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.

Comments

I have been waiting this...

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes my botnet administration much easier.

Both at the same time, eh?

[DaveM753]

> "it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to its IT systems than two. Or three."

I couldn't agree more: switch to BOTH Linux and OpenOffice.org 2.0 at the same time.

Re:Both at the same time, eh?

[DragonWriter]

Except then, when they decide they don't like OOo (just because it is unfamiliar), they'll decide that it is Linux's fault. So, they should switch to Linux but keep using MS office.

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.

IPv6 adoption.

[caluml]

Anything that gets IPv6 in use.
When is Slashdot going to drag itself into the 21st century, out of interest? It's not that hard. And you can use a tunnel broker if your ISP don't supply native v6.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[garcia]

When is Slashdot going to drag itself into the 21st century, out of interest? It's not that hard. And you can use a tunnel broker if your ISP don't supply native v6.

Mmm, using IPv6 via a broker to read Slashdot which will be linking to hosts on IPv4 anyway. Nothing like waiting even longer than normal (300+ ms ping times) to realize that a page is Slashdotted.

I used IPv6 years ago to do the only thing it was useful for: make vanity hostnames on IRC. Other than that there was absolutely no reason to use IPv6.

Currently, I still don't see any reason to switch either. Like Slashdot will make a huge difference?

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[cortana]

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. :)

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[caluml]

"Name one practical, real world use, that isnt solved by natting."

I suppose your definition of "practical, real world use" is quite limited. But it's late, and I can't be bothered to explain.

You really want to start having to remember 8 groups of four hexidecimal digits just because "it da futar!"?
No. There's this new fangled thing recently been making itself known on the internet called DNS. Check it out sometime. Plus, once you're used to your network prefix (2001:141:3*), it's up to you how you manage the addressing within it. E.g. 2001:141:3::1 for your router, 2001:141:3::254 for your switch, or whatever you like. At work, I just map the 192.168.x.y to 2001:414:3:x::y, and it's easy to remember. IPv6 addresses **can**be shorter than the IPv4 equivalents too. 127.0.0.1 > ::1.

*This isn't my prefix.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[93 Escort Wagon]

"I suppose your definition of "practical, real world use" is quite limited. But it's late, and I can't be bothered to explain."

Sounds like you couldn't think of anything...

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[welsh git]

NAT is shit, IPv6 means we can get rid of it once and for all

Whilst I agree about the problems NAT has caused, that's a rather glib statement. It has helped get people out of a hole, and the many home-routers these days with natd have helped insulate PCs from the net for newbies, which can only be a good thing.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[dissy]

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.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[welsh git]

With a NAT box in the standard 'home' configuration, where the local network uses private-ip address space, NATed to the single, common IP address, there *is* effective packet filtering (incoming, at least) - whether it's by design or consequence is not relevent!

Also, unlike a firewall, some viruses and things which may need to determine their 'public' IP address will find the situation harder behind a nat.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments here, and personally have been using IPv6 on all my servers, and all my home machines for many years, and have been involved in big networking projects for many more.. Yes, NAT can be a pain in the butt, but it HAS helped keep Joe Public a little bit more secure!

Cheers

Office2007

[ElephanTS]

I've heard you can type much faster in Word2007. If that's not a reason to upgrade I don't know what is.

Re:Office2007

[Eberlin]

Liu kang ripe vedder width thee boys re-cog nation soft where ink clue dead width Vista!!!

Naysayers, post here

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Anyone who wants to post comments claiming that IPv6 is never going to be deployed, please do so in this thread.

domain names

[daeg]

Future domain names attached to Microsoft's name

microsoft-eats-children.share.live.com
nochildpornhere.share.live.com
microsoftupdate.com.share.live.com
update.paypal.com.share.live.com
freexxxdonkiesandmidgetsgonewild.share.live.com

Re:domain names

[ShaunC]

I say we just have ICANN create a new TLD, .bot, for all Windows machines...

Re:domain names

[DA-MAN]

Why, is .POS taken?

Yep, that belongs to the Gnome group . . .

Upgrade cycles

[fohat]

I don't think it is all that wise to upgrade both an OS and a full Office suite at the same time. It's really best to roll out one thing at a time, and make sure it all works. The UI changes alone are going to freak users out. I know of places that are just now rolling out XP, and they are doing it one section at a time. The more testing you do, the safer you are.

Who knew?

[zptao]

Vista will actually be useful... 1) Fueling hardware upgrades 2) Encouraging, on a huge scale, migration to IPv6 3) Fixing a great deal of the holes in WinXP 4) Allowing hardware changes without requiring new installations of Vista 5) etc...

We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[khasim]

Most of the spam blocking systems depend upon IP addresses.

With IPv6, there are (effectively) an unlimited number of IP addresses available for spammers. "Effectively" because no one is going to run a database big enough to track them as fast as the spammers change them. Every message could come from its own IP address on a cracked system.

And the other article ... no way is it easier to upgrade the hardware, the OS and the apps at the same time. You'll waste too much time trying to find out if the problem is a bad motherboard or driver or ... anything.

Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[zptao]

The benefits outweigh the risks. In every great change, there will always be downsides and dissenters. It's an inevitable outcome of progress.

Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[Midnight Thunder]

Most of the spam blocking systems depend upon IP addresses.

Sounds like a good a time as any to update their systems. Quite honestly I would these system get updated before IPv6 starts to get widely used, rather than after.

Why upgrade?

[Carrot007]

Please try to convince my company to upgrade!

Every day I use such great microsoft products as NT 4, Office 97 (with outlook upgraded with the free 98 (about a year ago, OL 97 before that), IE 5.5, or is it 5.0? I forget.

Simple truth is most companies have no reason to upgrade. It aint gonna make them more money.

1) Good 2) understandable

[joe 155]

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.

Sales guy's wet dream

[chill]

Vista and Office at the same time? Someone in the sales dept. is smoking crack and dreaming of an annual bonus. Hell, why not upgrade all the servers to 2003, Exchange, etc.!

How about changing one thing at a time and seeing how it works, first?

Admit it...

[Otter]

If Linux were introducing something like this, you'd be saying it's the bestestest thing ever...

Misleading Headline

[jonadab]

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).

Re:Misleading Headline

[nateb]

PNRP =

Proprietary Network Resolution Protocol

IPv6 or IPv6[TM}?

[jc42]

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?

Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista

[kfg]

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

Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista

[Tim Browse]

Believe it or not they would rather that their employees *not* spend all day listening to music or watching movies

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's perfectly easy to accomplish all of that in *nix and has been for decades.

Yeah, I heard those Linux media players suck, too.

PNRP vs. zeroconf?

[*SECADM]

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?

.

Re:PNRP vs. zeroconf?

[symbolset]

PNRP is Microsoft's attempt to replace DNS with their own P2P naming system under IPV6. It's patented, so of course making stuff compatible with it outside of the Microsoft domain will be illegal, hazardous to your IP, or require a small percentage of your immortal soul.

Shortly after it's common, people are going to discover a number of things:

• A node can publish as many names as it wants. Billions of semi-randomly generated names per bot node could be fun.
• Frist psot: It sure makes it easier to manage a botnet.
• Millions of bots competetively and cooperatively poisoning the namespace will not be helpful.
• The implementation will have bugs that cause failures of the service or the whole computer.
• The implementation will have vulnerabilities. Some of the vulnerabilities will have exploits. Some of the exploits will have patches. Some of the patches will cause failures of the service or the whole computer. Some of the exploits will never be published or patched, so there will be more bots. It's the One Microsoft Way.
• Names are not unique -- so the label Natalie-Portman-hot-grits, "My Printer" and "office secret pr0n share" shall occur millions of times.

The whole replacing-DNS thing seems unlikely to work out. Yet another toxic service to turn off, it should set back IPv6 adoption three years or more.

Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista

[jonadab]

> Yeah, I heard those Linux media players suck, too.

Yeah, they suck, because all they do mostly is just play your music and stuff. They don't have all those totally cool features the popular commerical media players have, like connecting the web to look for plugins and updates, nagging you every time you play anything that you need to buy another related product (*cough* Real *cough*), and filling up your screen with stupid "visualizations" of your music. (Okay, so xmms does have the stupid visualizations, although by default it's just an oscilloscope-like thing, nowhere near so annoying as that nonsense Windows Media Player shows you. I'm sure there must be a way to turn the visualizations off altogether. Maybe someday I'll find it.) I mean, if you don't use Windows, then you're really missing out on all those *extra* features that a media player could have, besides just playing media.

But we're getting pretty far off track. The reason businesses don't care about DRM in the operating system is because they have other things to worry about than philosophical issues about user rights. Frankly they're more interested in whether they can lock down the user's desktop to have only the shortcuts they want than they are in whether the user can shift music from one computer to another. What they really want to know is more along the lines of, "Can we buy this product from our regular vendor, does it come with a support contract, and what has my boss read about it in his management magazines?"

hey

[tonycheese]

"According to a Microsoft spokeswoman, Microsoft recently placed an order for 500,000 CD labels, CD sleeves, and packaging boxes labeled "Windows Server 2007", but has also ordered an equal number of small "8" stickers, "just in case.""

Added Value

[The Raven]

Honestly, this seems like a perfectly valid move to me. The proper way to combat piracy is to add value for legitimate purchasers via services... services are a dozen times harder to 'steal' than just bits. A MS operated DNS (even if it is ipv6 only) is a perfectly reasonable service to convince the medium-skill techies (who can format a machine, but not setup a DNS service) to buy rather than copy. These mid-level windows users are the most common casual copiers of the MS OS... they know enough to copy Windows and install a machine, but not enough to delve into Linux.

So, all in all, I think this is a move in the right direction. Added value to the legit buyers, rather than bullshit like 'Genuine Advantage' that only benefits MS.