Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Implementation Of IPv6
jinx_ writes: "For those of you who were interested in the OpenBSD IPv6, Microsoft has a site of their own on the subject. 'Microsoft Research (MSR) is writing an Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) implementation to further networking research on the Windows NT/2000 platform. USC/ISI East is our partner in this development. Due to external interest, we have decided to make a beta version of this implementation publicly available in both source and binary forms.' Sounds like it would be fun to play with at least." Anyone know anything more on this? Post below, please.
Great, so this means not only will they be claiming that Microsoft was the first one to come up with IPv6, but this must mean that they're also going to make it incompatible with everything else out there. Glad I no longer use windows.
by microsoft isn't that one of the seven signs of the apocalypse?
And the microsoft IPv6 stack has been out for over two years in an unsupported research capacity.
I'm really considering working there.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
We're talking about Micro$oft... of course it's going to be their own crappy version. If it follows their SOP, then it will look like it will be months late, yet amazingly ship close to on time, with all the bugs to be worked out in a patch released 4-6 months later.
Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh, but has MS done anything to not deserve a criticism like that? Frankly, I expect them to bully their way into this market as well. I hope I'm wrong.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This may not be nice, but this prerelease version has been out for quite a while on their research site. I haven't had the nerve to try it yet. I mean, after all, it IS MS-prerelease. I still remember what happened with IE4 beta 1. :) And think, that was only a shell-integrated browser... Not that I dislike MS or anything (NOT sarcasm).
Many Microsoft Research studies are purely academics. They do some great work. Only after it gets to their employer (and Bill Gates's teams of programmers get to hammer at it) does it become flawed.
You have to separate the company from the research team.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Um, the 2.4 kernel has IPv6 support, I'm using it now.
I'd like to have you run Windows 2000 client for a couple of weeks (burn a copy off your friend if you must) and see if you still have the same sentiment. I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft, but Windows 2000 is perhaps the single best piece of software I've seen them write.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
$20 says that, when all is said and done, Microsoft's version of IPV6 will be ever-so-slightly incompatible with the standard implimentations.
"Gee paw...i can't get to this website running FreeBSD anymore...it must be a crappy OS"
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
This is like..... moldy. It's _SO_ old. I have a copy here that I'm sure has been "touched" so the file is even older than the date on it. ...
-rwxr-xr-x 1 xxx xxx 286720 Jun 1 1998 msripv6-netmon-src-1.0.exe
-rwxr-xr-x 1 xxx xxx 507392 Jun 1 1998 msripv6-src-1.0.exe
Talk about missing the boat by over 2 years....
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Note that the Fnord! Server is covered by the GPL, rather than our license
What, Microsoft is now a believer of Discordianism? Or is this all still part of Operation Mindfuck?
Null Serviam, I say!
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
IPv6 has been around since 2.2.x though I can't remember which x..
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
So before you start proclaiming that Microsoft has seen the light, remember that MSFT is obviously acting its own self-interest here. For whatever reasons, some PHBs decided that it would be to Microsoft's advantage to open-source this baby (and it is a neat little project, I'll admit). It's certainly likely that we'll benefit from it too, but at the end of the day, Microsoft is a publically-held corporation and is legally obligated to maximize its profits. Don't think for a minute that they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts -- they're just trying to make money, whether it be through closed-source software or now open-source software.
variable declarations like: char *name = NULL; (where's the char *szName?), and you get the feeling you've entered a parallel universe where Unix programmers have gone to work for Microsoft.
Paul
From da soft: "... implementing IPv6 to further networking research on the Windows NT/2000 platform."
Translation: "...IPv4 was really really hard. I didn't really get it. One time I was working on the NT4 drivers and I forgot what line I needed to GOTO and it turned out that all network traffic was getting opened as an Excel spreadsheet. I was moved to the talking paperclip project, but now I'm back for IPv6 cause it's easier!"
This reminds me of a Simpson episode where the following conversation takes place:
Lisa: Please, Dad.
Homer: No.
Lisa: Please, Dad.
Homer: No.
Lisa: Please, Dad.
Homer: No.
Lisa: Please, Dad.
Homer: No.
Lisa: Please, Dad.
Homer: No.
Lisa: Please, Dad.
Homer: Oh, okay, okay.
Hitachi has had out a 9x and NT 4.0 IPv6 protocol stack out for a while now, and it is free and works well. It's nice to see that 3rd parties can contribute greatly towards the MS platform just to have them poke out and claim that something they did is the first time it has ever been done on their OS. Realisticly though I don't think they will have a stable product till at least 2nd Qrt. 2001. But right now I have an IPv6 only sandbox running on a few FreeBSD 4.1 --STABLE and OpenBSD 2.7 systems thanks to KAME.
As more and more devices (cell phones, PDAs) become IP-enabled, 32-bit IP addresses will become increasingly scarce, and eventually they will run out. Some people are predicting this will happen in just a few short years. Moving to a larger address space, such as the one afforded by IPv6 is the only answer.
Unfortunately, the fate of IPv6 rests in Microsoft's hands. If IPv6 is to ever attain widespread use, Windows will have to support it. The sheer number of Windows machines out there guarantees it. No matter how soon Linux and BSD servers support it, it will be pretty useless without widespread client-side support, and that means Windows support.
MS has had IPv6 working in the research labs for a long time, yet they are really dragging their heels when it comes to putting it into a shipping product. Beats me why. I suppose they might have some financial interesting in seeing IP numbers getting scarce ("If you want your own IP, you have to sign up for MSN!"), but somehow I don't think even Microsoft can hold back the rising demand for more IP addresses.
So, sooner or later, they are going to have to include IPv6 support in Windows by default. And not just the server-branded versions of Windows either, but the consumer versions as well. The Windows that Joe Bloe runs on his home PC will have to come with IPv6 built-in. Otherwise, Internet growth will be stifiled. Isn't it scary to think that the future of the net rests in Bill's hands?
Free Hans!
Use your brain, pick up a book, learn some new skills. Don't be so lazy.
Satan, get out the snowblower, Microsoft is posting source to what could become part of their operating system.
Check out the date on the press release -- March 15, 2000. This is not news.
Ken
It's some hitachi software, but if you need some MS IPv6 here is your answer.
Hitachi's IPv6 Stuff
True though microsoft themselves are behind the bandwagon.
From the docs:
Just kidding...
What about running IPv6 on 9x/NT/2k? Anyone have any reports on it? How hard was it to get running? Did your apps play nice with it? How was performance? Who was there to talk to? Any practical immediate advantages? Are there any ISP's yet offering IPv6 support? What will AT&T @Home (is that their name this 24 hours?) do if I start running IPv6? Did the MS implementations interoperate with other vendors? Which one seems best under WinWhatever? Which one seems best overall (Linux/BSD/etc.)
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Microsoft currently has two IPv6 stacks available for download. One is the TechNet IPv6 Developer Preview, which is a 'snapshot' release for programmers and the other is the Microsoft Research IPv6 stack which they are constantly adding new features to.
The stacks are currently command-line based. No cute GUI tools, it is cryptic to setup but seems to be quite stable in my IPv6 lab. I use FreeBSD/KAME as my tunnel broker server and GNU/Zebra as my BGP4+ router with a session to Sprintlink.
The only current weakness is the real lack of applications available for the Microsoft Windows platform on IPv6. No SecureCRT, mIRC, Bulletproof FTP or what not. Now on the BSD/Linux side that is the exact opposite, almost every concievable application has been IPv6'ified.
For more information, evaluate www.6bone.net, www.kame.net or your BSD/Linux distribution's web site.
-Pat
How about creating something like Trumpet Winsock. Like in the days before Microsoft implemented Ipv4 in Windows ? In other words, take the Ipv6 spec (from OpenBSD?) and write a driver for windows, and put it in the BSD licence (eventually with a M$ clasule :). Then push the spread of it.
Ofcourse writing a windows driver may not be fun. But the cause is good :)
Um, idiot, OpenSource doesn't mean GPL. No one could legally incorporate the code into anything.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
actually i think it was:
Lisa and Bart simultaneous: can we have a pool dad?
Lisa and Bart: can we have a pool dad?
Lisa and Bart: can we have a pool dad?
Lisa and Bart: can we have a pool dad?
Lisa and Bart: can we have a pool dad?
just Bart: can we ha....(lisa motions for him to stop)
Homer: I understand. Let us celebrate our new arrangement with the adding of chocolate to milk.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Man, I bet that Philipino script kiddie is just drooling at the thought of sending I Love You to 2^128 computers.
"I shoulda never sent a penguin out to do a daemon's work."
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
Hate to be picky, but Agilent is not HP Research. Agilent is a separate company that develops, markets etc all the former HP telecoms, medical and "anything that isn't directly a computer" products. They decided to split the company up because the bean-counters thought it would look better on their spreadsheets! (Not a joke, unfortunately). Anyway, HP continues to do all the computer related R&D itself as always, although it does outsource some of that to small, specialist outfits .
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
Here is an interesting story about Microsoft, and it (slightly) involves IPV6.
I went to "Microsoft's Big Day" back in March I believe. This event was (at our town at any rate) just a big propaganda machine for Windows 2000 and Office 2000.
The hotel where it took place was initally crowded with people from the buisnesses from town, but with each intermission (the "seminar" lasted a whole day).
Basically the lectures went over the features of Win2k and why you should buy it for your buisness, same thing for Office. The main presenter (other than the boring laywer who read from the EULA... No, I am not joking)was a woman who seemed quite knowlegeable about NT. She was quite sharp I thought.
I decided to test how sharp.
I walked up to her during an intermission, where people were asking very very basic questions.
My turn came up and I asked:
"When will the Windows 2000 kernel support IPv6?
Currently it only supports IPv4, and thats a serious issue with the looming IP shortage."
Just for a second her eyes went a little wide - the first question all day that she had not been able to answer. She glanced quickly at a person nearby sitting in the front row, then looked back at me and said "I don't know".
This was fine, I did not expect her to be able to answer the question, I wanted to see her true level of knowledge, whether she was plain PR or a techie at heart.
Now what got interesting is that the fellow to my left who was sitting in the front row of the presentation (dressed in "plain" clothes)and had been the man that the presenter had glanced at, got up and began to praise Windows 2000. He mentioned how "No operating system supports IPv6".
I replied, "Funny, Linux and BSD support it." He did not believe me at first, and addressed the *nix idea with a wave of his hand, as if the *nix OSes were naught but a bother. We then argued about IPv6 and it's importance, and how it loads routers etc, etc, etc. But, as we did so I noticed that he was leading me further away from the people asking questions to the presenters (I was winning the argument because I had just read Understanding IP Addressing: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know.) I was also declaring things like: "Well, Linux can do that! What do you mean that Windows can't?" Which seemed to irk him.
(Ok, before someone tells me to read the Advocacy-how-to, I was very polite about it, and not derogitory to MS, I was doing it in more of a "Gee, I thought Windows could do that too... You mean it can't?" Besides, YOU try sitting through an 8 hour MS propaganda session and see if you don't snap!:)
We finished arguing, I "won" not that it was really important. I did not really care. Still, what I thought was *really* interesting was that I did not recognize him. I live in a small town, and I know ALL the computer people here. They all know me as the local Linux geek. I never saw this guy before, and he *WAS* knowlegable, he *DID* know what IPv6 was, and was able to discuss it. I would have known if there was a guy like this in town.
I waited until the very end of the seminar, when everyone was leaving. I watched this "plainclothes" guy, (all the MS people had Microsoft shirts on). The "plainclothes" guy left in the same van that the MS people left in. I have not seen him in town since.
Interesting don't you think?
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Got Rhinos?
Well, yeah, if all the competing OSes hadn't had their own stable IPv6 implementation for years already.
M$oft finally get their arses in gear. About frigging time.
Can we get on with an Internet now that Grandpa's finally got his coat on?
Jack of All Trades
Hum. Our favorite OS has been doing IPv6 for ages already...
Ni!
One of the more interesting posts I have seen on /. today....
Pity I have no points left....
From the point of view of addressing, at least, IPv4 is fine for internal networks, but IPv6 may be necessary for new hosts/mobile devices and backbone.
Cute, but did you have to demonstrate your own lack of knowledge with you first question? The NT/2000 kernels don't "... support IPv6?" or IPv4, or IPX/SPX or AppleTalk or any transports in the kernel. The protocol stack is essentally a file system shim between the redirector (rdr.sys) and the hardware drivers (also abstracted vis the HAL). That how the IPv6 released 2 years ago was able to install on NT5b2 along side the existing IPv4 stack.
Didn't have shit to talk to and was not very stable (given the b2 system, anyway) but it did work and did not change the kernel at all. Even installed without a reboot.
Your Forgetting ARIN is charging like $10,000 for something like 6 thousand ipv6 addresses. It will never be accepted if it costs that much to implement. I think the smallest amount of addresses you can buy from arin is something like 16,000 addresses.
-LW
Read the license agreement at M$ download page. They say you have to send back to them any changes you make to the code, and that only them can sell for profit the changes you've made to the code bundled in a comercial product, you can't.
So if you need IPv6 in any product, you better make it GNU GPL'ed and use the code from linux Kernel.
What ? Me, worry ?
look great, we now need a gateway for ipv4(standard) over DNS over ipv6(m$) over ipv4(m$) over ethernet for a fully functional msn/replacement-nstp-connection *ggg*
The license agreement has a bit in it about not reverse engineering the product. This seems to be a rather strange clause, given that they're also distributing source; when you can look at the source, you don't need to reverse engineer. Of course, this probably just boilerplate text for a license agreement. But my more paranoid side thinks that maybe this is there so that, should Microsoft add any "embrace and extend" incomabatabilites, no one will be able to duplicate those incompatabilites by looking at the source code, since that would break the license agreement. Thus they'd be able to have their cake, and eat it too: get people to peer reivew and fix their code, but no other IP6 projects can get any use out of it.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
You can get the newest version here.
Here's the stack in action:
That's over my WaveLAN wireless PC Card in my Win2K laptop to my flatmate's Libretto C100 running a recent NetBSD-current which is our WaveLAN - LAN gateway. All of our boxes are IPv6 native. No IPv4 encapsulation for us. And yes, WaveLAN kicks ass! You NEED WaveLAN.
So, in answer to one of the major questions, Microsoft's stack works with other IPv6 implementations. It doesn't keep settings between reboots at the moment, and it doesn't do ESP only AH.
Andrew van der Stock
Offtopic? Put down the crack pipe, mister moderator. Sure, I hate MS, but I hope I see this in meta-moderation.
MS presented about this at the USENIX/WinNT
research conference about two years ago.
> the single best piece of software I've seen them write
My vote still goes to "edit"...
>first one to come up with IPv6
yeah, but it should take some of the spotlight off of Al Gore and his tireless work on IPv4.
Ok, ok, I couldn't resist...
--
Spindletop Blackbird, the GNU/Linux Cube.
Remember, open source can confer an economic advantage -- the old "many eyes" principles is just one of the reason that Microsoft might want be releasing the source.
Indeed, wasn't this one of the strategies discussed in the first Halloween document? "Combat OSS by using its strengths to our advantage," or something with equivalent meaning?
what John Carmack was bitching about a while ago? How he could make Quake run better if he could just get to Windows' networking code? Is this at all relevant to that?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Considering the going rate at most ISPs is $50/per IP address, that a 5000% markup they get to use. The price you quote is only $1.50 per address. How is that pricey?
Engineering and the Ultimate
It's put-up time at Microsoft Research. Seven years after its founding, the lab has yet to make any real breakthroughs.
Got Rhinos?
Uh, the simple fact that _their_ best interest is often opposed to the public's best interest?
Compare the stability of WinXXX to Linux. One is the result of MS spending years working on the basis of 'our best interest', the other by people actually working under the assumption of 'what works best' (a.k.a. the public's best interest).
Do you need it spelled out clearer than that?
this subject. What implications will ipv6 have on the internet at whole?
Of course the 128 bit addressing makes for virtually unlimited IP address as compared to 32.
There will be tons more header information with ipv6. Will every router created need to be modified/scrapped in order to use this?
Will there be an ipv6 standard for every OS?
I don't see a mac using it without of course it's ip stack being changed. So you develop a new IP stack.
This one boggle me for now. Will get up to speed.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
Well, for a loose definition of "long" anyways.
http://ipv8.vrx.net/spec/
I guess it's time to release IPv8.
Can't afford them fascist corporatists to get to everything first, don'cha know.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
"add any "embrace and extend" incomapatabilites, no one will be able to duplicate those incompatibilities by looking at the source code"
Thats one very good point, But:
If MS begins the embrace, extend tactic - if the rest of the 'net 'duplicate that operation we fall into a terrible pit. What happens is then MS controls the protocol and everyone else is left playing catch-up, thats where the extinguish bit comes into play. By doing this they marginalize everyone else by arbitrarily introducing incompatibilities. AVOID THIS TRAP!
32-bit IP address are not running out. Do you actually think there is a need for 4.3 billion publically addresses machines? Most computers today are in corporate situations that don't touch the internet except through firewalls, but currently use non-reserved ip blocks for the chance of one day things changing.
I will say, that without proper management, they could run out, but clearly look at this stupidity: "whois 3.0.0.0@whois.arin.net". Does GE need 16.7 million addresses?
What we need is variable subnet masking working on All products, and supernetting working on all routers, all the issues go away. That, and have companies justify having thousands of addresses when they only have a couple pingable IP's (and usually those are on a separate network anyway)
I chose the question based on that.
I knew the stack was separate. The whole point of the question was to see how much the presenter knew, not getting an answer to the question.
I wanted to see if I got back a response like, "No, the kernel and the stack are separate" or "I believe IPv6 is forthcoming" or "what kind of question is that?"
As you just caught me on the question, I wondered if she would catch me on the question. You can choose to believe that or not, but it was the point.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
It does say 'implementation' which means that they are going to make it available for Windows OS.
I am not that familiar with windows tcp, but my guess is that it does not currently support IPv6. This could mean that they are now going to. The problem I see is that they could potentially do the same thing to it that they did to kerbos.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
What innovations has Microsoft Research come up with? Oh, you mean like the concept of linking files to save space - heard that Microsoft just thought of that recently. Too bad it's not available on Unix.
And why does it take a "Research" team to implement a protocol? Seems like a programmer should just be able to read the rfc's and implement it.
Hi all, MSR's IPv6 implementation has been out for a while now. And the NT version for over a year now. Though the key point is that this is a "Preview", thus not a real product. IPv6 will take off when two things happen. A desktop company embrasses it (MS) and a router company embrasses it (Cisco). Not just implements it, but ships it as default, or really easy to turn on. I first saw MSR's IPv6 Preview at Inet2000 in Yokohoma Japan this past July. I was working for my company, Sun Microsystems, at a IPv6 connectathon. Sun was the only company there with an IPv6 product. Not a beta mind you, but a product. Sun was first to the market with Ipv6 as a product in Solaris 8, which came out in March. Oh and BTW, Solaris 8 is free if your machine has less then 8 cpus and you can get the source if you are an educational institution for free. Another point about my experience with MS and IPv6 was that at the connectathon, they just sent their machines, but no reps. I took the week off from being a network protocol engineer to be a booth bunny. I answered questions, talked about our product and the future. they sent some compaq machines running 2000 and showing off a modified version of IE and getting crappy connectivity to the rest of the connnectathon. For the most part, besides the Kame BSD Imp and ours, most other IPv6 imps sucked! They were either incompatible (IBM, HP) or were buggy and would cause the machine to get wierd or crash over the week (IBM, Cisco, Panasonic, Lucent). Esp Lucent since there were our router. Their box kept going down! So this is, MSr's IPv6 page, is nothing that will change the world. not until someone in MS proper (which if you have any friends at MSR, ask them how different they are from MS proper and how difficult it is to migrate) adopts it will we see a change in the world. Some places are calling for IPv6 today. Asia really wants it. We are working with some ISPs in Japan that are rolling out IPv6 over ISDN this fall or winter. some places want end-to-end today (not fucking NAT!) and don't have any IPv4 addresses. these are not people like big US ISPs. see ya all -Jay Solaris, a 64 bit OS on a 128 bit network
While i believe you, that they probably have some fine engineers over at MS the problem is, that it's not them that make the truely important design decisions , but marketing. This can be seen at the example of bundling IE with Windows: while at first this didn't have anything to do with the design of either product (hey they just gave it away for free, you pay the price with MS Windows anyway) later IE was intertwined with the OS so much that it's now really not easy to rip it out without destrying something (for the big userbase). It's obviously bad design to give up modularity and every engineer will tell you that, It's also obviously good design to have clear, well documented interfaces (maybe there are, but the documentation is well hidden) so you can exchange one thing for another.
... so most businesses who have a lot of correspondence with customers via Word documents use two versions: an old one for creating documents goin out to customers (who might not have updated to the latest version) and the latest version to be able to read their customers documents). Now all these are design decisions no sane engineer would burden a sensible piece of software with, it's just microsoft marketing screwing over the customers.
It's also very obvious that applications should be compatible with their preceding versions if possible (try to edit a Word document with an older version than Word than what last touched it
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
it HAS to be compatible because ms doesn't make ANY network equipment!!!! ipv6 isn't just about os's, its about ROUTERS and SWITCHES and BRIDGES (oh my!) and the like. if cisco eqipment can't read ms's packets - its sol.
HEY! that's how we can get rid of ms!
I've read some of the patents that have come out of this group. Among _many_ other areas, they have been attempting to patent critical technologies for the future of 3D and online gaming.
They are doing a great job making small extensions to material in the public domain and then receiving typically broad patents. Many game companies are already in violation of one of Hoppe's patents on continuous level of detail systems, and many more will be infringing on related patents in the near future.
I agree that Microsoft Research is full of smart people doing great work. I also know the comparison to Lucent is certainly valid - more lawyers work there than engineers now.
If you factor in the USPTO and the growing M$ patent portfolio, Microsoft Research is in many ways more evil then any other part of the empire today: Even if they are broken up, they are collecting 17+ year monopolies on future enabling techologies.
1 - What do people need from IPv6? What can we do to make this a bigger need or a need exclusive to us?
2 - Can I embrace and extend?
3 - What does this cost me? Support? Development resources?
4 - Can I release just before a crisis (remember Y2K? - oh maybe just after the crisis) to force an upgrade? Most consumers haven't even heard of IPv6 yet. Thus no economic value.
Actually I think that this release is more genuine than most people think. MS _has_ to remain compatible with the rest of the market at least to a basic degree. Remember all the articles about the companies, including MS, that use something other than NT for their web servers? They aren't stupid. They would not make their OSs incompatible with half of The Net.
Hey, maybe they're waiting until all their web servers are NT based. This could take a while...
Yes, why do people insist on creating finite length addresses!?
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
WaveLAN kicks ass! You NEED WaveLAN. :)
Except of course when
#insmod wavelan
fails on your gateway and you sit there bitching about the damn WaveLAN card as I was last night. (Damaged card due to faulty power supply... It was a long shift yesterday...)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I want to hear you guys tell your bosses what dinosaurs they are and how lazy they are. If you aren't fired within a month, I'm sure your choice of projects will become markedly LAME. "LAME" would also be the term I'd apply to your judgement skills in telling your boss he's full of --it and doesn't know as much as you. Good luck in your next career as used car salesman.
Damn - now they bombed Japan with it.
The research team may have "good intentions", but all in all, when the chips fall, it's up to Microsoft how to use all that research, so regardless of how progressive the research is, it'll still be molded into Microsoft's embrace and extend philosophy and like Kerberos, they'll certainly attempt to make it so that only Win2K products can talk to Win2K products and to hell with everyone else, because, after all, they are the enemy. Please do not forget and always bear in mind - Microsoft isn't interested in competing, only in destroying the enemy at all costs and regardless if the DoJ is looking or not - if we followed their tactics the world would be one big nuclear parking lot populated only by those darned persistent roaches... They've even been legally declared as untrustworthy - so keep in mind, nothing they do that appears to be "good" is good for us, only for them. This isn't blind Microsoft bashing - this is an honest opinion after reading countless news articles, following the DoJ trials closely, reading press releases and watching Microsoft closely. To them, there is no level playing field - in their eyes, you either use Microsoft or they're going to make it so you have to use Microsoft. No room for other players at all.
And on an Internet whose use is driven by games, Napster, and VoIP, almost all "workstations" are also servers.
You really should go read the docs arin set forth.
You don't own ipv6 addresses, you rent them, you have to pay a renew price every year. And deticated connection isps praticly give you ip addys. Most local dialup isps will charge you at most an additional 5 bucks a month. But still, Think about the intial price for an isp to start up with ipv6.
BTW, i never said it was piracy, its just tooo high of an inital price for most isps. Arin is just trying to get as much money as possible while they think people will still pay them a little bit. They are greedy. Just remember how many ipv6 addys are theoreticly avilable.
Or how'bout "Duff Gardens"
A few hours grace before the madness begins again.
I believe he's referring to the fact that he's either some type of tech support or in the security field. Think about it:
:-)
M$ bugs + lusers = $$$ for us
I agree, let them be. Us geeks need to eat too.
Which happens to be the most stable and respected implementation of an operating system to date - still around because it work how it's supposed to!
-Leo
In the specific area of multiplayer games, where I'm a 11+ year senior programmer (and also happen to be a paralegal with patent experience), I'm not exagerating at all.
"This isn't so" 'cause it costs 10-30k to get a single patent. Even megacorps like M$ only need target choke points, beyond basic research.
In the very specific case of Hoppe's patent on CLOD methods, he did have a novel way of treating part of the process. The problem is the patent as written was sufficiently broad to cover many similar approaches, which includes ones presented publicly at SigGraph's the previous few years by many different parties.
Most companies in business for the long haul devote signifigant resources to R&D, which is simply good business. However, when the output is primarily a patent portfolio, as opposed to actual products, the motives are reasonably suspect.