Vista Not Playing Well With IPv6

netbuzz writes in to note that some early adopters of Microsoft Vista are reporting problems with Vista's implementation of IPv6. An example:"'We are seeing a number of applications that are IP-based that do not like the addressing scheme of IPv6,' says one user. 'We will send a print job to an IP-based printer, and the print job becomes corrupted. We're seeing this with Window's Vista machines. When IPv6 is installed, this happens without fail. As soon as we remove IPv6, all of our printer functions return to normal.'"

That problem is fixed in

[Colin Smith (2679)]

MS Vista 2.0. Now only £99.99

 

Obligatory

[D-Cypell (446534)]

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

Re:Obligatory

[TransEurope (889206)]

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:

[Sancho (17056)]

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 atta

Re:Obligatory

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

"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:

[amcdiarmid (856796)]

That should read:

"2^32 addresses should be enough for EVERYBODY."

Order of magnitude more orders of magnitude

[The Monster (227884)]

"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.

Also IPv4

[VincenzoRomano (881055)]

I suspect that also IPv4 is having problems.

MS' Teredo (IPv6) blog

[packetmon (977047)]

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...

I am NOT surprised, given that...

[CodeShark (17400)]

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?

dot.Excuses ..

[rs232 (849320)]

"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"

Re:dot.Excuses ..

[QuietLagoon (813062)]

"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...

[Lisandro (799651)]

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:

[numbski (515011)]

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...

[tygerstripes (832644)]

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...

[EveryNickIsTaken (1054794)]

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:

[Nexx (75873)]

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:

[by Anonymous Coward]

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 c

They need a better implementation

[multipart/mixed (163409)]

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

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

It's a feature!

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

'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!

Blame Vista, or applications?

[Vellmont (569020)]

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...

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

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

Oh, is that all?

[AdmV0rl0n (98366)]

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.

Microsoft's new motto:

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

Embrace, Extend, and Explode! :D

Vista Performance Tip

[The MAZZTer (911996)]

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!

I dare to ask, "who the hell cares"?

[5n3ak3rp1mp (305814)]

OK, I've been a programmer for some time now, and most of that time I've heard of IPv6, and seen some interfaces to configuring it (OS X), even if it's not "on" per se... but WHAT the heck problem was it supposed to originally solve, again? And perhaps because it's not solving any pressing problems (from what I can tell), implementations of it are not getting the attention they dubiously deserve? Is NAT not going to keep us from eventually running out of IPv4 addresses, or some other workaround that sort of namespaces different subnets of the Internet?

Will it really be important some day for every physical item in my possession to have a unique address and an RFID tag?

Do sysadmins at big corporations really WANT every one of their machines to have an address that is uniquely addressable from anywhere on the Internet? Will this help to solve issues such as VPN'ing behind a firewall, etc.?

An honest question.

While You're In There

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

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

Re:

[Mr2cents (323101)]

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:

[Haydre (1111613)]

Thanks a lot, Al Gore.

Re:

[dosquatch (924618)]

Bah, whine, whine, bitch, complain. You don't know how easy you had it! Do you have any idea how hard it was to muster the energy to whoop your arse for being a pansy after carrying the school up that cliff brick by brick every morning? You don't know how good you had it.

Sincerely,
Your Teacher

Re:Simple solution.

[someone300 (891284)]

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:

[Fweeky (41046)]

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.

Microsoft's Simple Solution

[fistfullast33l (819270)]

Trouble printing? Let me show you Microsoft's potential knowledgebase article:

1. Buy this [staples.com].

2. And one of these [staples.com].

3. ???

4. Profit!

Re:Simple solution.

[Nexx (75873)]

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:

[Movi (1005625)]

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.

[Bert64 (520050)]

Windows: A few clicks of the mouse to *disable* ipv6...
Linux: A single command to *remove* ipv6 (rm /lib/modules/`uname -r`/net/ipv6/ipv6.ko)

Re:Simple solution.

[3vi1 (544505)]

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.

[haapi (16700)]

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.

[tkdtaylor (1039822)]

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.

Re:

[alta (1263)]

doh, this attached the wrong story. My Fault, got click happy.

Re:Oh My God

[RandoX (828285)]

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

Re:

[HappyHead (11389)]

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."

Re:Some kids are just social outcasts

[walt-sjc (145127)]

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.

Re:

[El Lobo (994537)]

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 th

Re:

[UnknowingFool (672806)]

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 compatibl

Re:And this is news because?

[vtcodger (957785)]

***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:

[Achromatic1978 (916097)]

I must have missed all the kernel releases that broke things from video to tunneling to so on and so forth. Where was the many eyes approach of Open Source then? Hah. Speaks volumes.

In other words, no software solution at an OS level is able to catch every bug. Not Windows, not Linux.

Re:

[phrostie (121428)]

the real reason they want to make the IP deals and use Linux code.

they'll call it Service pack 2.

Re:Microsoft's IPv6 stack

[jacksonj04 (800021)]

Microsoft's IPv6 stack is extremely secure, more so than the Linux one. It achieves this by simply not talking to anything.

Re:

[jandrese (485)]

I thought the TCP/IP stack was fairly unique to Windows, which is why the API to use it was slightly different (just enough that a POSIX app would mysteriously fail to work). The commandline network applications (Telnet, FTP, etc...) were taken from BSD, but the BSD license allows that. The downside is that they took the absolute oldest versions of those applications they could find, skipping the years of improvements available for them.