Slashdot Mirror
Vista Not Playing Well With IPv6
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.'"
Disable this whole "internet" thing altogether. It's been full of security problems for Windows ever since someone dreamed it up.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"2^32 unique addresses ought to be enough for anybody."
I suspect that also IPv4 is having problems.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
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...
MS has a blog for this sort of thing. Sean Siler promised to answer questions and provide help on issues pertaining to this via an email list I'm on. http://blogs.technet.com/ipv6/ ... Anyhow, those parties with IPv6 issues, I bet ya a HUGE portion of them are using NAT...
Infiltrated dot Net
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...
"We recognize that not all applications and drivers were up to date by launch and that there have been some compatibility issues as a result,"
"But we also know that Windows Vista is the highest-quality, most secure and most broadly supported operating system we've ever released."
Hameroff adds that Microsoft is running an IPv6 network and "to my knowledge has not experienced these types of issues"
davecb5620@gmail.com
I think you responded to the wrong story, but you're amazingly on topic anyway.
When IPv6 is installed, this happens without fail. As soon as we remove IPv6, all of our printer functions return to normal.
;)
It fails without fail?
Vista adoption is going to increase - it's a sad fact, and I can't see anyone denying it. Therefore IPv6 is going to experience stunted uptake from this blow.
The one benefit I can see is that anybody who really does see worthwhile benefits in adopting IPv6 will say "bugger M$, there are hundreds of Open Source solutions that support this without issue out of the box". Maybe this could have a positive impact on OSS uptake in the long-term.
Meta will eat itself
I think they should scoop the one out of BSD UNIX.
Hell, it worked for them pretty good LAST time..
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
On *ix, most "IPv4" apps should also support IPv6, and normally try using that first if it's available. It's fairly easy to see how some crappy printer drivers could have this behavior hacked into them and screw up because nobody tested it. Maybe they're freeing memory after an attempt and sending garbage to the printer when falling back to IPv4, or something similarly silly.
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
Right. Can you do me a favour and "easily remove" kernel modules from any OS please. Meanwhile, removing the IPv6 stack from Windows is trivial -- just a few clicks of the mouse, and you're there.
I'm not a Windows apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but this blatant misinformation needs to be corrected.
The entire IP stack of Vista/Longhorn has been reimplemented. IPv6 is kind of an "add-on" to the networking code in XP, but in Vista, IPv4 and IPv6 are implemented in a unified stack.
Just sayin', the behavior is going to be different, and having some bugs to shake out is really no surprise.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
MS's business model DEPENDS on them not working well with others. Both the US and EU tried to get them to play nice, and both have failed for various reasons (mostly political.) This should not be news to anyone at this point. It's a fact that MS fans don't care about and detractors gnash their teeth over.
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id =6402758
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/net/0205.3/ 0002.html
http://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/questions/2007- April/013854.html
etc...
The problem often is in the OS itself, but sometimes the applications and drivers are the problem. So why is this news? Well, judge by yourself.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Note to authors: If you don't understand what words mean, don't use them.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
IPv6 FAQ
c es\Tcpip6\Parameters\DisabledComponents
Q. How do I disable IPv6 in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008?
A. Unlike Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, IPv6 in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 cannot be uninstalled. However, you can disable IPv6 in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 by doing one of the following:
- In the Network Connections folder, obtain properties on all of your connections and adapters and clear the check box next to the Internet Protocol version 6 (TCP/IPv6) component in the list under This connection uses the following items.
This method disables IPv6 on your LAN interfaces and connections, but does not disable IPv6 on tunnel interfaces or the IPv6 loopback interface.
- Add the following registry value (DWORD type) set to 0xFF:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servi
This method disables IPv6 on all your LAN interfaces, connections, and tunnel interfaces but does not disable the IPv6 loopback interface. You must restart the computer for this registry value to take effect.
For additional information about the DisabledComponents registry value, see Configuring IPv6 with Windows Vista.
If you disable IPv6, you will not be able to use Windows Meeting Space or any application that relies on the Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking platform or the Teredo transition technology.
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
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
Embrace, Extend, and Explode! :D
Or, if you're not an idiot, you just add "blacklist ipv6" to /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.
seriously? I'm not trying to be mean here... but have you ever heard of Beta? as in Vista Beta? there were a couple of 'em you know... Gobs of people installed it and provided Microsoft with so much feedback they were overwhelmed initially. You don't need to be OSS to have a decent Beta program that gets your code out into the real world where it can be beat on.
As for IPv6... it's been around forever and no one cares. It hasn't been adopted because it's a hassle and very few people have been forced to. We just did a major network reorganization at our relatively small company - it took an entire weekend and the ensuing issues took about two weeks to fully clean up. Did we go IPv6? no. Why? Because we didn't have to. Because it was one more thing to screw crap up and we didn't want to deal with it. I haven't met too many admins who enjoy setting up stuff that's only going to cause them more problems when they don't even need it in the first place.
The same fanboys that are saying no one is adopting Vista because it sucks fail to understand the real reason - people aren't adopting it because it takes a helluva lot of time to test and roll out a new OS across your entire company. Why are people still running Win 98? 'cause it's better? no, it's a piece of crap compared to Win2k. They're running it because it's easier to leave it on there than it is to upgrade.
Get off the "Microsoft is ruining everything" train and realize that some things don't happen because people are lazy - not because "Microsoft is killing everything". Crappy IPv6 support when Vista has only been installed on a tiny percentage of corporate machines doesn't mean anything. By the time Vista represents a decent market share, it will have been fixed.
Umm, yes! On linux its as easy as: /lib/modules/'uname -a'/kernel/build/somemodule.ko ; depmod -a
on Mac OS X its /System/Library/Extensions/YourKext.kext; rm /System/Library/Extensions.*;
See?
rm
rm -r
If you have IPv6 enabled (which is the default) on a network which does not support it, all connections are noticeably slower in establishing. Disable IPv6 to get a great speed boost!
Windows: A few clicks of the mouse to *disable* ipv6... /lib/modules/`uname -r`/net/ipv6/ipv6.ko)
Linux: A single command to *remove* ipv6 (rm
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Microsoft's IPv6 stack is extremely secure, more so than the Linux one. It achieves this by simply not talking to anything.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
In other words, no software solution at an OS level is able to catch every bug. Not Windows, not Linux.
Standard Operating Procedure: To usurp a world standard and boost Microsoft sales:
(1) Deliver a "world standard" implementation
(2) ???
(3) Offer Microsoft-only extensions with subsequent "patch" (for efficiency of course)
(4) Developers use the extensions
(5) Standard subverted!!
(6) Profit
Implementation Notes:
step (2) may be completely omitted for already well established and widely adopted standards (e.g. C, C++)
step (2) has recently been proposed as "Break something important"
I thought the TCP/IP stack was fairly unique to Windows, which is why the API to use it was slightly different (just enough that a POSIX app would mysteriously fail to work). The commandline network applications (Telnet, FTP, etc...) were taken from BSD, but the BSD license allows that. The downside is that they took the absolute oldest versions of those applications they could find, skipping the years of improvements available for them.
I read the internet for the articles.
OK, I've been a programmer for some time now, and most of that time I've heard of IPv6, and seen some interfaces to configuring it (OS X), even if it's not "on" per se... but WHAT the heck problem was it supposed to originally solve, again? And perhaps because it's not solving any pressing problems (from what I can tell), implementations of it are not getting the attention they dubiously deserve? Is NAT not going to keep us from eventually running out of IPv4 addresses, or some other workaround that sort of namespaces different subnets of the Internet?
Will it really be important some day for every physical item in my possession to have a unique address and an RFID tag?
Do sysadmins at big corporations really WANT every one of their machines to have an address that is uniquely addressable from anywhere on the Internet? Will this help to solve issues such as VPN'ing behind a firewall, etc.?
An honest question.
This will probably be redundant by the time I end up posting, but then again, maybe not.
It seems like there are a few things that are causing confusion. Also, I want to rant about ipv6 adoption.
First of all, this looks like it's probably the printer's (or printer driver's) fault and not Microsoft's.
Second, about ipv6 in general...
It hurts me a bit to see people saying "Just disable ipv6 whenever you install vista." I think MS is doing a great thing by enabling ipv6 by default. If the instructions to support desk people, or some "best practice" becomes to disable ipv6 right away, ipv6 will take *another* 10 years to enter the mainstream.
This is pretty bad considering that ipv4 addresses are running out in the next 5 years.
It is exactly these kind of firmware/driver bugs (not having ipv6 support in a network appliance should now be considered a bug) that need to be flushed out before the internet is thrust into ipv6 adoption when the address space runs out.
IPv6 *does* solve problems, and it *will* be the primary mode of accessing the internet for consumers. Shaking out bugs by actually using ipv6 is necessary.
So, MS should *not* be berated because of this. This particular instance is not their fault, and they're doing the right thing by putting ipv6 up front in vista.
Lastly, I'd like to say that deploying ipv6 in the home is actually ridiculously easy. I have a tunnel through hurricane electric. Stateless autoconfig, which happens with ipv6 by default, assigns addresses without a dhcp server, and allows things to run right away.
IPv6 and OS support is not the problem. Application and network hardware vendors *have* to get with the program and start to support ipv6 in a very real way.
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6