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. Who is surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anyone? Raise your hand...

    Seriously, anyone using Vista in a vital machine before SP2 is out needs their head examnined!

  2. Re:I am NOT surprised, given that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    "Thoughts anyone?"

    Time for new moderation option, +5 zealot:ing

  3. I thank you foR your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    the BSD license, Any parting shot, yOU CAN. WHEN THE than 7his BSD box,

  4. Re:Simple solution. by NeverVotedBush · · Score: -1, Troll

    Removing it is even easier

    Yeah. I find a reformat and a Linux install fixes all of Windows bad behaviors every time. ;-)

  5. don't the idiots at MS test anything? by mr_death · · Score: 0, Troll

    It can't get any more basic than this -- send a file to a printer. What genius at MS decided not to test this, or decided that the problem isn't a critical bug? Guess it's more important to say "we have a new ip stack!" for marketing purposes, regardless of how well it works.

    If Mom can't get IPv6 to work in Vista, what do you think the real adoption rate of IPv6 will be? MS needs to put their collective heads out of their asses and fix this right bloody now.

    --
    It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
  6. Re:Very funny, but... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is just paving the way for the release of MS-IP. "See, IPv6 doesn't work. But hey, we have a solution that does work(tm)!"

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  7. Re:Pretty sad considering... by KingMotley · · Score: 1, Troll

    There is no proven (and open) IPv6 stack. The one in linux has had numerous bugs reported so far.

  8. Re:Simple solution. by mrsbrisby · · Score: -1, Troll

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

    IPv6 is a completely different protocol that nobody uses. It should be turned off by default.

    My understanding on Linux/OSX is that enabling IPv6 doesn't change anything about the way IPv4 applications function,
    If you have IPv6 interfaces, gethostbyname() will look for IPv6 addresses first. This makes DNS lookups slower for real users.

    despite using a different addressing sceme.
    Correction: Despite using a completely different network protocol and network. IPv6 is not compatible with IPv4, and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.

    Why would this be any different for Vista?
    Vista and XP block ICMP by default. As a result, this breaks path MTU discovery and error reporting. Since ICMP is necessary in alot of the IPV6/IPV4 mixed networks, this causes breakage.

    Windows users do not know how to participate on a real public network like the Internet, and it seems they do not know how to participate on the fantasy public network that uses IPV6.

    This is indicative of a layering problem...
    It's bad engineering.

    IPv4 applications need to be rewritten, their databases need to be changed, and they need new knowledge about how this network is supposed to function. What does a multicast address look like? What does the broadcast address look like? What's a network address look like? Nobody knows yet because nobody uses IPv6.

    The IETF thinks that if they "just" convince all the application authors to change their software and "just" convince all the network administrators to install new hardware and reconfigure existing running systems that work fine, and convince all end users of the internet to replace their hardware and software that they can "fix" the Internet. I'd suggest anyone who thinks that is feasible is a fool.