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.
Firstly the idea of each user having their own remote space is good in theory. This is actually something useful which comes with Vista... although there could be serious problems with it; how safe is it? I wouldn't be at all amazed if this was hacked about 3 seconds after the first user puts any files on this because people will refuse to use good passwords. But in principle its good. The T&Cs might change that. Everyone will have to move to IPv6 anyway at some time I think so we shouldn't be too worried about that
As for them pushing the update to Office 2007 - well, that's what they're in business for... I'm not amazed and I'm not disapointed.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
One obvious question: Will Vista really use IPv6, or an "extended" IPv6-like protocol with patented MS extensions? Anyone know? Is there any chance that we could end up in court if we interoperate with it?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Sorry, whats wrong with IPv4 and what problems that I have will be fixed with IPv6? You really want to start having to remember 8 groups of four hexidecimal digits just because "it da futar!"?
Name one practical, real world use, that isnt solved by natting.
The thing wrong with IPv4 is that it is expensive if not impossible to get a large block of IP addresses, one for each machine you desire you connect to the internet.
Now, maybe you only have one machine yourself, but that in itself proves your lack of qualification to give input on this subject. It is also not the target crowd for slashdot.
If you have 50 systems and want them all on the internet, NAT does not allow you to do that. It really only allows 1. The point is sometimes 1 isnt enough, and you need more systems on the net at the same time. So NAT has to be ruled out.
Even if you want to attempt to claim port forwarding works with NAT to fake it, you fortunatly provided my argument that it doesnt.
If you have 200 web servers, port forwarded from one IP, you yourself say you would hate to remember all those ports and which machine they go to, by your complaint at remembering IP addresses in IPv6.
Fortunatly the rest of us use DNS, which lets us not have to remember IPs. DNS doesn't much help with port mappings like you prefer to use.
The point is, your usage of the internet is very very limited, and atypical of the people here on slashdot.
I am curious as to how PNRP works with Zeroconf. Does it 1)implement zeroconf, 2)interoperate with zeroconf, or 3)is completely incompatible with zeroconf? AFAIK zeroconf already does p2p name resolution and is an open standard. Is PNRP gonna be a standard?
.
sure I'll have a sig.