Vista - Stall the Internet

[Fionavar]

CNET

 

Now I've got a rudimentary understanding of how the net operates, but when I read an article like this, I've got admit to being a little confused. Even if both the protocols are capable - 4 & 6 - wouldn't the OS 'know' when to communicate in one or the other? I guess what concerns me more, is the sensationalising that many of the titles' descriptions (from various media outlets). I have a hard enough time with clients who just want the 'bloody thing to work.' This kind of byte grabbing is of no help!

[Blank]

Even if there are two requests made, one for IPv4, and one for IPv6, nothing will slow down. The two are separate, right? That's why if you only have version 4, you can't use version 6. Or am I totally off about what goes on?

 

And like you said Fio, it isn't going to connect to both, it will just request both until it gets one, right? So there won't be any more traffic on IPv4 than what already exists, because people will be switching over. If anything, there will be less traffic on IPv4 if there is any possibility that IPv6 is used anywhere.

 

Or am I still totally off?

Edited September 8, 2006 by Blank

[Fionavar]

And correct me if I am wrong - but IPv6 is intended more of a commercial conduit, as 4 is felt to be too 'free.' That's my own language, but I hope it conveys some of my understanding in this regard.

 

So in essence, the slowing of 4 would have to do with the fact that more corporate/commercial sites may be transferred to that protocol - is that a reasonable lay-person's description?

[Blank]

And correct me if I am wrong - but IPv6 is intended more of a commercial conduit, as 4 is felt to be too 'free.' That's my own language, but I hope it conveys some of my understanding in this regard.

 

So in essence, the slowing of 4 would have to do with the fact that more corporate/commercial sites may be transferred to that protocol - is that a reasonable lay-person's description?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It makes sense, and if it's true, then it means that there is no dilemma, and the article was just made so the reporter could get people all worked up and become famous. I mean, stalling the internet? I don't know if anything could do that, let alone Vista.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Blank

[Deraldin]

And correct me if I am wrong - but IPv6 is intended more of a commercial conduit, as 4 is felt to be too 'free.' That's my own language, but I hope it conveys some of my understanding in this regard.

 

So in essence, the slowing of 4 would have to do with the fact that more corporate/commercial sites may be transferred to that protocol - is that a reasonable lay-person's description?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It makes sense, and if it's true, then it means that there is no dilemma, and the article was just made so the reporter could get people all worked up and become famous. I mean, stalling the internet? I don't know if anything could do that, let alone Vista.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hah! Vista is so full of bloatware it won't only stall your computer, but it will stall other people's computers over the internet!

[Fionavar]

So perhaps that means that Vista is one large corporate attempt to perform a global DNS attack!

 

Seriously though - I do find such reporting problematic. It continues to reinforce the myth that technology is dangerous. But then again, dry by the 'fact' journalism would fail to make money otherwise ... :?

[Bokishi]

Oh man I doubt this would happen.

[LostStraw]

Even though I know next to nothing about networking, there were a couple of points I got from the article:

 

1. Vista will not have an instantaneous adoption.

2. It wont even perform an IPv6 query if the computer running it has an IPv4 address. (how many people will be using an IPv6 address when Vista is released?)

 

Even if there was a magical explosion in traffic, the DNS servers would be upgraded in no time flat. It really does sound like the guy is trying to get some extra sales for his company. I predict the tubes will remain clog free and butterflies will flutter in green pastures.

[Judge Hades]

I think someone has been watching Netforce way too much.

[Blank]

It really does sound like the guy is trying to get some extra sales for his company.

Agreed, I think the reporter, Joris Evers, knows Mr. Mockapetris, because he makes these plugs and refers to Mockapetris as this great source, yet, he is the only one you hear that says there will be a substantial traffic explosion.

Microsoft's launch of Windows Vista could slow down or stall traffic on the Net, said Paul Mockapetris, who is widely credited with inventing the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS).

Simply because Paul is credited with inventing the internet's DNS doesn't mean he is an informed, computer saavy man nowadays. Edited September 8, 2006 by Blank

[Fionavar]

Even though I know next to nothing about networking, there were a couple of points I got from the article:

 

1. Vista will not have an instantaneous adoption.

2. It wont even perform an IPv6 query if the computer running it has an IPv4 address. (how many people will be using an IPv6 address when Vista is released?)

 

Even if there was a magical explosion in traffic, the DNS servers would be upgraded in no time flat.  It really does sound like the guy is trying to get some extra sales for his company.  I predict the tubes will remain clog free and butterflies will flutter in green pastures.

 

1. Indeed is more than likely. I think the mainstream adoption will be in new pre-installed OSes. I am definitely not going to consider migrating until SP1. And - if at all possible - this may be the first time in 10 years that another OS (Linux?) may grace a req for a game ... and then the competition is really on!

 

/wishful thinking?

[Blank]

From what I've heard, one's Window's XP software can simply be upgraded to Vista for a certain fee.

[Fionavar]

Really? Do you have a link for that information?

 

I think I will stick with XP - apparently after Vista is released SP3 for XP will be issued. Sort of like the reluctance of people after XP was released to leave 2k (especially as an SP followed). History repeating itself I suspect.

[Blank]

I read it in the newspaper this morning, but I might've read wrong. I think I read about the "Upgrade Adviser Tool"

 

I'll stick with XP for a while too, it's a pretty solid OS, and I don't see anything that the Vista offers yet that I can't do with XP. Eventually, in a couple of years,XP will lose Microsoft's support (security patches and junk), so I guess that would force my hand.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Blank

[angshuman]

I'm running the pre-RC1 version of Vista Ultimate on my system. It looks really, really good, and it has a bunch of extremely good features that make you go "why on earth did they take so long to come up with this?" A significant amount of planning and design effort seems to have gone into the system.

 

Unfortunately, it still has plenty of rough edges and is a HUGE resource hog. I'm running it on an X2 4800+ with 1Gig RAM and a 7800GTX, and I get the feeling my machine is barely holding on. This is without any additional bloated software or drivers. 2GB seems to be the bare minimum to run Vista smoothly. Maybe things will get better towards release but I don't have too much hope since the system is already in RC stage. Overall, it seems like a rough, first-attempt implementation of an otherwise good system.

[Diamond]

And correct me if I am wrong - but IPv6 is intended more of a commercial conduit, as 4 is felt to be too 'free.' That's my own language, but I hope it conveys some of my understanding in this regard.

 

So in essence, the slowing of 4 would have to do with the fact that more corporate/commercial sites may be transferred to that protocol - is that a reasonable lay-person's description?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IPv6 is a complete replacement intended to address the shortcomings of its predecessor and is not a commercial protocol, not a specific sub-version. That means if you want to communicate with everyone else, you have to support the common protocol for your IP datagrams to be routable over the Internet. Everyone has to use either IPv4 or IPv6, not mixed (and here comes the huge problems with migration to IPv6).

 

The problem stated in the article that when designing IPv6 is related to the stage when transition from IPv4 to IPv6 will take place (not happening anytime soon). At this time every host will need to have 2 IP addresses (v4 + v6) to be able to communicate to both address realms. So if Vista will make 2 queries instead of 1, it will double DNS traffic.

 

But I agree that the problem is exaggerrated.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Diamond

[kalimeeri]

No matter how pretty it is or how much MS hypes it, Vista is still just an operating system.

 

Big businesses may be interested, from a security standpoint. But to me as a general all-around end-user, the goal of any OS is to glue all the hardware bits together and allow me to run my applications. I rarely even think about it--unless it doesn't work; if I have a task to perform (or a game to play!) I don't want to have to think about it; and I sure don't see the point of upgrading if Vista doesn't make my current (and perfectly functional) hardware bits or the applications I paid to use run any better. And as for extras like (gasp) DVD burning, if I need that functionality, I probably already have an app that does it ten times better than anything MS has or will build in.

 

If MS stops supporting XP, it's no big thing. It runs just fine right out of the box with only SP1; and at this point, it appears they're only patching the patches anyway.

 

When a Vista-only app comes along that I can't live without, then I might think about it. But judging by the public's ambivalent response, that might be some time--not many dev's can afford to sink all of their resources into a proprietary interface that may or may not sell all that quickly.

[metadigital]

Um ... IPv6 CONTAINS (and is therefore backward compatible with) IPv4 addresses.

 

The first segment of an IPv6 address (up to the first dot separator) is a hexadecimal number that represents any of the IPv4 address from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255, so all IPv4 addresses can be accessed in IPv6, and all IPv4 addresses have zeroed attributes for the remained address segments.

 

So it is completely fallacious and just plain scaremongering.

 

Really, don't journalists have to check their sources, like ask someone who has READ the IPv6 standard? It's only been published for about a decade.

[Diamond]

Um ... IPv6 CONTAINS (and is therefore backward compatible with) IPv4 addresses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, that's right, but IPv4-compatible addresses are no longer used in IPv4 to IPv6 transition; the only mechanisms used now are dual-stacks and tunneling.

 

So it is completely fallacious and just plain scaremongering.

 

Really, don't journalists have to check their sources, like ask someone who has READ the IPv6 standard? It's only been published for about a decade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is article fallacious? It seems plausible with dual-stack scenario (when a node occupies two addresses).

 

But yes, Paul Mockapetris is exaggerrating the problem.

[Cantousent]

So, it wasn't the millenium bug that will end civilization, but the IPv4 to IPv6 migration? Good to hear.

[Fionavar]

Thanks Diamond & meta - I appreciate seeing that I think my rough layperson's understanding is not too off the mark ... I am also grateful for the manner in which you both described what I think could be much more obtuse ... perhaps you should both write for cNet?

[metadigital]

Why is article fallacious? It seems plausible with dual-stack scenario (when a node occupies two addresses).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Psst. I didn't even read it.

[Blank]