Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vista Not Playing Well With IPv6

Posted by kdawson on from the pioneers-with-arrows dept.

netbuzz writes in to note that some early adopters of Microsoft Vista are reporting problems with Vista's implementation of IPv6. An example:"'We are seeing a number of applications that are IP-based that do not like the addressing scheme of IPv6,' says one user. 'We will send a print job to an IP-based printer, and the print job becomes corrupted. We're seeing this with Window's Vista machines. When IPv6 is installed, this happens without fail. As soon as we remove IPv6, all of our printer functions return to normal.'"

8 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Simple solution. by someone300 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if you're trying to migrate to IPv6 but still have "classic" IPv4 devices on the network?

    Anyway, why is this screwing anything up? My understanding on Linux/OSX is that enabling IPv6 doesn't change anything about the way IPv4 applications function, despite using a different addressing sceme. Why would this be any different for Vista? This is indicative of a layering problem...

  2. I am NOT surprised, given that... by CodeShark · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Early attempts by M$ to implement networking foundered badly until they cozied up to Novell for a short stint -- a deal an insider told me was scuttled when Novell code was found on M$ machines without a signed agreement.

    It may just be my long memory seeing repetitive mistakes by the software giant, but it seems like ALL of M$ network implementations seem to suffer in the early going until they manage to buy cheat or steal for good code to solve their own implementation messes...

    Thoughts anyone?

    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  3. Re:Obligatory by TransEurope · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The really cool thing with that is, there are so many adresses that networms cannot jump to machines via the usage of random ip adresses and you cannot scan entire subnets anymore. It's like to try fishing in an ocean with a gun. Maybe you'll never hit any crature in the big water.

  4. Re:Very funny, but... by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IPv6 adoption is going to be heavily stunted by this inadequacy if it isn't fixed pretty pronto IPv6 hasn't been adopted en masse for years. Why would the release of Vista suddenly give reason for people to switch? There's clearly been resistance to the switch, and Vista has absolutely nothing to do with it.
  5. Blame Vista, or applications? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've got Vista, an IP based printer, and even IPV6 via a tunnel broker. I've had no problems with printing or any other network applications.

    So I have to wonder, is this really an issue with Vista's IPV6, is it an issue with the driver writers, or is it a minor issue with Vista's implementation of the layer that supports IP printers?

    The article seems to indicate "we turned off IPV6 and then it started working". Well that tells us a little, but it's hardly time to start blaming the IPV6 stack. There's quite a few different components that could be responsible. I had problems with Firefox on Ubuntu on my network, and was able to track it down to a faulty implementation of DNS on my DSL modem only under IPV6.

    --
    AccountKiller
  6. Order of magnitude more orders of magnitude by The+Monster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "2^32 unique addresses ought to be enough for anybody."
    Well, there really aren't that many unique addresses available for machines, thanks to the fact that every subnet requires two addresses for the subnet itself and the broadcast address (never did understand why those couldn't have been the same address), but the article puts it this way?

    Pv6 supports a 128-bit addressing scheme, which lets it support an order-of-magnitude more devices that are directly connected to the Internet than its predecessor, IPv4.
    order of magnitude

    : a range of magnitude extending from some value to ten times that value
    For every ~3.3 bits added to a binary number, it supports an order of magnitude more addresses. Leaving completely aside the upper half of the address (since devices are supposed to be mobile, and should therefore have a unique 64-bit host address), the added 32 bits add nearly TEN orders of magnitude, or an order of magnitude more orders of magnitude.

    Note to authors: If you don't understand what words mean, don't use them.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  7. Re:And this is news because? by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ***And this is news because?***

    I dunno. How about, it's news because it indicates that Microsoft's product testing is less than industrial strength?

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  8. Oh, is that all? by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Vista crashes our main network switches here. We did not have a requirement for Vista, so we've banished it until we do an upgrade on firmware project, which will be done on a if/when required by the business (HP pro curve switches).

    We found this on Beta and tried to talk to MS, after being passed from piller to post and jerked round (we frankly have real work to get on with) we gave up. We tested with the full release, and, well, until we have time its just barred from the business.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.