Slashdot Mirror
Will Vista Overload the DNS?
Jamie Northern writes, "Thanks to new directory software, Windows Vista could put a greater load on Internet DNS servers. But experts disagree over whether we're headed for a prime-time traffic jam or an insignificant slowdown. Paul Mockapetris,inventor of DNS, believes Vista's introduction will cause a surge in DNS traffic because the operating system supports two versions of the Internet Protocol (IPv4 and IPv6). David Ulevitch, chief executive at OpenDNS, a provider of free DNS services, said Vista's use of IPv6 will not disrupt the Internet at large. 'DNS can be improved, but predicting its collapse is just spreading FUD.'"
just friggin deploy ipv6
When Vista comes out, it will be introduced gradually compared to the millions of installed Win98/NT/XP systems.
It will take years until/if it reaches considerable marketshare. ISPs have plenty of time to upgrade in the meantime.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
This has to do with the necessary gradual migration from IPV4 to IPV6, and has nothing to do with Vista. Besides, only routers that support IPv6 will even route the DNS requests to DNS servers. If we want to switch to IPV6, every OS out there is going to have support both in tandem like this. You can't bitch about the slow adoption of IPV6, and then turn around and bitch again when there are insignificant consequences related to the transition.
It's also worth pointing out that while Vista might come out on a single day it won't be rolled out in a single day -- it'll take months to years to rollout.
So even if there is an increase in DNS load because of the AAAA before A DNS requests it won't cause rolling blackouts or major network failures.
FWIW, we see about 20% of our requests as AAAA requests. I don't have the number of those that are retried as A requests but I'd guess it's pretty high since we aren't (yet) listening on IPv6 interfaces. We do support AAAA dns requests, of course.
-david
# Hack the planet, it's important.
NAT. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Security. Period.
...) can simply set a route to your LAN via your external gateway. The only thing that helps security is a packet filter - which will work just fine with or without NAT.
With plain NAT and no filter, someone on your outer segment (malicious ISP, hacked ISP, other customers of some cable ISPs,
Get rid of NAT now, the sooner the better.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
BUT, in the short term, (w/c)ouldn't the shortage be helped by redistributing some of the address floating around unused on Class A & B networks?
It's funny, because some of the arguments made by Class A holders against giving back their block, is that they don't want to spend the time & money and/or go through the hassle of renumbering their networks if the arrival of IPv6 is going to moot the issue.
And of course, nobody wants to spend the money to implement IPv6 unless they have to.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Ok, then you're way too attached to the old times. Nobody I know gives a damn about a couple percent extra overhead in network traffic (especially when the available bandwidth keeps growing, and my ISP upgrades it for free once in a while), however, everybody loves the idea of getting rid of NAT, having a /48 for themselves, automatic address configuration, and lots of other nice things that come with IPv6. Probably also lower ping times, due to improved routing. I wish they also upgraded the port numbers to 32 bits, but ah well.
IPv6 means your TCP packets will get 20 bytes larger. That means that your downloads will take about 1.5% longer. Oh the horror!
What you're missing is that the cost of that static address is administration (and pure profit), not rarity. Dynamic IPs on ADSL don't save ISPs all that much IP space. Most people have always-on routers these days, not USB modems, so 80%+ users are always connected. Your dynamic IP isn't NATed, so you might be using up as much as a 1/5th of an IP by buying a static one. Big deal, when that same IP could have been used up by somebody on a cheap entry-level plan that costs only slightly more than your $20/month.
/16 only buys you about 65024 customers. (Some networks don't like you handing out IPs that look like broadcast or network addresses in a /24, so you'd be lucky to use the full 65536 IPs.)
The problem comes with ADSL is that you have to have the IPs to be in the game. You need static IPs for everybody (not because you couldn't NAT, but because users expect a REAL IP) which means a
So, even with migration from dialup, usage is going up, and if current trends continue then IP space is going to get rather tight from all the ADSL users.
If you call it "accidental" yourself, it's not security in the first place. That's like "hiding" a flawed service on a non-standard port and calling it secure.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6