×

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 Not Playing Well With IPv6

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the pioneers-with-arrows dept.

Networking 232

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

232 comments

Simple solution. (0, Flamebait)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436329)

Disable IPV6. It's my understanding, a principle way to better secure any network is to disable as many things as possible. If you're not using it, remove it.

While You're In There (4, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436349)

Disable this whole "internet" thing altogether. It's been full of security problems for Windows ever since someone dreamed it up.

Re:While You're In There (1, Funny)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436415)

I do that on the one windows box I have left: before I reboot, I unplug the network cable. It saves me an anti-virus license :-).

Re:While You're In There (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438303)

Sneaker net. Nothing like it.

Kids today have it easy. You tell them sneaker net and they say HUH?

Re:While You're In There (1)

cmacb (547347) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438419)

Why I used to have to carry data on a box full of floppies seven times a day between my office machine and home machine. On foot, and it was uphill, BOTH WAYS!

And I STILL got viruses!

Re:Simple solution. (5, Interesting)

someone300 (891284) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436395)

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...

Re:Simple solution. (2, Informative)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436657)

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.

Re:Simple solution. (0, Flamebait)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436501)

It is, not only disable but also remove. On unix this is easy, because everything typically comes as seperate packages which are easily uninstalled.
Windows however, makes it difficult if not impossible to remove many things which are often not required at all.

Re:Simple solution. (-1, Flamebait)

ceeam (39911) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436571)

Heh... Removing (proper) IPv6 on Linux requires kernel re-compile and if you try on Ubuntu to remove something like Avahi (which 99%+ of people do not need and which _can_ cause a lot of problems with DNS) then you'll see that it would "remove" almost the whole of your system through dependencies.

Re:Simple solution. (4, Informative)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438365)

Heh... Removing (proper) IPv6 on Linux requires kernel re-compile and if you try on Ubuntu to remove something like Avahi (which 99%+ of people do not need and which _can_ cause a lot of problems with DNS) then you'll see that it would "remove" almost the whole of your system through dependencies.

Or, if you're not an idiot, you just add "blacklist ipv6" to /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.

Re:Simple solution. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#19439071)

That disables it, but doesnt remove it.
You can easily remove the ipv6.ko file and it's gone completely... It wouldnt be hard for distributions to split the kernel modules up into several packages.

Re:Simple solution. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#19439123)

Removing ipv6 support requires deleting the ipv6 module (assuming your kernel has ipv6 compiled as a module, which most distributions do), although it is also possible to remove it by recompiling the kernel.
As for the avahi dependencies, this is an issue with the way ubuntu is packaged rather than an issue with linux as a whole, and stems from other packages which *use* features from avahi being compiled and linked against it.
My gentoo systems don't have avahi installed at all, infact i had to go and check what avahi was.

Re:Simple solution. (5, Insightful)

Nexx (75873) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436711)

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.

Re:Simple solution. (3, Informative)

Movi (1005625) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438685)

Umm, yes! On linux its as easy as:
rm /lib/modules/'uname -a'/kernel/build/somemodule.ko ; depmod -a on Mac OS X its
rm -r /System/Library/Extensions/YourKext.kext; rm /System/Library/Extensions.*; See?

Re:Simple solution. (1)

tkdtaylor (1039822) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436639)

I've enabled IPv6 on my XP boxes without any problems at all, it actually resulted in faster loading times.
If Vista is anything like XP it's actually quite easy, just go to your network connections open the properties for the LAN connection and install the IPv6 (Microsoft TCP/IP version 6) Protocol.
Removing it is even easier, from the properties of the LAN connection just select it and click Uninstall.

Re:Simple solution. (-1, Troll)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436695)

Removing it is even easier

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

Re:Simple solution. (5, Informative)

haapi (16700) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436729)

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.

Re:Simple solution. (5, Informative)

tkdtaylor (1039822) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437265)

IPv6 FAQ [microsoft.com]

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\Servic es\Tcpip6\Parameters\DisabledComponents

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.

Oh My God (0, Offtopic)

alta (1263) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436351)

I'm usually all for people doing anything it takes to make a buck, as long as it's legal. But this should not be legal. This is extortion and is bad for the general public. If this works, it's going to take longer for fixes to appear because of legal issues, and the vendor will have to decide if it's even worth it. I'm floored.

Re:Oh My God (5, Funny)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436433)

I think you responded to the wrong story, but you're amazingly on topic anyway.

Re:Oh My God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436445)

100% agreed. MS should not get away this. Maybe we can get a class action going against this "IPv6" playing not well. Ugh.

That problem is fixed in (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436363)

MS Vista 2.0. Now only £99.99

 

Re:That problem is fixed in (1)

kinglink (195330) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438527)

Vista unlike OSX has yet to institute upgrade buying. Granted it's probably coming knowing Microsoft's history and they have enough other problems, we don't need to fake up apple's business practices for Microsoft.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436365)

"2^32 unique addresses ought to be enough for anybody."

Re:Obligatory (4, Interesting)

TransEurope (889206) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436455)

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.

Re:Obligatory (2, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438697)

I suspect that this just means that worms will have to be smarter, gathering information on IP addresses to attack based upon connections, logs, etc. People using BitTorrent will provide a huge number of targets. Compromise a webserver, and you've got the addresses of anyone who visits the site. Read through e-mail headers, and you'll get some more.

Bots have no trouble finding e-mail addresses to spam. I imagine that in the face of near infinite IP addresses, they'll find some way to continue their attacks.

Also, the IPv6 address space corresponding to the current IPv4 address space will probably always be scanned.

Re:Obligatory (4, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436503)

"2^32 unique addresses ought to be enough for anybody."

It is enough for anybody. The problem is that it's not enough for everybody.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436877)

And 2^96 subnets should be enough to give _everyone_ such an address space. :-)

Order of magnitude more orders of magnitude (3, Interesting)

The Monster (227884) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437115)

"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 [m-w.com]

: 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.

Who is surprised? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436411)

Anyone? Raise your hand...

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

Correction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436675)


Anyone? Raise your hand...

Seriously, anyone using Vista in a vital machine needs their head examnined!


There, fixed that for you.

Another correction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436811)

<Dalek>
Anyone? Raise your hand...

Seriously, anyone using Vista in a vital machine needs their head EXTERMINATED!
</Dalek>

You can't always blame the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436747)

  1. Stupidity is a requirement for a career in IT management
  2. Many companies outsource their IT
  3. For many, newer and shinier means better - it says so on TV

Re:Who is surprised? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437403)

And in other news, millions of people book for an appointment at their nearest psychologist, because someone anonymously posted the parent post, and someone else modded it informative.

MS' Teredo (IPv6) blog (4, Informative)

packetmon (977047) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436417)

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/ [technet.com] ... Anyhow, those parties with IPv6 issues, I bet ya a HUGE portion of them are using NAT...

SPI-enabled router (1)

palewook (1101845) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436683)

SPI blows up vista. UPnP can too. Netbios can choke out vista slowly. and dont even get started on VPN.

Re:MS' Teredo (IPv6) blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436685)

Sylar! I knew he was behind it!

I am NOT surprised, given that... (3, Interesting)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436419)

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?

Re:I am NOT surprised, given that... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436583)

"Thoughts anyone?"

Time for new moderation option, +5 zealot:ing

Re:I am NOT surprised, given that... (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436645)

We could get rid of the zealots if we could dispel the truth behind their message.

+2 insightful, +1 informative, +2 zealot.

Re:I am NOT surprised, given that... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436745)

It's IP6...

Even OpenBSD, the most security-minded folks around, recently found a hole in their IP6 implementation. Why? IP6 simply isn't used that widely and so hasn't been tested in a lot of situations. Do you use IP6? I don't. Neither do my parents, neighbors, co-workers, and the vast majority of my colleagues I know working for other companies. It simply isn't that widespread.

I'll expect to find quite a few IP6 bugs in most OS's until it becomes much more common.

Re:I am NOT surprised, given that... (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438735)

I find that thought very suspect, for a lot of reasons.

The biggest is that Microsoft wasn't the only one involved in the early networking. IBM was as well. LanMan was a joint effort, and I find it highly unlikely that IBM would need Novell's assistance to make networking work correctly.

Re: thought being suspect (1)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 6 years ago | (#19439093)

Yes but the Novell insider I am referring to was on the team that wrote much of the code that stabilized Netware's data layer in the early going (prior to Netware 4 but I don't want to be more specific than that-- which was also the exact code which turned up elsewhere on M$ machines prior to a deal being concluded but that M$ insisted had been "deleted from all of the offending machines."

At the time I was installing networks and a few months after the conversation I am mentioning, , M$ networking stabilized at the same data layer under Windows NT in a way that was exactly compatible at the data layer level with the Novell implementation. Hmmmmm....

dot.Excuses .. (3, Funny)

rs232 (849320) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436423)

"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"

Fist of death... (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436547)

..."to my knowledge has not experienced these types of issues"...

And..."We have no record of [insert issue]"

"Sorry for the inconvenience."

There is currently an investigation into the matter."

"The person involved is suspended (usually with pay in Gov)pending the outcome of this investigation."

Blah blah blah!They all boil down to ,"We're going to say nothing really, until all of you forget about it or get distracted by the next Paris Hilton/Brittany Spears/American Idol/etc... headline. And in the meantime, we get away with it!"

Re:dot.Excuses .. (3, Funny)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436595)

"But we also know that Windows Vista is the highest-quality, most secure and most broadly supported operating system we've ever released."

But mediocre is just not good enough anymore.

So... (3, Funny)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436451)

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? ;)

Re:So... (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437387)

This is Microsoft. What other OS would allow these sorts of exceptions? Sheesh. Doesn't anyone do a try/catch loop anymore?

my $result = dosomething();
if($result eq 'FAIL'){
    return('Hey moron, you fail it!');
}
return($result);
 
monad> myl33tscript
FAIL
:D

Very funny, but... (4, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436469)

Okay, once the M$-bashing has died down, can someone have a think about the subtle implications of this? IPv6 adoption is going to be heavily stunted by this inadequacy if it isn't fixed pretty pronto - and even if it is fixed, with the other problems v6 is having, will anyone actually try trusting it? Not for some time, I suspect.

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.

Re:Very funny, but... (5, Interesting)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436489)

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.

Re:Very funny, but... (1)

Nexx (75873) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436623)

No, the GP is saying with this bug, there's even more resistance. He's not saying Vista will suddenly spur interest; he's saying this bug will quash what little interest there was will be smaller.

Re:Very funny, but... (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438909)

For one thing, IPv6 is on and enabled by default in Vista. This means that, as more and more people downgrade to Vista, more and more people will be IPv6-ready by default. This is a partial solution to the chicken-egg problem of migrating to a new Internet standard. In a couple of years, ISPs need not be afraid of migrating to IPv6 since Vista will be fairly prevalent. Their support centers won't have to deal with thousands of calls from people trying to get XP to play nice with IPv6.

Re: open source solutions (0, Flamebait)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436575)

Thing is, the whole IPv6 standard is IMHO fairly well done. But implementation hiding details is what MS does best.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the hope that OSS solutions would gain strength from the IPv6 problems, for much of the business world, M$ is the dominant force -- so like you said -- a bad implementation is a body blow to IPv6's adoption. Too bad Redmond will never learn the Open Source lesson that more eyes find more problems in the early adoption v.9 releases, instead of after-market bad press. Nor will they likely learn that trying to corrupt or co-opt a standard is less profitable in the long run than taking the time to open up the code and more likely insure engineering success right off the bat

Re: open source solutions (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19438409)

While I agree wholeheartedly with the hope that OSS solutions would gain strength from the IPv6 problems, for much of the business world, M$ is the dominant force -- so like you said -- a bad implementation is a body blow to IPv6's adoption. Too bad Redmond will never learn the Open Source lesson that more eyes find more problems in the early adoption v.9 releases, instead of after-market bad press.


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.

Re:Very funny, but... (1)

sasdrtx (914842) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436681)

Bashing? I'm pleased that somebody's finally found a benefit of Vista (albeit a small one -- it's not like IPv6 has any traction anyway).

Re:Very funny, but... (0, Troll)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436755)

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)!"

They need a better implementation (4, Informative)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436475)

I think they should scoop the one out of BSD UNIX.

Hell, it worked for them pretty good LAST time..

Re:They need a better implementation (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436525)

Maybe that's part of the problem. There have some problems in the BSD implementation of IPv6.

And this is news because? (-1, Redundant)

crimguy (563504) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436507)

Not exactly earth-shattering news. So the IPv6 stack has some bugs.

Re:And this is news because? (3, Interesting)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437315)

***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?

Re:And this is news because? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19438911)

And what the fuck is "industrial strength testing"? Is it expensive? Why isn't everybody doing it everywhere?

Bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436535)

At least IPv6 can't get patented [slashdot.org] !

Re:Bug? (1)

HappyHead (11389) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436777)

At least IPv6 can't get patented!

No, but fixing the problem in it's implementation can be. Then of course, MS can just sit on the bug without fixing it like they used to, but now they'd have a scapegoat to point at as for why. "We can't fix it because the patent troll is demanding more than we want to pay. You'll have to wait for the next OS release for that feature to be changed."

Some kids are just social outcasts (1, Funny)

OverlordsShadow (1034748) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436563)

Why can't Vista just get along with all the other kids. Can't hardware, software, and protocols just all get along? Vista is beating up on the memory kids and thinks its a big tough shit against other Os's. I think someone in the playground needs to go over to Vista and say 'Hey asshole, calm it down or I'll be taking your lunch money next!' Moral: Kids and computers never play nice/fair.

Re:Some kids are just social outcasts (3, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436807)

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.

Is Vista to blame? (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436567)

Have they tried this on an XP computer or another IPv6 based OS? Are you sure it's just not the printers? It's easy to blame an operating system.

GO, ON! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19436577)

Mod this down you fucks!

8========D

It's a feature! (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436643)

'We will send a print job to an IP-based printer, and the print job becomes corrupted.
Ah-ha! You've discovered the undocumented, but terribly useful, user-papercut-protection device!

Re:It's a feature! (1)

Shinmizu (725298) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438033)

Ah-ha! You've discovered the undocumented, but terribly useful, user-papercut-protection device!
It doesn't work that well. I mean, sure it pops up that stupid "Are you sure you wish to receive a papercut?" message box, but people have become so numb to those that everyone just chooses "OK." Even in those rare cases that they don't actually want a papercut.

Re:It's a feature! (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438943)

No, it's the DRM. It's an unprotected data path to the printer, so the images are degraded!

Blame Vista, or applications? (4, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436665)

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.

Hopefully They Fix It Before... (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436669)

We run out of IPV4 addresses.

Sigh. While it is entertaining to watch Vista get hammered over and over for security and bugs, it is kind of sad to know that so many are blindly buying it since they feel saddled to the Microsoft rut.

I wonder if all the issues and bad press with Vista is at least partly behind their flurry of licensing activity with various Linux distributions.

At any rate, licensing or no, I love Linux. The more I use it and learn about it, the more I am so glad I made the jump a few years ago. It's logical, open, and really a lot easier to understand than Windows ever was.

Pretty sad considering... (1, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436699)

...that they had IPv6 working in Win2k and WinXP. But you had to administer it from the command line, and they wanted to integrate things, so they combined their stacks. They wrote a new stack, and at least in the release candidate it had buffer overflow exploits, including the LAND attack, remote code execution, you name it. So obviously it was written by a dumbfuck - Microsoft already had and fixed these holes in earlier operating systems, starting as early as Windows 95.

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. (So if you forgot that Microsoft is just fucking lame in every way, you are doomed to continue to be fucked by them and their crap software.)

Re:Pretty sad considering... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437179)

I think the problem here was that MS always re-invents the wheel trying to force vendor-lockin. Rather than rely on proven (and open) methods, they want everyone to use their software so they write code in a way that is only compatible with themselves. Unfortunately here, their code needed to be overhauled because Vista is very different in terms of permission and security than the XP codebase. Rather than implement IPv6 like everyone else they have re-invent it again to ensure that it is Vista compatible. Of course with a codebase that is reportedly 60-70 million lines of code, not all parts of Vista were passed to good programmers. MS probably assigned the good programmers to parts that it considered absolutely essential. IPv6 was probably assigned to a lesser programmer. This reminds of what Steve Jobs said recently: "I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products. "

Re:Pretty sad considering... (1, Troll)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438575)

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

don't the idiots at MS test anything? (0, Troll)

mr_death (106532) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436713)

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.

Re:don't the idiots at MS test anything? (2, Informative)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#19436977)

They DO test a lot, but it's imposible to not have bugs especially with such a new beast like IPv6. Linuzzzz itself have a million of reported bugs with IPv6, which, again is not strange due to the relative new protocol.

http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id =6402758 [sun.com]

http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/net/0205.3/ 0002.html [iu.edu]

http://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/questions/2007- April/013854.html [isc.org]

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.

Re:don't the idiots at MS test anything? (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438711)

"Linuzzz", eh? Also, of the three bugs you've linked to, one is an app doing something really weird (using multicast packets on the loopback adapter), one is 5 years old and doesn't actually appear to be a bug, and I'm not sure about the third (apparently, neither were the kernel developers - there's an option to get the behaviour the poster expected.)

Absolutely Unacceptable (1, Insightful)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437311)

Everyone expects bugs in a new OS release, but.. I realize that most people treat IPv6 like global warming. We all know we HAVE TO adopt it but are (as harmoniously as possible) ALL putting it off until we have no choice. When we finally do 'flip the switch' over to IPv6 there will be LOTS of vista installs all over the net that didn't get the update for their corrupt network stack. If it breaks printers, you know there are other problems yet to be discovered.

MS: If you are going to monopolize the desktop market, have some sense of responsibility! As much as we hate it, the world depends on your products. Why don't you just build a windows-esque front end for a bsd based system on your next OS already? No one will give a shit and consumers will finally get the product they deserve and paid for.

sorry for the rant. I'm back on the coffee.

Oh, is that all? (4, Interesting)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | more than 6 years ago | (#19437691)

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.

Re:Oh, is that all? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19437923)

So, the firmware for your network switch can't handle whatever's thrown at it (good or bad, from Vista, or anything else)? Seems like you need to make the firmware upgrade a higher priority; I don't think I'd sleep well knowing that random stuff can take down my network.

Re:Oh, is that all? (1)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438139)

Vista is not random. Vista is special. :)

(No, we use a lot of OS's on the network, none have caused this. Its not like Vista has to do anything, its likely plug in network lead and *boom* the main switches crash and loop)

Anyway, its on our to do list. New firmware means we have to put a switch to one side and test the firmware before we could use it live. Its not a 5 minute job and we have no need for vista in the business.

Re:Oh, is that all? (1)

lutz7755 (1046792) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438687)

>its likely plug in network lead and *boom* the main switches crash and loop I would upgrade or replace your switches at the earliest possibility. A switch should never be affected by an end-user device. If it gets malformed packets, it should drop them. Everything on a switch should be done in hardware, so I don't understand how this could even happen. Are you sure these aren't routers? Either way, I'd take a look at your HP switches, and not point the finger at Vista. What you're describing should never happen.

this is what happens (0)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438433)

this is what happens when you have a company trying to write solid, stable net code for an operating system that isn't solid or stable.

Microsoft's TCP/IP stack is untested, unproven, and untrusted.

any IT manager who puts the vista stack on his network should be fired for being a tool.

you have to ask, what's wrong with the BSD stack that's been working great for 20 years?
obviously microsoft screwed it up in every version of windows that used it.

The same implementation running under Linux just runs better, providing better throughput with less cpu overhead.

Vista Performance Tip (3, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#19438731)

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!

OH NOES!!!!111oneoneone (1)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 6 years ago | (#19439109)

You mean using a network protocol that is not compatible with existing equipment and infrastructure might actually cause problems???

*GASP*

OH! The Horror!!! /sarcasm

You shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a computer.

Get.

A.

Clue.

We at MS... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19439155)

We at MS are absolutely sure that we implemented ipv6 according to the rules of the 8 layers of the ISO-model. Can't think what went wrong really ?!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...