Slashdot Mirror
Every Vista Computer Gets Its Own Domain Name
c_forq writes, "According to APC magazine, every new Windows Vista computer will be given its own domain name to access files remotely. There is a catch though: to use it one must be using IPv6. Is the push for Vista also going to be the push finally to switch everything from IPv4 to IPv6?" Microsoft, meanwhile, is trying to convince businesses to adopt both Vista and Office 2007 at once. An analyst is quoted: 'In all likelihood, enterprises will tie deployment of both Vista and Office 2007 with a hardware upgrade cycle.' His reasoning is that it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to IT systems than two. Or three.
The benefits outweigh the risks. In every great change, there will always be downsides and dissenters. It's an inevitable outcome of progress.
The headline doesn't actually say DNS, but it implies it. But the article makes it clear that it's not actually an internet domain that is being offered, but a "Windows Internet Computing Name", which is resolved using a protocol other than DNS (specifically, PNRP, whatever that is).
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Believe it or not they would rather that their employees *not* spend all day listening to music or watching movies. And they are usually somewhat opposed to employees running P2P on their networks as well.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's perfectly easy to accomplish all of that in *nix and has been for decades.
No, the reason the vast majority of businesses are not opposed to their software infrastructure being "DRM infested" is the management of purely internal documents. The shit they don't want the SEC to see.
KFG
NAT is shit, IPv6 means we can get rid of it once and for all.
:)
This should really be a Frequently Answered Question, it comes up every time a story about IPv6 is posted.
IP6 wont change that, since the ISP will still be assigning one subnet per user, and probably have one subnet for all their DSL accounts.
I'd even go as far as saying the migration to IP6 would make it *easier* to block spammers and botnets because of the far more structured approach used to allocate addresses.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
- Using peer to peer communication (audio, video) without actually having to try and get around the NAT with clever tricks
- Running a server
- Faster and easier file transfers between you and your friends
- Easier to play games
- You can run a shell or a VNC and access it easily from outside
- IPsec included in the protocol, easy secure communications over any medium (wifi... )
\u262D = \u5350
How about anything that requires two boxes to directly connect to each other over randomly chosen ports? Like, say, Netmeeting?
It's also a pain in the rear for FTP and a shed load of other protocols, especially games. In recent years people have designed their applications to work around NAT, but that's not to say they couldn't be more efficient and work better without having to deal with it.
I read the internet for the articles.
From the screenshots I've seen of Office 2007, OOo 2.0 will probably be more immediately familiar to most Office 2003 (and previous) users than Office 2007.
Nonsense. You cannot just make up an IP address to use on the internet, if you expect it to work. You have to use the addresses allocated to you by your provider. No provider is going to assign you an effectively unlimited number of addresses to work with. Most of the IPv6 addresses are going to remain unallocated for a long time.
There will be approximately as many (same order of magnitude) allocated IPv6 addresses prefixes as there are IPv4 addresses, when the conversion is complete, because the number of users of both with be about the same. Ignoring for a moment the stupidity of maintaining a database of IP addresses used by spammers, such a scheme would be precisely as practical with IPv6 as it is with IPv4, because the mechanism by which they are allocated will be unchanged. The only appreciable difference with IPv6 is that you get allocated a block containing many addresses with a common prefix, instead of a single address. It is trivial to match based on the prefix instead of the entire address.
Strange that the BSDs doesn't have those ridiculous problems. If you aren't connected via IPv6, there should be no default route for IPv6 and applications ought to fall back to IPv4 immediately.
Check with netstat -rn whether that's the case or not. If there is no default route for IPv6 and you still get delays, there's something else amiss. But it's not the fault of IPv6. Go blame Linux amateurs maybe.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
being able to drop certain packets is not the same as being totally unable to deliver certain packets without specific instructions from the user how to do so. the difference between tricking a router into thinking your malicious packet is actually good and doing the same thing, plus sending that packet to a machine that isn't routable from the internet is quite a large difference.
in particular one pretty much requires that you be able to execute malicious code on the router while the other only requires that you make bad packets look legit.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Those 2 comments contradict themselves. How can it make things SOO much harder for legitimate things, but not make it any harder for illicit things?
Off the top of my head, if something installs a trojan, the hacker needs to know what IP to connect to - that information could be slotted into an innocent looking email, sent via the isp. With Nat, the trojan has no choice but to open a direct connection to somewhere so the ip can be logged - far more likely to be spotted by local firewall security on the pc.
I'm not a NAT lover, I dislike NAT, but I do stand by my original statements, that in the broader scheme of things, it has helped secure joe public more than if he didn't have it.
You seem so blind in your anti-nat passion, you can't see the wood for the trees. - I guess that is why you also deliberately misread my 'defending' of nat in the first place...
There should be some law where anyone blindly holding some view like a religious zealot loses by default, but I guess that would ruin Slashdot, no ?
Sig out of date
Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
You wouldn't be interested in sharing what KDE applications you left in your typical workstation setup? I'm guessing Firefox, open office stuff, evolution (or similar) and possibly GAIM or some other IM client.
None of these are KDE applications. It'd probably be konqueror, koffice, kmail/kontact and kopete. If you're running pure KDE, like I do.
-- Linux user #369862
It's probably defaulting to IPv6 and therefore trying to do AAAA (ipv6 address) DNS lookups first (which fail) and then doing normal A (ipv4 address) lookups afterwards. Depending on the dns servers in use, and how they respond to AAAA requests (return an error quickly, ignore the request so it has to time out etc) this could make browsing a LOT slower.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
It isn't IPV6 exactly but a combination of PNRP (Peer Name Resolution Protocol) and FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name). See here where PNRP v2 is already incompatible with PNRP. According to this it's a combination of IPv4 and IPv6 called the Next Generation TCP/IP Stack and overcomes shortcomings in the DNS system. I find that article quite difficult to follow. Who would have thought name resolution would have been so complex. Is this one of those propriatry protocols that any third party has to pay MS royaltes to access. One of the protocols MS is being fined by the EU for not publicising. Some source code and API calls not being acceptable.
davecb5620@gmail.com