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 Bug Costs Users In Swedish Town Their Internet

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-net-for-you dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 644

Lund, Sweden refuses to work around a Vista bug, so people who live there must choose between Vista and internet access. It's nice to see the right people being held accountable for a change.

cancel ×

644 comments

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

The only thing that could make this better (5, Funny)

Nero Nimbus (1104415) | more than 7 years ago | (#20433153)

Is if the city offered free Ubuntu CDs as "Windows Upgrades."

Oh no, there's more. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20433965)

Ubuntu is an upgrade from XP and Vista.


Keep that shoe on the other foot for just a little longer. Imagine them having "support scripts" that travel through a KDE interface instead of Outlook Express or IE. Imagine them requiring Ubunto to install your access. In short, imagine all of the "standardization" Windoze enjoys being flipped on you.


In the free software world, users can edit a few well annotated text files to get the job done if they are given the proper information. That task is harder in Windoze because you must dig through several GUIs that don't tell you what to ask for in advance or ever.


It's a shame that ACs can post with more points and more frequently than Twitter.

Re:Oh no, there's more. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20436085)

hi twitter!

Re:Oh no, there's more. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441509)

He can't even spell Ubuntu :O I thought he had more than one account. AC must have more privileges than all his accounts put together!

Twitter seems to turn /. some kind of soap opera.

Re:Oh no, there's more. (2, Funny)

phillips321 (955784) | more than 7 years ago | (#20440989)

Why can't they just download the CD?

JOKE!!!

Re:The only thing that could make this better (0, Redundant)

aim2future (773846) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441649)

The posting is not "funny", it should be modded "insightful"

So... (4, Funny)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 7 years ago | (#20440931)

Their internet is b0rked?

Re:So... (5, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441029)

Their internet is b0rked?
No, it's b0rk-b0rk-b0rked!

twitter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20440961)

LOL! twitter is the # 1 Troll on slashdot.

Its a lollercaust!1!!1!!

http://www.goatse.cx (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441001)

This post also is intended to waste a modpoint, lol-lapalooza.

router (3, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#20440977)

Wouldn't using a router to connect to the internet bypass the bug?

Re:router (0)

Jester998 (156179) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441013)

The problem is that Vista uses a non-standard implementation of TCP in its network stack. A router just passes packets verbatim from one place to another verbatim, so no, using a router wouldn't change anything unless you someone implemented packet scrubbing or normalization rules.

Re:router (5, Informative)

Frol (52495) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441203)

The bug in Vista is that it sends somewhat broken DHCP requests that Lund Energi's DHCP server refuses to reply to. If you have a home router the DHCP server in the router would (propably) reply to the requests from Vista and other computers on your LAN. And the router sends correct DHCP requests to Lund Energi's server in order to get it's own public IP address.

In short, having a home router would solve the problem.

Re:router (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441339)

That makes sense. I think that the city is doing the right thing. Not because I hate vista, but because MS pushes out non standard implementations on a regular basis. For them to be allowed to keep doing stuff like this or their screwed up web browser would be a bad thing. They have pretty regularly indicated that they aren't willing to think of their end users, and so stuff like this happens. It really isn't the fault of anybody but MS that the implementation was wrong. What makes things cludgy is when there needs to be a couple of dozen compatibility options enabled so that broken software can communicate.

Broken software being broken shouldn't be allowed on line wherever possible. I just wish we could keep the subset of windows users that haven't bothered to secure their computers completely offline. And if need be any other users.

Re:router (3, Insightful)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441673)

Broken software being broken shouldn't be allowed on line wherever possible.

That would violate the robustness principle summed up in RFC 1122: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."

In this respect, both Microsoft and the city are in the wrong.

Re:router (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441369)

In short, not being a retard by hooking a Microsoft desktop operating system directly to the internet... solves the problem? Imagine how many other problems it will avoid in the future? ... I think that is all that needs to be said. Anyone hooking a MS computer DIRECTLY to the internet is asking for trouble.

so it's not a bug after all! (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441409)

It's a feature!

Re:router (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441323)

A router just passes packets verbatim from one place to another verbatim


I dearly, dearly hope you are not in charge of any network apparatus anywheres.

Chris Mattern

Re:router (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441539)

He works in marketing for Verbatim

Re:router (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441645)

Hey, they make some pretty good DVD+R DL discs. I've got a burner that I can't get to write to any other brand.

Re:router (5, Informative)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441461)

A hub just passes packets verbatim from one place to another verbatim...a router determines where the packet needs to go, determines what header/footer information needs to be changed, and rebuilds the packet for the next hop.
Fixed that for you.

Re:router (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441025)

Sure, and I guess M$ should pay for it.. and the engineers to install/maintain it.

"so people who live there must choose... (5, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#20440997)

"..between Vista and internet access."

Fucking tricky one, eh?

Like choosing between an anal probe and a cream bun.

Re:"so people who live there must choose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441089)

To be fair: im sure there are more sex lovers in Sweden then there are Vista users worldwide, so your comparison is not very accurate.

Re:"so people who live there must choose... (4, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441125)

To be fair: im sure there are more sex lovers in Sweden then there are Vista users worldwide, so your comparison is not very accurate.

I think you're labouring under the false assumption that the cream bun is for eating.

Re:"so people who live there must choose... (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441133)

An anal probe is not sex... hmmm... unless a cream bun is some new lingo for sex.

Re:"so people who live there must choose... (5, Funny)

quonsar (61695) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441117)

cream buns often follow anal probes.

Re:"so people who live there must choose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441715)

Ohh, eewwww, noooo. Stop it. I can't take that combination of words in that particular order so early in the morning.

Re:"so people who live there must choose... (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441745)

Good job GP didn't mention the chocolate eclair, then...

MODERATORS!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441415)

Mod Parent Up!

Not their problem. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441007)

<quote>Lundis Energi should have been testing Vista back in its early alpha release stages to ensure compatibility with their Linux based server system</quote>

Why? If their existing system follows the appropriate standards, why should they have to test someone else's future product to check compatibility?

Re:Not their problem. (2, Insightful)

deadsquid (535515) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441475)

Why? Because it's a relatively simple fix that their DHCP server could actually support, and it sounds like the ISP/city contractor is being a dick on principal.

Also, MS products are used by a significant portion of the population. I know I test multiple platforms when I deploy software because I want my userbase to be happy. Sometimes that requires work-arounds. The end-users don't have control over how MS wrote their DHCP routines.

If it's a change that the ISP could make, why not? If it was the other way around, people would be yelling about choice.

To me, the ISP is being a bit dick-ish because they can, and it sounds like they have an exclusive with the city. This is really too bad, because the only people who get screwed are the folks at home whose only option is a wholesale switch, which isn't practical, regardless of how much people think it'd be great if they did.

Re:Not their problem. (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441635)

"If it was the other way around , people would be yelling about choice."

what other way around? the ISP use Vista and only Vista can connect?
People would have the same complaint: Follow the standards!

Re:Not their problem. (5, Insightful)

gonzo67 (612392) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441661)

Actually, why should the provider CHANGE their config which works perfectly fine with OSes that follow standards? They were NOT the one deploying software, MS was, and MS failed to meet the standard.....and hence fucked these customers more than they have a few others.

Of course, not being able to get on the web does decrease the malware they get infected by.

How's this funny again? (5, Funny)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441031)

If this happened in my town--and if I were using Vista--I'd be pretty damn unhappy. Usually a story is funny because someone got what they deserved in a particularly humorous way, or because someone subjectively considered evil takes it in the pants. Here I see a bunch of people getting shafted by two corporations that don't want to play nice, and this perhaps for the crime of simply owning a new computer.

Re:How's this funny again? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441233)

It's funny because normally it's Linux users who are unable to connect to the internet because only Windows is supported (even when Linux behaves and Windows does not) - for example look at most wireless broadband services.

Now it's happening to someone else it's a big deal that should have been fixed? Well they can start by fixing all the stuff that has been broken longer that no one gave a shit about.

Re:How's this funny again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441239)

Microsoft has been putting out problematic, low-quality software for decades now. Everybody should know that by now. And if you did know that and still bought their products, then you do deserve to be laughed at. People who knowingly put themselves in a stupid situation that turns around and fucks them over should be publically taunted and teased.

Re:How's this funny again? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441261)

In the same way that for years one could not get cheap DSL, or DSL at all in some places, unless on was running ms windows. If one were smart enough, as in this case, one could hack hack around it.

The truly sad part is that many of these services were limited to MS windows platforms as other platforms would not allow the installation of the spyware. If such a thing happened in my town I would likely to what the service providers, and some web sites, still say to do. Buy a machine that works.

Re:How's this funny again? (2, Insightful)

freezingweasel (1049610) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441581)

This is considered funny because of the past behavior of MS, and what people presume the problem to be.

In the past, MS fearing things like Java (and rightfully so, Java done right could eliminate the need for Windows) made their own versionsof the Java Virtual Machine, broken n various ways to kill compatibility. MS is known for having run with and mucked up the Kerberos standard, so their implementation doesn't play well with competitors. It's believed that Silverlight is an attempt to make a Flash that only works on MS and Apple machines, cutting out Linux users.

In view of how MS has a reputation for breaking standards for their own gain (lookup "embrace and extend" for details) many people, at least semi-reasonably jump to the conclusion that MS is deliberately trying to break Internet standards. What if Lundi would apply a patch to their Linux server that made it play the MS way instead of the official standard way? At that point, MS would be emboldened to do it again, and again. Soon, with all the frequent ways the net was being trivially "broken" (when in actuallity only the MS software wasn't playing right) companies would move to MS servers that never seemed to have the problems. Viewed cynically, this is a ploy to cut out non-MS servers from the net, by harrassing the operators of said non-MS servers through users that MS deliberately made discontent.

There's 2 sides though:

1: MS is up to old tricks (which isn't flat MS bashing, MS does have a reputation for illicit practices)

2: MS made a legitimate mistake, and this is just a bug. It wouldn't be the first time, and all programmers make mistakes. That said, that it still just so happens to work with MS servers but not Linux servers seems to point away from this option, but I can't say for sure, as light on the details as this story is.

In short, people are laughing because they believe #1 is true, and MS is getting a taste of being told where to go instead of being blanketly obeyed.

That said, it is NOT funny for the end users. The end users don't pay much attention to the deeds / misdeeds of major companies. The end users don't care about standards. All the end users care about is whether it works. As much as Vista costs, they shouldn't have to deal with this sort of problem.

If Lundi is following the standard and MS isn't, it really shouldn't be Lundi's problem. MS knows how to talk to the net, they have from 3.1 to XP. Lundi has every reason to expect that MS will continue to get right what they've gotten right so far.

Tests? (3, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441049)

The university I work for in Sweden began testing with Vista when it was the called Longhorn. We discovered some bugs with the communication between Vista and some of our servers (running Solaris) back in 2004. The bug repports were submited to MS back then and the thing was fixed on the next Longhorn beta "release". It seems it's easier for some not to test and cry out like a baby when it's too late.

Re:Tests? (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441523)

Um...flamebait? Wha?

Why do people still use Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441055)

Between the DRM, the DirectX 10 incompatibilities, the high cost, the extreme hardware requirements, the inability to play multimedia and download at the same time, and now this, I just don't understand why anyone would still be using Windows. And it's not like there aren't alternatives. Between even just OS X and Ubuntu, there are systems that don't have such inherent flaws.

The admin is to blame here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441061)

Granted, its not on Linux but I've been using the Squid proxy server for a long time now and Vista never had any issues with it. It can be a little tricky since Vista won't recognize the Internet connection, only the local connection to the proxyserver. But apart from that its not rocket science to get it to work. So guys; better get someone who understands what he's doing.

Vista DHCP client and Linux (5, Insightful)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441063)

The problem as reported is that the Vista DHCP client fails to obtain an address from Linux servers running (I'd presume) ISC dhcpd.

When I bought a laptop recently it came with Vista. When I connected it to my network it failed to obtain an address. I assumed there was some misconfiguration problem I was missing, Turns out it's a fundamental difference between the DHCP client in Vista and the one in prior versions of Windows. See this item from Microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233/en-us [microsoft.com] .

The version of dhcpd I'm using is an old one (2.0). I thought about upgrading it to see if that would solve the problem, but since I wasn't planning on keeping Vista on the laptop, I didn't bother upgrading. All our other machines run Linux and don't have this problem.

I wonder what decision will be made in enterprises running Linux DHCP servers that introduce Vista into the workplace. Will they follow the Microsoft KB item above and "fix" the problem on every new Vista box they buy? Or will the replace the Linux DHCP box with Windows Server?

Re:Vista DHCP client and Linux (0)

rastilin (752802) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441381)

Good point. This isn't so much a Vista bug as it is an incompatibility issue. I hate it when people refuse to fix something because that might be seen as accepting blame. I further suspect that the people with no internet access probably have very little patience for the runaround and don't particularly care who's fault it is just as long as someone fixes it.

Granted, if it were me in their situation, I'd get a linux server up and mediate the connection to the internet from my Vista computers. Since my computers DO run Vista, after years of linux only, this isn't completely hypothetical.

Re:Vista DHCP client and Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441397)

It's easily set/reset via that registry entry, & even easier if that fix is made into a registry .reg file export & merged into user's systems on a LAN (via their bootup logon script for instance).

Yes, it should have been reported here, but NO, it should not have had a "trollish tone" to it, with the "right people held accountable statement" (everyone knows /. is a largely "Pro *NIX" site online, so it's to be expected (bogus behaviour when it comes to ANYTHING Microsoft or Windows here)).

Now, if you do the same? Such as this:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=282945&t hreshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20406151 [slashdot.org]

?

The people here "down moderate" you!

(Yes, even IF you have valid evidence such as I had there, in a completely FAIR challenge to the Pro *NIX crowd here, on a multiplatform test of security (noted by both SANS & COMPUTERWORLD as a tool that helps you secure yourself better, & both SANS + COMPUTERWORLD are often cited here as sources you can trust on security).

APK

Re:Vista DHCP client and Linux (4, Informative)

click2005 (921437) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441443)

RFC2131 states:
      A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol
      software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the
      BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or
      DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will
      provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast
      any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can
      receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been
      configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0.


RFC1542 States

3.1.1 The BROADCAST flag

      Normally, BOOTP servers and relay agents attempt to deliver BOOTREPLY
      messages directly to a client using unicast delivery. The IP
      destination address (in the IP header) is set to the BOOTP 'yiaddr'
      address and the link-layer destination address is set to the BOOTP
      'chaddr' address. Unfortunately, some client implementations are
      unable to receive such unicast IP datagrams until they know their own
      IP address (thus we have a "chicken and egg" issue). Often, however,
      they can receive broadcast IP datagrams (those with a valid IP
      broadcast address as the IP destination and the link-layer broadcast
      address as the link-layer destination).

      If a client falls into this category, it SHOULD set (to 1) the
      newly-defined BROADCAST flag in the 'flags' field of BOOTREPLY
      messages it generates. This will provide a hint to BOOTP servers and
      relay agents that they should attempt to broadcast their BOOTREPLY
      messages to the client.

      If a client does not have this limitation (i.e., it is perfectly able
      to receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages), it SHOULD NOT set the
      BROADCAST flag (i.e., it SHOULD clear the BROADCAST flag to 0).

            DISCUSSION:

                  This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
                  implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
                  that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
                  use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
                  this mechanism is discouraged.


If XP can receive unicast IP datagrams. why cant Vista? Either MS broke Vista or the TCP/IP stack is less functional than before. Either way, use of the broadcast flag is discouraged.

The article you reference contains the solution .. (5, Informative)

golodh (893453) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441519)

The Microsoft article you reference notes that the whole problem is caused by a single flag (the DHCP BROADCAST) that Vista sets and previous Windows versions didn't. The article also contains the following quick and easy solution:



RESOLUTION


Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.


To resolve this issue, disable the DHCP BROADCAST flag in Windows Vista. To do this, follow these steps:

1. Click StartStart button, type regedit in the Start Search box, and then click regedit in the Programs list.


User Account Control permission If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type your password, or click Continue.

2. Locate and then click the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{GUID}
In this registry path, click the (GUID) subkey that corresponds to the network adapter that is connected to the network.

3. On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click DWORD (32-bit) Value.

4. In the New Value #1 box, type DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then press ENTER.

5. Right-click DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then click Modify.

6. In the Value data box, type 1, and then click OK.

7. Close Registry Editor.


So Vista isn't (formally) going counter to protocol, it's just going counter to a 15-year old custom. Nonetheless, Vista *can* cooperate, it just needs to be told not to raise the DHCP BROADCAST flag. And yes, that route goes via a registry modification.


In summary: a tropical storm in a teacup.

Win95 & Win98 & Win2K & WinXP did it c (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441639)

So Vista isn't (formally) going counter to protocol, it's just going counter to a 15-year old custom.

And counter to Microsoft's last 4 operating systems.

They got it right back in 1995 (12 years ago) ... and they're changing it now.

In summary: a tropical storm in a teacup.

Nope. Just another example of how Microsoft does not care about published standards. Their DHCP services can handle it so why should they spend any time understanding the standard that the rest of the world follows?

After all, everyone else will probably change to support Microsoft's weird implementation. Who cares about the problems that the users have in the meantime? If Microsoft is lucky, no one will be able to explain the problem in terms those users could understand and the rest of the world will be blamed for the problems when it is Microsoft who is not following the published standard.

Re:Vista DHCP client and Linux (1)

Necrotica (241109) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441679)

The problem as reported is that the Vista DHCP client fails to obtain an address from Linux servers running (I'd presume) ISC dhcpd.

I have ISC dhcpd running on a FreeBSD server and have never had a problem obtaining an IP address.

Re:Vista DHCP client and Linux (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441693)



Nope, I run ISC dhcpd at home, and Vista never had a problem getting an IP.

A whole pile of other problems, but never that.

Lund is... (2, Informative)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441067)

.. actually the city in sweden with most students per capita, since lund university is located there. If anyone is willing to adopt to linux or just bash windows it's young people. This is probably a big issue down there but so far I haven't heard anything about this over here, and I'm about 150km away.

TCO? (1)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441405)

So, for the densest concentration of Swedish students in the country, their perception of Vista is "broken/doesn't work/incompatible." That's a serious problem! There's no telling how many future sales this will prevent both among current consumers and future sales, when these students will be out of university and in corporations where they'll influence (and eventually become) decisionmakers. Besides, how much time/money was (and is being) spent to deal with this bug?

Hey MSFT, what's the Total Cost of Ownership now?

Not a Vista bug (2, Informative)

figleaf (672550) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441083)

Vista sets the DHCP BROADCAST flag.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/92823 3 [microsoft.com]

This is in compliance with DHCP standards.

Ofcourse the incompetent Admins will blame Vista and not fix the router software.

Re:Not a Vista bug (5, Informative)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441311)

From : http://www.dhcp-handbook.com/dhcp_faq.html#wisrb [dhcp-handbook.com]

"Which implementations support or require the broadcast flag?
The broadcast flag is an optional element of DHCP, but a client which sets it works only with a server or relay that supports it.

Clients
Microsoft Windows NT
DHCP client support added with version 3.5 sets the broadcast flag. Version 3.51 and later no longer set it. The exception is in the remote access support: it sets the flag when it uses DHCP to acquire addresses to hand out to its PPP clients.
tcp/ip-32 for Microsoft Windows for Workgroups (WFW)
Version 3.11a sets it, but version 3.11B doesn't.
Microsoft Windows 95
Does not set the broadcast flag."

So, I guess Vista only works with Servers that support it and it was an option to implemant it. End of Story.

Re:Not a Vista bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441411)

According to the Microsoft webpage, it takes about 30 seconds to disable it in Vista using regedit.

Mountain out of a molehill.

Re:Not a Vista bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441495)

and how many average computer users would know the magic registry entry to change when they can't get online?

Re:Not a Vista bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441671)

and how many average computer users would know the magic registry entry to change when they can't get online?

It took about 30 seconds for someone on Slashdot to post the Microsoft webpage with the solution. You would think someone at Lundis Energi could find it and tell their customers.

Re:Not a Vista bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441533)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233/en-us [microsoft.com]

If the city spent 3 seconds looking into the problem, they'd have found a fix...

Re:Not a Vista bug (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441591)

More specific: What are the Gotcha's? [dhcp-handbook.com]

The "broadcast flag": DHCP includes a way in which client implementations unable to receive a packet with a specific IP address can ask the server or relay agent to use the broadcast IP address in the replies (a "flag" set by the client in the requests). The definition of DHCP states that implementations "should" honor this flag, but it doesn't say they "must". Some Microsoft TCP/IP implementations used this flag, which meant in practical terms, relay agents and servers had to implement it. A number of BOOTP-relay-agent implementations (e.g. in routers) handled DHCP just fine except for the need for this feature, thus they announced new versions stated to handle DHCP.
(PS: can anybody tell me why italics don't work in the above blockquote, but bold does?)

Re:Not a Vista bug (1)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441417)

From RFC2131 [faqs.org]

A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol
      software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the
      BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or
      DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will
      provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast
      any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can
      receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been
      configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0. The BOOTP
      clarifications document discusses the ramifications of the use of the
      BROADCAST bit [21].

Re:Not a Vista bug (5, Informative)

ei4anb (625481) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441447)

Vista is only compliant to the RFCs if it is legacy code :-)
RFC 1542 sayeth
3.1.1 The BROADCAST flag [...] This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of this mechanism is discouraged.

Re:Not a Vista bug (1)

Frogular (961545) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441555)

In compliance?

From RFC 2131, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol:

The BOOTP clarifications document discusses the ramifications of the use of the BROADCAST bit
RFC 1542, Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol:

If a client does not have this limitation (i.e., it is perfectly able to receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages), it SHOULD NOT set the BROADCAST flag (i.e., it SHOULD clear the BROADCAST flag to 0).
When last I looked, IETF, not Microsoft, was king of DHCP.

Re:Not a Vista bug (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441627)

Hmm, and the referenced article even shows the proper registry settings to change in order to fix it.

I usually just manually edit my registry when I need to change something like that, and thus have never had need to write a script or program to do it for me. However, it seems like a couple hours work to come up with a small utility that can toggle the settings on/off. It seems to me that the ISP, Microsoft, or an interested third party could easily provide such a tool.

Of course, without being able to get to the Internet, finding the KB article to know where to go in the registry to fix it, or to download the proposed script may be a bit difficult if you can't get a DHCP setting. In the end, I'd say that the ISP's kind of failing to serve their customers' needs.

Summary: Ten out of ten for standing up for what they believe in, but minus several million for poor customer support.

Re:Not a Vista bug (1)

JHDrexler (302359) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441727)

I would tend to agree that the sysadmins are not playing nice. Even if MS does release the "fix" to resolve this issue, how are the users going to retrieve it without Internet Access? I wouldn't want to have to deal with explaining/faxing instructions on how to retrieve a disk and manually installing an update, especially if that update depended upon other updates.

Re:Not a Vista bug (1)

hugetoon (766694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441739)

From RFC2131

A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol
software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the
BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or
DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will
provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast
any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can
receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been
configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0. The BOOTP
clarifications document discusses the ramifications of the use of the
BROADCAST bit [21].

A server or relay agent sending or relaying a DHCP message directly
to a DHCP client (i.e., not to a relay agent specified in the
'giaddr' field) SHOULD examine the BROADCAST bit in the 'flags'
field. If this bit is set to 1, the DHCP message SHOULD be sent as
an IP broadcast using an IP broadcast address (preferably 0xffffffff)
as the IP destination address and the link-layer broadcast address as
the link-layer destination address. If the BROADCAST bit is cleared
to 0, the message SHOULD be sent as an IP unicast to the IP address
specified in the 'yiaddr' field and the link-layer address specified
in the 'chaddr' field. If unicasting is not possible, the message
MAY be sent as an IP broadcast using an IP broadcast address
(preferably 0xffffffff) as the IP destination address and the link-
layer broadcast address as the link-layer destination address.
Let's try to analyse this: Vista SHOULD NOT set the flag (because it is able to avoid it if told so via registry values) but it does by default => -1
ISC SHOULD consider the flag but does not by default=> -1
Thus Vista vs ISC DHCPD evilness contest could be considered a tie (yet I think Vista is dumb because it could try w/o bcst bit after the first attempt fails if it really wants an address).
But then, are we really considering M$ vs ISC or rather M$ vs Lund infrastructure?
If we choose the latter, then we should admit that it's rather M$'s fault (disclamer: I'm network admin and I hate M$ so I'm rather biased) here's why:
RFC's recommendations of what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT(capitals because these terms have a very precise meaning in RFC context) are for a reason: following them helps to improve the robustness of the protocol in many situations with constraints that may come from infrastructure specifics. To accommodate those specifics the best any software dealing with ans RFC blessed protocol should(common sense) follow every bit of the RFS. What I'd like to know is what precisely dhcpd does and what happens on Lund network when a Vista issues its bcst flawoured dhcp request.

The Linux server is to blame! (0, Troll)

S.Cohen (1129095) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441087)

Windows XP and Vista are the worlds de facto srandards for Operating Systems. Therefore, since the linux server is incompatible, it is the linux server that is broken.

Embrace and Extend gone awry. (1, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441141)

Windows XP is the world's de facto standard for O.S. Not Vista. How come users in sweden can access the internet but those with Vista don't?

The answer here is that Microsoft probably took the decision to break the TCP standard on purpose, hoping the admins would work around the bug er... new standard.

Personally I applaud the decision of the sweden admins. Microsoft must not be allowed to gain control of the market by breaking even more standards.

Oops... (2, Informative)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441171)

I just read above that the DHCP flag is part of the standard.

Nevermind then. (blush)

Re:Oops... (1)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441403)

An optional part of the standard that no one implements on the client side, not really an oops, more MS chicanery...

The attitude is a bit wrong still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441093)

Now, I'm all for requiring microsoft to fix the bug rather than mutilating a linux server setup (I was once asked to cripple the network of a EUR250K linux computer cluster because one of the professors in the university in question preferred Windows XP, which just wouldn't talk IPv6 properly - fortunately he eventually listened to reason, though it took a demonstration of the problems his choice would cause for other users (most particularly, CompSci grads doing IPv6 research projects ?!) to make it happen), but the admins for the town should have said "we have advised microsoft of the problem", not let a microsoft rep say "Tut tut. If they had only contacted us...". Microsoft employees are quite often technically truly incompetent (n.b. my bar for "competence" is quite high, but I think its fair - as a pretty much linux-only geek since ~ 2000, I STILL know more about windows internals than most microsofties I encounter), but are masters of spin.

I have no sympathy for Lundis Energi (2, Interesting)

The tECHIDNA (677584) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441099)

It's nice to see the right people being held accountable for a change.

Nice bit of flamebait there.

Yeah, I know it's /. , so the majority of folks will be going "HAHA ST00P1D MICRO$OFT LUSERS PWNED LOLZ!1!!eleventyone!"

Once everybody gets that out of their system, IMHO Lundis Energi is really being a bunch of assholes, and I have no sympathy for them, as it makes them seem like a company run by a bunch of 15-year-olds who've just discovered Ubuntu.

They find a bug (or rather, the users did) in newly-released software that doesn't play nice with their Linux-based server. Rather than you know, cooporate with Microsoft to help diagnose the problem, they're essentially saying to their users "We think you're a bunch of losers (LUSERS HAHA!!1!), so ya'll use the OS we want and tell you to use! If you don't like it, kiss our asses! And Micro$oft can kiss our ass too until they fix the bug!"

Because, after all, bugs never, ever happen on any software ever, and developers psychically know what exactly a bug does without any reporting by end-users whatsoever.

Now if they have a policy of "NOT Windows Vista compatible right now" clearly stated to their users, then that's understandable. But eventually, most folks will move to Vista (like it or not), so this bug needs to be squashed on whomever's end.

I'll end my rant with this:
how in the hell is Lundis Energi so sure it's not a bug on their software?

(sarcasm) Oh right, it's Microsoft, so it MUST be them. (/sarcasm)

Re:I have no sympathy for Lundis Energi (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441341)

You actually have a fantastic point. (Sorry out of mod points). One would tend to think that Linux aficionado would take the moral high road and promote cooperation. By acting in this way and pointing fingers, aren't they kinda missing the point?

Re:I have no sympathy for Lundis Energi (3, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441437)

Indeed. Those of us who RTFA know that Microsoft has asked for details which the town refuses to give. I'm sure now that MS will get the details from the IT community, since we are pretty insane about finding and exposing bugs, but to complain the MS won't do anything and at the same time refuse to give them the necessary information... That's not idiotic, that's asshole.

Re:I have no sympathy for Lundis Energi (2, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441629)

how in the hell is Lundis Energi so sure it's not a bug on their software?
Easy. It's not their software. It's an off-the-shelf industry standard program.

Re:I have no sympathy for Lundis Energi (4, Informative)

Zombywuf (1064778) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441631)

Microsoft know exactly what the problem is, and know exactly how to fix it. They are being deceptive in their claim that they're not doing anything because Lundis are not cooperating. The bug is that they have decided to implement a legacy feature in DHCP, one that servers are not required to support, as being on by default in Vista. This was a legacy feature in 93, so there's no need for it to be on by default. In fact, the standard which specifies the flag states that the flag is for cases where you have no choice but to use it. The fact that it can be turned off in Vista shows this is not the case.

There are also reports that Cisco equipment won't work with it either.

Reminds me another bug.. (2, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441107)

I do tech support and when Internet Explorer 7 came out we noticed that it didn't really get along with the NAT routers we send out to our customers (they sometimes need to do a very very small amount of configuring), I'm not entirely certain of what the problem is but there is no problem with IE5/6, FF, Safari, Opera or even links, but IE7 is a no-go. It took the manufacturer a good three months to come up with a new firmware that addressed the problem, and until then we had to teach hundreds/thousands of customers how to use telnet (and how to install it if they were running Vista, the telnet client is disabled by default). Good times...

Oh well, at least it's not Windows 9x, I have to give MS some credit for eventually killing off all support for that branch as our superiors decided that since MS no longer supported 95/98/ME in any way then neither should we. :-)

/Mikael

Really? (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441109)

Is it really a bug? Really?

I wonder how many users were told by M.$ that it was the problem of the provider because, after all, M.$ is the "defacto" standard.

What is the bug? (2, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441119)

"It doesn't work" has never been a useful comment.
Also, I don't see why an ISP should test every OS version to check if it's compatible with their network. I thought we all used the TCP/IP standard for internet stuff. And if Vista had a broken TCP/IP implementation, then why is this the first report about this? What makes this ISPs infrastructure so different?

Re:What is the bug? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441219)

The only thing I can think of is the ISP might have an incompatibility with the new per-connection recieve window autotuning that Vista does. I can't really think of why this would affect an ISP's routers though - really I've only heard of it affecting some older consumer routers that didn't support it.

Re:What is the bug? (1)

kriss (4837) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441357)

It's most likely related to the DHCP issue reported in another post in this thread (it's modded up quite a lot, can't miss it). It's not like noone else has ever seen the issue - I'd even venture that anyone with ISC DHCP (and quite a few other implementations) has - but the normal reaction is just to fix the problem locally. Hell, a one-line code fix, recompile, test, beats supporting a number of anoyed customers. Support costs money. One server fix less so than n helpdesk issues.

Lunds way of handling it is.. well, interesting. I find it rather funny that the local branch of Microsoft claims they never heard of this issue though - 'specially as there's a KB article on it. Plus, it makes you wonder just how much compatibility testing they did with Vista in the first place. It's not like this particular DHCP implementation is the most obscure piece of software ever.

Why Are People Celebrating (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441123)

One, relatively strong Monopoly (Microsoft) gets screwed in a small town by another absolute monopoly. Think about it, they are the only ISP, so they are a monopoly and they are using that to damage a company in a completely separate market. Anyone who makes out that this is good is completely wrong, just because someone isn't Microsoft doesn't mean its a good thing that they screw over the consumers.

Re:Why Are People Celebrating (3, Informative)

kriss (4837) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441449)

One, relatively strong Monopoly (Microsoft) gets screwed in a small town by another absolute monopoly.

Ah, no, sorry, welcome to Sweden. I know things work a bit differently in the states, but we actually got competition.

Lunds energi drop fiber along with their heating pipes and sell net access over that. Other than that, you'd have at least four different DSL providers plus net over CATV. Chances are that you'd actually have another 100Mbit ethernet provider over in Lund on top of that.

Lunds energi is definitely not the only shop in town :-)

Re:Why Are People Celebrating (3, Informative)

rolfc (842110) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441577)

They are not a monopoly and their prices are not too bad

Monthly fee

contract 1 year 3 year 5 year
100 Mbit/s 349 kr 329 kr 299 kr
10 Mbit/s 199 kr 179 kr 159 kr
Taxes included.
7 SEK = 1 $

Re:Why Are People Celebrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441613)

Lunds Energi ('Lundis', wtf?) is not the only ISP in the area. Let's attribute that part of the article to ...erm, journalistic freedom of expression.

Anyone know what the bug is? (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441129)

The article seems very light on details. Does anyone know what the actual problem is?

No problem here with current dhcpd (3, Interesting)

chasingsol (743706) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441209)

I'm using a couple of Vista boxes on my local LAN with a home brewed CentOS router running ISC dhcpd 3.0.5. No problems with obtaining an IP address at all. Sounds like the flaming is misguided this time for a change. Perhaps Lund is using an ancient version of dhcpd?

Lost in translation (5, Informative)

Hoppelainen (969375) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441217)

Both of the english articles listed in this slashdot-post says that Lundis Energi has no desire to do anything. However, in a Swedish newspaper http://www.metro.se/se/article/2007/08/28/14/2423- 48/index.xml [metro.se] they say: "Our technicians are looking in the matter to see what we can do but it is mainly up to Microsoft to fix this issue" /Åsa Holmander, product manager at Lundis Energi (rough translation)

Security feature (3, Funny)

davidc (91400) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441267)

This is another example of how Vista has better security than previous Windows releases. It won't let you connect to the internet, by design. Another problem solved!

Good for them! (1)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441299)

Glad to see an ISP do the right thing and not pander to buggy software.

Re:Good for them! (1)

humdai (1045420) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441709)

But unless the ISP does alter its configuration nothing will ever be fixed. The reason is that the windows users will need to connect to the internet to download the microsoft patch.

accident? I think not... (1)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441349)

I don't think this is an accident. I don't know whether Microsoft deliberately created this "bug", but you can bet that they deliberately didn't spend a whole lot of money on compatibility testing with Linux.

Furthermore, there's a good chance that many people will blame the Linux servers and the company that deployed them, rather than Windows Vista. And, in a sense, the company is responsible: they should have tested Vista clients long before the Vista release (that's why Microsoft has beta programs). And the resolution to this problem may well be that they switch to Vista servers, because they are, in the end, a business with customers.

So, people, you may be gleeful about this, but this sort of thing ends up hurting Linux, because the Vista clients are a given and they are not going away, and Linux will be remembered as the "OS that caused all the trouble".

Re:accident? I think not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441503)

> Furthermore, there's a good chance that many people will blame the Linux servers and the company that deployed them, rather than Windows Vista.

As they should.

The fault is in the Linux servers, not in Windows Vista.

Windows Vista correctly implements the DHCP standard BROADCAST flag,
which some poor-quality software mishandles.

Here is the link that Lundis Energi provides to it's Vista users that
explains Lundis Energi's problem with the DHCP BROADCAST flag:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/92823 3 [microsoft.com]

And here is the link to the DHCP RFC 2131 which shows that Microsoft
Vista is implementing the standard BROADCAST flag correctly and that
the Linux servers are at fault:

http://faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2131.html [faqs.org]

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441667)

Windows Vista correctly implements the DHCP standard BROADCAST flag,
which some poor-quality software mishandles.


The RFC recommends, but doesn't require, implementation of the BROADCAST flag, so Vista should do something reasonable when the server doesn't support it.

Furthermore, an RFC isn't a standard, it's a "request for comments".

Even if it were a standard, so what? That doesn't change the fact that Microsoft made a change that they must have known would break things. Standards-conformance can be used for deliberately screwing users and engaging in monopolistic practices just as much as standards non-conformance (i.e., Office XML won't be any less monopolistic even if it becomes a "standard").

Finally, there is no problem with Linux software quality; it implements this feature just fine. The Lundis servers just seem to have disabled it, or maybe they are using an old version. Or, heck, maybe they are running NT 3.51 and simply lying about it.

Re:accident? I think not... (1)

xophos (517934) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441549)

I agree that it would be better to try and help the people than to point fingers.
But Vista has made enough negative Headlines to keep the Title of the "OS that caused all the trouble" no matter what.

It's not a bug... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20441377)

It's a feature.

It isn't Microsoft with the bug... (4, Interesting)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441471)


Bad news guys; Microsoft isn't the one with a bug causing the problem. Poor implementation yes, bug no.

For some bizarre reason Vista expects the address returned from the DHCP server to be broadcast, instead of sent via unicast packet. This is permitted in the specs and supporting the broadcast flag on the server is suggested. ("SHOULD", not "MUST" in the spec.).

When researching this I found 2 network types which required this, Infinibad and 1394 (Firewire). It looks to me like Microsoft picked the one which would (theoretically atleast) work on all network types, instead of only on a few.

Of course, this is a typical bad decision as it means that responses from a DHCP server with a lot of Vista clients will flood the network with broadcast responses, but hey, they arent know for making good decisions.

 

Nice going, twitter. (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441483)

The very pithy Inquirer article says:

he reason is because Lund is a Linux city which has a a Linux server that doesn't like Vista.


This implies that it's Vista refusing to interoperate with Linux, which obviously would play into story submitter twitter [slashdot.org] 's frequently-espoused odd Microsoft conspiracy theories. In actual fact, it's a recognised bug [microsoft.com] acknowledged by Microsoft as being due to old routers or DHCP servers which do not support the DHCP broadcast flag (a formal part of the DHCP RFC standard).

Solution: upgrade your damn DNS server. This ISP are just acting like petulant teenagers, unwilling to do anything to fix something which is, at the end of the day, their problem (i.e. their non-standard DHCP implementation).

Microsoft DHCP .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441703)

"it's a recognised bug acknowledged by Microsoft as being due to old routers or DHCP servers which do not support the DHCP broadcast flag"

Trust Microsoft to make Microsoft DHCP incompatible with everyone elses ..

"Windows Vista cannot obtain an IP address from certain routers or from certain non-Microsoft [microsoft.com] DHCP servers"

Rest of ad hominem ignored ...

was: Re:Nice going, twitter.

The right people accountable?? (2, Informative)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 7 years ago | (#20441551)

It's nice to see the right people being held accountable for a change.


From the article, even in Swedish, it makes it clear that the town doesn't want to cooperate with Microsoft on providing data for the bugfix. The accountable party here, then, is the town internet provider and not Microsoft.

[Town]: Our internets doesn't work with Vista
[Microsoft]: Okay, do you have any data on why not?
[Town]: no but it's your fault, fix it!?!?
[Microsoft]: Well, what's even a short description of the problem? Side effects? Can your Linux server be changed to alleviate it in the meantime?
[Town]: THE INTERNETS IS BROKEN, FIX IT THOUGH OKAY!!!!????

Yeah, all Microsoft's fault. If this was on Mozilla or Novell or Linux bugzillas it would have been closed as "irrelevant".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?