interesting thing was the replacing broadcast with multicast. IPv4, you see often, and by the way, I turn on my machine here, look at your syslog. Mine keeps telling me that there's a bunch of, that's a lot of broadcasts arriving. Many of them are misconfigured clients sending things that you don't want to, but my point is that I keep receiving this information a lot and a lot of data that my machine is receiving on before, even if I don't care about it. So multicast allows me to select what I want to receive. I'm participating in MDNS. I'm only getting MDNS. I'm not getting Windows shares announcements. So one to everyone or one to the entire group, like I mentioned before. But since it's built in to the protocol, it allows us to more closely control which groups and always everything is using groups and ever just sending it to everybody whether interested or not. As part of the address, you also have the scope limitation. So I can always say, everybody that is on the same network as I am, so I'm the same routing network, or the same organization, or things like that. The most common ones are two and three. The most commonly used ones are link, local, and realm, local. And finally, I didn't get into this API, but there is a more advanced socket API. The one I showed was the basic socket API. This one is the advanced one. It allows us to get more information from the packet. So as an example, there are the two that I have here. So if I receive a UDP datagram, I can query it and say, hey, was this addressed to me or was this multicast? Why would you want to do that? Well, there are certain protocols that would say, if you received a multicast and you don't have that information, don't reply with an error. There's no point in replying with errors if you don't have that information. But if it was a unicast asking specifically you about it, well, yeah, no, you reply, no, I don't have this. It can also allow us to decide, I'm going to send this packet. I want to send on this particular interface, not on that one. On IPv4, that's very actually very difficult. It would only do it from the routing table, which means that only the scissor men can configure it and configure exactly one outgoing device. Now, this was, again, all created for IPv6. There are equivalents for v4 on Linux. So IP packet info. But it doesn't exist in other systems. This API is standard. This one exists in all the operating systems. It exists on VSDs. It exists on macOS. It exists on Windows. The v4 doesn't. I had one more, which is a six-low pan was created specifically for using IPv6 on low-power networks. So the example, the question I had about efficiency, what they did is actually they compressed the header because there's a lot of redundant information. By compressing the header, we actually get IPv6 on these networks. More than that, we removed the entire link layer addressing. It's only IP. As you can see, two groups adopted it, both the Thread Group and the Bluetooth, the Special Interest Group. They adopted it for their next versions. That's what I had. Any more questions? Would you mind coming to the microphone? We're being filmed. OK, it's actually a bit of a philosophical question, perhaps, but actually, two of them. No one, philosophical one. It's actually a difference. So the philosophical one, how long do you think people, a lot of people even in with some connection to the IT industry will keep thinking that they are actually safer by using IPv4 behind a nut than just using IPv6 to the state for firewall? Because I've heard that from a lot of people that, oh, I've got a private IPv4 address. I'm safer. OK, so that's an interesting philosophical question. I won't spend an hour on it. I would say that it's a misguided assumption. You're not safer. If somebody broke into your network, then you would not be safer in any way. The biggest difference is the addressability. So it's what I mentioned more than once. If you have the biggest problem you're going to have with IPv6 is if you have a misconfigured router that did not firewall properly, then you might actually get somebody going to your devices internally. That would increase your surface attack area. And if any of those devices that was reachable has a vulnerability, it would allow you to break into your entire network. So that is definitely an issue. Now, a proper season in that is worth their salary will not allow the misconfigured firewall that way. So that's what I'm saying that it's an incorrect assumption to say I'm safer. You have to use security in depth. There's no way to say, well, just because my addresses are public or private, I'm not going to get attacked. You might be by the same vectors. If it's not the firewall, the firewall is the minimum thing that you're going to have configured. You still have other attack vectors. You might have devices that open a connection, a persistent connection to do something. And through that, it might be attacked. Somebody might attack you via USB drive. So you might have heard the details of what happened to, I was the uranium power plant, the Stuxnet virus. It was muggled in via USB, right? So you still have to do security in depth. There's no way around it. It's not the address that is going to make you safer or less safe. The question you asked, how long they're going to think that? I don't know. I was hoping that we would have switched to IPv6 by now, whereas I'm here talking to you about it. And the technical question for change. So you mentioned enabling or re-enabling dual stack support for IPv6 sockets. I know that, at least, I think it was like four years ago or so. There are some of the security researchers said that you should definitely, by all means, switch that thing off and make sure that you can actually keep IPv6 and IPv4 sockets separately, because there were, at least at that time, some security issues with this IPv4 traffic coming over IPv6 sockets in Linux not being filtered properly. So do you know what that has been solved? And is it safe to use now? So I remember something about it. You were right. There was a discussion about it. And I remember reading about it and saying, well, it's not an intrinsic failure.  The issue is what the pointed out is the ACL. That was exactly the problem, because you might have a rule that allows something, and specifically was blocking IPv4 for, I don't know. It was a hacking attempt. So you added the ACL saying, well, this guy here just dropped all the packets. Because it now is coming through the IPv6 layer, if you're not careful, you're not going to match the ACL. The most common scenario is the other way around. You want to grant privileges, and it doesn't match. So you're doing the whitelist functionality instead of blacklisting. But in essence, it's the same thing. You just have to be careful when you're using a dual stack socket that whenever you get a packet that's actually coming from v4, you treat it as v4. You just have to do it correctly. Now, if you do have in your application the ability to open two sockets independently and deal with them in your code is proper fine, by all means do it. So it might actually be easier in your application on some cases. For other applications, it might be easier to use a dual stack. I showed the simpler one here. Other other questions? OK, so thank you so much. I'm around until next Friday, because I'm coming to the other conference as well. If for those of you, if you want to talk to me more, I'm usually by the Intel booth. I'm very interested in making sure that IPv6 does get deployed. I'm happy to help you answer questions. If you have a problem like, let's talk about what happened in that security announcement, I'll be happy to chat with you. Or if you want to talk about other networking aspects, IoT, I'm there. So thank you so much for coming. And happy conference. Have a continuation. I hope to see you tonight.