Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista's 'Next Gen' TCP/IP Stack

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-thought-i'd-just-escaped-next-gen dept.

Microsoft 259

boyko.at.netqos writes "Microsoft's new Vista TCP/IP stack might be beneficial to businesses looking to increase use of their IT infrastructure... if they did it right. Ted Romer at Network Performance Daily writes: '[Vista] now allows us to throttle outbound traffic at a client or server. For example, you can throttle the bandwidth of a particular subnet to a particular server, giving some departments more access to the servers that they need. You can even restrict outgoing bandwidth for certain peer-to-peer applications like bit torrent. This shaping can also be handy when applied to servers, allowing less bandwidth for certain users/departments, and more for others. While consumers may debate whether Vista is a worthwhile upgrade, I believe it to be important for enterprise customers who will best be able to put Vista's capabilities to their fullest potential. Of course, I'm getting it for DirectX 10 games, but that's just me.'"

cancel ×

259 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wondershaper (1)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17160992)

Why not just put a linuz router with wondershaper in between?

Re:Wondershaper (3, Insightful)

robzon (981455) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161042)

Because Linux doesn't have the super marketing powers.

Re:Wondershaper (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161102)

Judging by the name, I thought that this was a new type of corset; I'm expecting late-night TV commercials any day now.

Seriously, I did a cursory Google search on this and didn't find anything that provides feature details. Do you have any links?

Re:Wondershaper (2)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161110)

should you have to?
I'm a linux fan, don't get me wrong- but if you can save yourself a box or two, why not use the vista shaper?

Re:Wondershaper (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161160)

Because it's probably far easier to set up a dedicated firewall/router/traffic shaper (not to mention much more highly customizable) on a linux box than it probably will be to do the same thing on a Vista box.

Re:Wondershaper (4, Insightful)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161194)

traffic shaping still isn't a breeze to setup under linux and keep in mind in many windows-centric environments, people just don't have the linux experience.

Are you speaking from experience on both fronts? (honest question) Is the vista shaping that difficult?

Linux is great for many things and many people, but sometimes the simpler solution works for a lot of people.

Re:Wondershaper (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161310)

The people setting up these solutions are not looking for simple solutions, they are looking for solutions that work.

I do not see myself setting up such an environment as described above and asking the server to do the shaping. I would shape it on the router or the switch.

And don't forget the network as a whole. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161430)

The network has different characteristics depending upon what point you are at on it.

The WAN routers see the low bandwidth, higher latency serial links and such.

The servers/workstations see the high bandwidth, low latency ethernet links.

Do you really want your server(s) calculating its(their) window(s) based upon whether the request is originating across the WAN or next to it on the LAN?

This sounds like a good idea when you're talking about a single workstation, at home, connected to a cable connection or xDSL or whatever. But it sounds like soooooo many problems in the corporate environment.

Right now it is easy to find the server/workstation that is flooding the network. It's going to be very difficult when you have hundreds(thousands?) of machines that are ALL trying to maximize their bandwidth usage.

Personally, I'd prefer the ability to set the LAN parameters for the machines ... and then put a shaping router on the WAN links.

Re:Wondershaper (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161730)

traffic shaping still isn't a breeze to setup under linux and keep in mind in many windows-centric environments, people just don't have the linux experience.


Even in Windows-centric environments, many businesses do not and will not use a Windows PC to do things like traffic shaping. Firewalls, routers, etc. of any type are generally going to be dedicated-purpose devices from companies like Cisco, Juniper, CheckPoint, etc., not PCs or other general-purpose computing devices, and usually not even PCs running Linux. Why? Better performance, better security, ease of maintenance, higher reliability, the list goes on.

Re:Wondershaper (5, Funny)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161264)

Yeah, right...because if history teaches us anything, its that Linux is easier to use then Windows.

Re:Wondershaper (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161276)

Because a windows vista machine (hardware + licenses) could be too much money for a traffic shaping router.
There are so many providers, and so many good, inexpensive solutions, that there is no reason to even think of MS for that kind of stuff.

Re:Wondershaper (5, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161504)

Well, it's expensive. Are you going to waste a box that can run Vista on that? A box that can run shorewall and traffic shaping is a P100 with 64MB RAM, which can be found for free.

You have two options:
1. The Vista box shapes traffic for itself and nothing else. This isn't terribly effective as to have a good effect you need to shape all of the traffic, giving different hosts different priority.

2. You have the Vista box as a firewall for the network. In this case it's expensive, can be broken into, and if it is, you have a major mess because all your traffic will be going through it.

An old P100 with 64MB RAM running shorewall is practically invulnerable. No ports need to be open, excepting for SSH from the internal network, or not even that. You can run it from CompactFlash and have it with no moving parts at all. It'll quietly sit there for years shoveling packets back and forth with zero problems. It doesn't accept connections, it has no open ports of public services -- it's impossible to break into barring a kernel bug in the TCP stack.

Re:Wondershaper (5, Informative)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161650)

It's obvious that no one has RTFA....

"(Granted, this QoS doesn't guarantee anything, it just marks the packet in Windows and it is up to your network infrastructure to honor those tags.) "

Vista supports Diffserv tagging based on the user/application/whatever, enforced via group policy. It's up to your network hardware to actually do the shaping.

Re:Wondershaper (3, Interesting)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161858)

Exactly. And if using Group Policy you can easily set it to give say sap.exe high priority and iexplore.exe and firefox.exe low priority (if that would be right for your business). That way, if sap.exe uses port 80 as well you aren't artificially restricting it at the router/switch.

Words to strike fear into any heart (4, Funny)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161000)

"redesigned from the ground up"

Re:Words to strike fear into any heart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161254)

So, its not the freebsd stack anymore?

Re:Words to strike fear into any heart (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161474)

The whole thing - the whole new Vista kernel - smells suspiciously FreeBSD-like to me. Really, it does.

At least it's now easier to identify Vista (1)

rapidmax (707233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161006)

Using TCP/IP stack fingerprinting...

Re:At least it's now easier to identify Vista (3, Insightful)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161106)

Up until now, there have been a grand total of ZERO reasons for me to be interested in Vista. None of the new features hold any draw for me. It's good to see that there's finally something worthwhile in it--traffic shaping at the machine level is a good thing.

Re:At least it's now easier to identify Vista (2, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161180)

Don't forget about the transparent windows!

Re:At least it's now easier to identify Vista (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161252)

You had to bring *that* up... Now I'll never get it out of my head.

Will it... (5, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161030)

...let me choose how much bandwidth to allocate to each app, and their relative priority? I want my browser to go first, then Google talk, then any updates (OS, virus checker, firewall) and finally P2P. It's quite annoying that I can't do that on XP. Perhaps it's a tricky problem though.

Re:Will it... (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161164)

It's quite tricky because, typically, the TCP/IP stack has no knowledge of which application is the originator of a particular packet. The application talks to the very top layers of the network stack, and says 'send this buffer to this socket.' This then talks to the lower levels of the stack. On OpenBSD[1] you could conceivably create a virtual network interface for each application that was bridged with the real one and added a tag to all packets, which could then be used for filtering. It would be possible to add an mbuf tag to the packet with the originating process as soon as it was created, although I don't believe this is currently supported. I might have a poke at the code and see how hard it would be...


And, probably, other systems. I'm just most familiar with OpenBSD's filtering.

Re:Will it... (1)

georgeb (472989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161286)

From the iptables(8) manpage, under MATCH EXTENSIONS:

owner
This module attempts to match various characteristics of the packet creator, for locally-generated packets.

The characteristics available are: owner UID/GID, PID and commmand name of the originator (i.e. the program). Combine that with connection marking and you can build some pretty decent shaping per-application.

Re:Will it... (2, Interesting)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161432)

personally I like to use the l7filter additions to iptables http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/protocols [sourceforge.net]

That way, I can set the priority based on what the traffic is, at the router level

works pretty well too

L7-Filter makes it easy, as parent says (1)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161558)

I've been using L7-Filter, on my Linksys router of all things, for a couple years now and it performs very nicely. Can have gnutella/G2/ED2K/BitTorrent transfers happening and still get 20ms pings in Counter-Strike with a game as smooth as it would be without any of the P2P stuff going on. It is absolutely great.

Re:Will it... (1)

georgeb (472989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161892)

Sure, l7filter works well for what it was designed to do.
However, it won't allow you to mark traffic coming from, say, firefox and konqueror separately, as both are http traffic.
That's where owner matching comes into play. It's the right tool for the right job, really...

Re:Will it... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161312)

> It's quite tricky because, typically, the TCP/IP stack has no knowledge of which application is the originator of a particular
> packet.

Doesn't the TCP/IP stack belong to/exist within the OS? And the OS knows the app, right?

Re:Will it... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161510)

Any well-designed OS will separate bits of the kernel. The more parts are interdependent, the harder it is to debug, and if there's one part of your system you want to have as few bugs it's the kernel, since a bug there can affect all applications. As such, most kernel components in a well-designed OS communicate across well-defined interfaces.

Re:Will it... (1)

nekokoneko (904809) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161612)

Well, that would break the layer separation on the TCP/IP architecture. The lower layers aren't supposed to be concerned with the details of the application.

Re:Will it... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161998)

> Well, that would break the layer separation on the TCP/IP architecture. The lower layers aren't supposed to be concerned with the
> details of the application.

So is it a limitation of the architecture that an OS/App designer is unable to use their bandwidth as flexibly as they might?

Re:Will it... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161662)

Here's my script [theknack.net] to do this in Linux. What it does is prioritize these types of outbound traffic, in order: voip (vonage), ssh (to or from my domain), web browsing, scp, other people browsing my website, other (filesharing, mail).

Mostly it works by discriminating on the basis of source or destination port. A couple apps are nice enough to set the "type of service" bits in the ip header, so you don't need to look at port numbers.

Re:Will it... (4, Informative)

beuges (613130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161452)

Windows' OS updates already assume lowest priority, via BITS [microsoft.com] . BITS is available to be used by any application that wants to use it, so if antivirus/firewall vendors decided to make use of it, rather than rolling their own solutions, all those updates can happen at lowest priority also. It's QOS requesting lowest priority, rather than highest priority.

I'm not sure if you can specify individual priority levels, but the OS already allows applications to download using the lowest priority.

Netlimiter (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161472)

No, but you can do that in XP and (presumably) Vista using the excellent Netlimiter program.

http://www.netlimiter.com/ [netlimiter.com]

Back when I worked at an ISP with a shared bandwidth broadband solution, we would politely suggest that to the college jackasses downloading Bittorrent without setting it up to be network friendly (like we asked/demanded/etc). It really does work quite well.

Re:Will it... (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17162018)

yes it will do that.

Is this a slashvertisment ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161034)


because it sure reads like one
Microsoft is desperate to get business interested in their Vista product so will trot about all manner of reasons to buy it, but business are not biting, unless this Vista can make workers type faster or calc spreadsheets quicker or email faster than there is NO productivity gains unless wowing the coworker with a 3D AIGLX/Beryl like desktop counts as productive

if an Enterprise is worried about client bandwidth they would already be using a tool dedicated for the job like, say a Router

Re:Is this a slashvertisment ? (2, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161186)

unless this Vista can make workers type faster or calc spreadsheets quicker or email faster than there is NO productivity gains

Actually there probably will be. My coworkers on XP spend surprising amounts of time staring at the screen waiting for the machine to allow user input again - inproving this WILL improve productivity by a few minutes a day. The ones that do not suffer this have dual processor systems.

That said - moving to *nix the gnome desktop with remote appications open can suck intensely if the network is busy - one window that is slow to refresh can lock the screen up for minutes which should never happen under X windows.

Re:Is this a slashvertisment ? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161424)

Actually there probably will be. My coworkers on XP spend surprising amounts of time staring at the screen waiting for the machine to allow user input again - inproving this WILL improve productivity by a few minutes a day. The ones that do not suffer this have dual processor systems.

Well, at work I use Access and am frequently staring at the screen waiting for it to allow input (and frequently hoping it won't hang the rest of the system). I have a feeling that Vista won't stop that behavior unless they have changed how Access behaves under it.

Re:Is this a slashvertisment ? (3, Interesting)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161654)

I have noticed this in a lot of Windows apps as well and it dumbfounds me that, after all these years, Microsoft programmers still haven't got threaded programming into their heads.

I mean, why does Access requesting data from a network database freeze up the entire machine (or at least the whole TCP/IP stack)? And nothing frustrates me more than Outlook. When you're typing an email message and Outlook "requests data from server" in the background, freezes your input into the current window. Damn, guys.. do that crap in a background thread and stop interrupting the UI for something not related to what I'm doing at the moment.

The other thing that kills me is the fact that the window is a part of the application and not a part of the desktop. I mean, when something freezes, you can't easily iconize, resize, or do pretty much anything with the window the app is contained in. IMHO, the UNIX window environments did that right - the window is owned by the window manager and tells the application how big it should be or if it got resized, not the other way around.

I use Linux at home, but have to use Windows in the corporate world (and yes, we're sprinting like mad towards a Vista roll-out on 40,000 some odd desktops in '07). I haven't heard if Vista fixes any of my pet peeves, but I'm hoping, at least as far as sanity at work goes, that it does.

Re:Is this a slashvertisment ? (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161734)

Actually there probably will be. My coworkers on XP spend surprising amounts of time staring at the screen waiting for the machine to allow user input again - inproving this WILL improve productivity by a few minutes a day. The ones that do not suffer this have dual processor systems.

That sounds pretty far fetched to me. I don't know what you do, but most people don't spend that much time waiting on the OS. And if Vista has made a reputation for itself so far, it hasn't been for running faster on existing hardware.

Re:Is this a slashvertisment ? (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161316)

Quality-Of-Service starts at the application level.

Re:Is this a slashvertisment ? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161570)

Would not something like IPTables [netfilter.org] be the same thing? Maybe using Linux between the Real World and XP/Vista might be a very clever strategy in the long run.

"Slowly, one by one, the Penguins steal my sanity." - Unknown

Re:Is this a slashvertisment ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161674)

If this were an article about how a *NIX distribution has redesigned their tcp/ip stack to include some new feature, there would be no complaining. This is indeed an interesting thing to consider, especially for those of us in the world that actually have to interact and implement Windows. You might want to think about turning your paranoia down.

All Because (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161054)

So that you can't download the latest Linux iso's on bittorrent. And hopefull it could be an open standard and not another ms only product. Then the whole interweb has it and we're screwed.

infor8ative 3ollDoll (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161058)

marketin6 surveys platform for the by fundamental cycle; take a

Enterprise (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161060)

Wouldn't enterprise customers have purchased routers that do this five years ago to handle the QoS - and managed switches ten years ago to handle the rest?

OK - it is nice, but it certainly is not new.

Re:Enterprise (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161158)

enterprise customers, probably, but what about the small business?

Sure, traffic shaping is nothing new, but it's new to windows- which, believe it or not, people actually use. If this can reduce infrastructure costs, even by getting rid of one box, then it's progress.

Re:Enterprise (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161280)

Given the costs to have Vista capable systems, and paying the non-volume price tags for your licensing, I would say that it isn't useful for small business. Like most of the rest of Vista, customers that cared about these features already bought solutions for them. You can get a packet tagging switch with QoS for a lot less than it will cost to upgrade your dozen Windows systems to Vista. Of course, the vast majority of small businesses don't even really needs those functions.

Vista is just where MS bundled into the OS half of the products their VARs sold.

Re:Enterprise (1)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161250)

Don't consumer level routers offer some of this functionality these days? My linksys is ancient, but I thought I remember reading the newer models offered some throttling features.

Re:Enterprise (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161400)

Exactly - and the fine article was talking about how "enterprise customers" would love these "new" features that are probably in every recent ADSL modem made for home use. There are very cool firewalls on network cards that can do this and a lot more too.

Re:Enterprise (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161548)

This can be done pretty easily on a Catalyst switch by configuring VLANs, but it's nice to have this feature in Windows as well. Active Directory is a handy one-stop-shopping interface for centralized administration. Presumably you'll be able to push group policies and stuff to do minute tasks like allowing a subnet a higher percentage of bandwidth at certain times of day.

Re:Enterprise (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161972)

Routers don't know protocols. These days, every new application tunnels over HTTP. Routers can't prioritize VoIP-over-HTTP at the expense of Filesharing-over-HTTP.

games? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161064)

Of course, I'm getting it for DirectX 10 games, but that's just me

Just you? Wow, those will be some disappointing sales figures.

Alternatively (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161068)

If that guy in accounting is spending all his time downloading movies off from bittorent, wouldn't it be better to fire him instead of shaping his packets??

Re:Alternatively (5, Funny)

cycojesus (831662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161368)

I am this guy AND I am the son of your boss. Ah, dilemna...

Re:Alternatively (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161402)

I guess I would hope that this sort of shaping and filtering would be done at a higher level than a Vista machine in a business environment.

wow! (1)

idlake (850372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161144)

<sarcasm>The innovation! What will MS think of next?<sarcasm>

Re:wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161724)

Great, now that the parent didn't close his/her sarcasm tag, the rest of the comment are sarcastic! Not.

Interesting discussion of this at SecurityNow (5, Informative)

AngusSF (34059) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161172)

GRC | Security Now! Transcript of Episode #51 "Vista's Virgin Stack" http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-051.htm [grc.com]

Re:Interesting discussion of this at SecurityNow (2, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161610)

Uhh, what the heck is that nonsense? I see no actual discussion of anything there.

This is the "security expert" that never heard of SYN Cookies before, started the whole mess about raw sockets in XP, and ran (or maybe still runs, haven't checked) a port scanner's supposed to scan the ports of the one going to the website, but can be tricked into scanning somebody else.

Re:Interesting discussion of this at SecurityNow (1)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161788)

It's an, uh, you know, article about, you know, Vista. And you know, it talks about the, you know, network stack. And you know, about Win2000's stack and, you know, where it may have come from, and, you know, about supposed problems in Vista's, you know, stack. And you know, those guys sure say 'you know' an awful, you know, lot.

Create your own reply (5, Funny)

Giant Ape Skeleton (638834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161188)

Big deal. ______ has had this in the kernel since ______.

Re:Create your own reply (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161304)

Big deal. _Vista_ has had this in the kernel since _beta_.

(Why can't we underline?)

Re:Create your own reply (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161460)

Big deal. Corn has had this in the kernel since it was a stalk.

Re:Create your own reply (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161816)

Big Deal. _Kentucky_Fried_Chicken_ has had this in the Colonel since _The_Civil_War_.

There MS goes again. re-inventing the wheel... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161212)

Umm, it's been done.. called QoS. why is this such a big deal?

farking retards.

Re:There MS goes again. re-inventing the wheel... (2, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161410)

QoS requires support from your network hardware.

The Internet doesn't have that.

Note also QoS doesn't actually solve all problems. For example, if you have two network applications running, and you want one of them to have priority such that it can take bandwidth from the other when it needs it - well, you're out of luck. QoS doesn't handle that situation.

Re:There MS goes again. re-inventing the wheel... (4, Insightful)

octaene (171858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161560)

It's a big deal because now, viruses and malware can slow your network access automagically, so that it'll take weeks for you to download those security patches and antivirus signatures that you should've already downloaded. :-)

Translating microshit's announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161240)

If you have Windoze Vista and want to surf the web or download email, the server must be running and Windoze server software.

Throttle network traffic is great ... (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161292)

Throttle network traffic is great ... if either your network or your server capacity suck.

Window Scaling and ECN! (2, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161306)

Yay! Now people will hopefully fix their firewalls so I can turn those on again in my Linux boxes.

Vista's DNS Suffixing (0, Offtopic)

RedBot (336422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161314)

I'm having problems with Vista's DNS Suffixing:

- My entire network has the dns suffix : work.intranet and I have a BIND dns server that resolves a.work.intranet and *.a.work.intranet to 192.168.0.2 so that if I ping bbb.a.work.intranet or ccc.a.work.intranet they all resolve to 192.168.0.2 (at least up until Vista)

- If I ping a.work.intranet it correctly resolves to 192.168.0.2;
- If I ping a it correctly resolves to 192.168.0.2;
- If I ping bbb.a.work.intranet it correctly resolves to 192.168.0.2;
- BUT IF I ping bbb.a it no longer resolves. (could not find host)

- If I do a nslookup bbb.a it correcly resolves to 192.168.0.2

So what appears to be happening is that it isn't adding the dns suffix when the domain has more than two parts (xxx.yyy).

Any ideas how to solve this?

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?Pos tID=884630&SiteID=1 [microsoft.com]

IPV6 .. (2)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161340)

What does Vista TCP/IP do that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6 [slashdot.org] ">IPV6 cannot and I don't mean such feetures that are welded to the Vista API.

Re:IPV6 .. (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161436)

I think you're confused here. This is just a specific implementation of TCP/IP, not a different protocol or anything.

specific implementation .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161880)

"I think you're confused here. This is just a specific implementation of TCP/IP, not a different protocol or anything"

Then please go ahead and enlighten me. What does Vista TCP/IP do that requires a specific implementation

was Re:IPV6 ..

Re:specific implementation .. (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161936)

I'm not entirely sure, it all looks very much like algorithmic tweaks and stuff. I'm aware at least of Compound TCP [wikipedia.org] , which supposedly has large benefits in some scenarios.

Reading the article itself might be an idea here, though, since it is an article on the new features.

Quoted portion leaves out important bit (5, Interesting)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161364)

Rather interesting that the quote in the summary here on slashdot skipped this (emphasis mine):

FTFA: "Vista's ability to use centrally configured group-policies to push out policies to specific users or servers, and allows tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values, so that our network infrastructure can see the marking and react to it in different ways - whether it's VoIP traffic, or TCP/IP business critical traffic, or web-surfing traffic. (Granted, this QoS doesn't guarantee anything, it just marks the packet in Windows and it is up to your network infrastructure to honor those tags.)"

So ... it really doesn't do much. It may be slightly more convenient to configure QoS on your routers based on the tags rather than port numbers ... but that's about it.

- Roach

Re:Quoted portion leaves out important bit (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161638)

> So ... it really doesn't do much.

It gives the MSCEs another reason to ban Linux because they won't be able to "push out policies" to Linux boxes.

Re:Quoted portion leaves out important bit (4, Informative)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161688)


And now that I've actually had some coffee ... this is just silly.

They're breaking rule #1: Never trust the client.

If your QoS network equipment is using these tags instead of actual port numbers, well, it's pretty easy to reconfigure how a client tags its packets.

- Roach

Re:Quoted portion leaves out important bit (1)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161860)

I wish your post could get moved, not modded, up to the top of the comments list. This little tidbit would save a lot of ignorant comments.

So which parts... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161390)

...of iptables or netfilter did they steal from Linux to make up their new traffic-shaping capabilities that has been in Linux and other *nix variants for years?

Woot, MS just got a bit more professional in their offering. How nice.

This is a stupid idea (3, Interesting)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161408)

Bandwidth management _must_ not rely on the host's cooperation. All will work beautifully until a virus totally rapes the network because QoS responsibility had been shifted from the network to the hosts. Damn, this isn't just stupid, it's freaking pathetic. What next Microsoft, pull in layer 2 into your stack as well?

Real SysAdmins... (1)

philipmather (864521) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161412)

...throttle users not traffic.

Marching forward (1)

t00le (136364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161416)

We really should not view any improvement in the Borg IP stack as a bad thing. They have already assimilated the world, the least they could do is provide a quasi-robust core set of features w/ some improvement in stability.

There are large amounts of small companies that probably do not have campus grade layer 2/3 devices that can accomodate QoS or traffic shaping, so adding the functionality at an end-point is honestly a good idea. However I will be the first to admit that it is a little late in the game, but they can now check another box from the list when comparing their product to other offerings.

Re:Marching forward (1)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161506)

There are large amounts of small companies that probably do not have campus grade layer 2/3 devices that can accomodate QoS or traffic shaping, so adding the functionality at an end-point is honestly a good idea.

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, if you read the article, Vista doesn't provide this. All it does is allow tagging of packets with values that QoS enabled network equipment can use.

FTA: "Vista's ability to use centrally configured group-policies to push out policies to specific users or servers, and allows tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values, so that our network infrastructure can see the marking and react to it in different ways - whether it's VoIP traffic, or TCP/IP business critical traffic, or web-surfing traffic. (Granted, this QoS doesn't guarantee anything, it just marks the packet in Windows and it is up to your network infrastructure to honor those tags.)"

- Roach

For anyone interested in enabling Compound TCP (4, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161420)

The Compound TCP talked about in TFA is disabled in Vista by default. If you want to turn it on, you can open a console with admin privs (right click Command Prompt -> Run as Administrator) and enter:

netsh interface tcp set global congestionprovider=ctcp

This was one of the first commands I ran after Vista installed, and the difference is noticable.

Re:For anyone interested in enabling Compound TCP (2, Funny)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161614)

netsh interface tcp set global congestionprovider=ctcp

This was one of the first commands I ran after Vista installed, and the difference is noticable.


You could be a little bit more specific about what "noticeable" means. Was it good or bad?

I recently tried to reduce the MTU size on a server 6000 miles away via the following command :

ifconfig eth0 mtu 1200

But I forgot to type the "mtu" part.

The difference was definitely noticeable. No, not in a good way.

reasons to get vista. (3, Insightful)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161466)

Many people on Slashdot have been screaming for over a year that Vista doesn't offer anything new, nothing worth upgrading for, etc. Well, it seems to me it does. I think anyone who is intellectually honest would agree... I might be on the wrong site?

This article points out 1 cool thing, a new networking stack, but it isn't the only thing. And actually he doesn't even talk about IPv6. For example, my lab at home I has 3 Vista installs, and the communicate out of the box over IPv6. In a couple of years IPv6 will be main-stream because of MS, and we all know the benefits from using the upgraded protocol.

-I think it's cool that when you browse the network people can see a picture of the person instead of the Computer Icon.

-I also do photography, and you use to be able to open an image file on an OSX machine and XP and it would look better on the OSX box. Not with vista.

-For Remote Access: PNRP. Again, really cool... do a search if you don't know what it is.

-Even the average business user will benefit from little things like the snippet tool (prety cool by the way, it's in the accessories folder if you haven't tried it yet).

-I have clients that are going to love the way the Windows clock works now. They can jump around by month, year, or decade in seconds. Those little things are pretty cool.
These are just random features that popped into my head, but it seems that Vista has LOTS of things other than Aero to encourage upgrading on all fronts (Security, tools, toys, looks, games, etc.).

Seriously, apple announces multiple desktops and have this site has a heart attack.... then praises Steve Jobs for being an inventor, a genius, etc. Meanwhile Windows has had those features for years, hell, Unix has for decades!

MS may not have invented the notion of every new feature in Vista, but it's a good product, and way better than XP. A worthy upgrade. It's not one feature that makes it a good product, but the cumulative of many features. I think you anti-ms people lose a lot of credibility when you blindly bash MS and say Vista sucks and it offers no reasons to upgrade for anyone. For all users it has some pretty enticing plusses.

Re:reasons to get vista. (1)

nitio (825314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161582)

I'm sorry. I don't talk corporate bullshit. (CAD Online, 2005)

Re:reasons to get vista. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161684)

> Seriously, apple announces multiple desktops and have this site has a heart
> attack.... then praises Steve Jobs for being an inventor, a genius, etc.

And the other half says "Unix has had this for decades".

Re:reasons to get vista. (2, Funny)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161694)

No intellectually honest person is saying Vista + new Office offer nothing new. The problem is that... well... you're reading this on Slashdot.

Re:reasons to get vista. (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161774)

-I have clients that are going to love the way the Windows clock works now. They can jump around by month, year, or decade in seconds. Those little things are pretty cool.

Scrape the bottom of the barrel much?

Re:reasons to get vista. (1)

igb (28052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17162004)

In a couple of years IPv6 will be main-stream because of MS, and we all know the benefits from using the upgraded protocol.
And for those of us who don't know the benefits, even though we've been told every year for the past five that ``next year will be IPv6!'', what are they?

ian

Malware (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161532)

So windows now has as part of the default configuration a tool that allows you to control the performace of different networking applications....

How long until malware takes advantage of this to slow down your connection (litterally) until you pay for their new "tool" to fix your system....

I hope vista security on this feature is well designed, otherwise this is an easy target for malware to trick more naive users into parting with their cash.

Though to be fair, with this feature and others in vista MS is actually approaching having a real OS - rather than just a GUI + disk manager... I wonder which BSD licensed code they used....

They have thought of everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161608)

I wonder if it will have a checkbox to allow you to throttle the traffic of the next zero day worm.

Problem Solver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17161696)

Another great reason to reboot your workstation with a Knoppix DVD. Problem solved.

Limiting bittorrent traffic (-1, Flamebait)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161810)

The summary says that you can throttle the amount of bandwith that applications like bittorrent get. Which is nice, but i've found that windows XP does a good enough job of slowing down my torrents. When comparing Linux and Windows the same connection, I find that Linux almost always gets much faster download rates on torrents, especailly when you talk about high speed downloading. For example, if the Linux machine is getting 15 KB/s then most likely the windows machine will also, however if the Linux machine gets 300 KB/s, then most likely the windows machine will only get 100 KB/s.

Wow a lot of ms bashers that are hypocrites (0, Offtopic)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161826)

All of you are saying that linux has this and ahrdware does this. What they dont get bashed but microsoft adds the feature and you right away bash them. Doesnt linux have it too? I dont see why people dont bash linux either. What people dont want a microsoft os to get better? why all the hypocritical bashing?

Next Generation? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161842)

Is it just me or is this article describing abilities Linux + IPTables has had for years upon years?

Hell my Linksys WRT54G with modded firmware at home does application-based traffic shaping (no way I would be able to use Vonage reliably while downloading huge ISOS if it didn't).

How is this next generation?

What a surprise... (2, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#17161956)

... another 'Microsoft is wonderful' posting, coincident with a major product release.

Microsoft astroturf [nwsource.com] in action.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>