Stalling the Net by default?
Sept. 8, 2006 4:20 PM PST
Among the new features Microsoft is building into Windows Vista is support for IP version 6, which is expected to alleviate a scarcity of Net addresses under the current IP version 4. However, IPv6 isn't universally used yet, meaning that Vista will be set by default to make two DNS (domain name system) requests--one for each version.
With many DNS servers already running close to capacity, that duplication could have serious consequences, according to Paul Mockapetris, who is widely credited with inventing DNS.
"If you adopt Vista, your DNS traffic is going to double," Mockapetris said. "You're going to see brownouts. All of a sudden, it is going to be mud season on the Internet, where things will just be kind of slow and gooey."
To find out what people on the street make of it, we asked our Vista Views panel, made up of ordinary readers, these questions: Vista's double lookup of DNS addresses has raised concerns that Internet traffic will become overloaded. To alleviate this, should Microsoft set this feature at "off" by default? In fact, should all optional features be set at "off" by default for non-savvy users?
Kevin Faaborg
I think that in short, IPv6 should be disabled in Vista until IPv6 is commonplace for standard Net traffic. Then by a "patch" for consumers or a special "tweak" by a business customer (if needed in advance) should it then be re-enabled.Kevin Faaborg works in basic hardware and software guidance for a large financial corporation, but he has experience in more computer sales-based jobs.
Wallace Wang
I think it's a no-brainer that Vista (or any operating system for that matter) should have its basic features turned on by default and its more advanced features turned off.In the specific case of Vista, it only makes sense for Vista to have IPv4 turned on by default, with the option to turn on IPv6--either by itself or with IPv4 too, which is Vista's current default setting.
The biggest problem with any default settings occurs mostly with security. Having default settings that constantly annoy the user with questions about running a program or allowing an action to occur will get so troublesome that most users will just get in the habit of clicking "Yes" all the time, which defeats the default security settings. However, leaving default security settings off invites malicious attacks, which is what has made Windows so vulnerable in the first place.
When it comes to security, there probably is no "perfect" default setting, because you can't expect a technological solution to solve a people problem like hacker and malware attacks all by itself. But when it comes to other settings in an operating system, the "perfect" default setting should be one that offers the user access to commonly needed features without requiring the user to interact with the operating system at all.
In other words, the best default settings should be the ones that make the operating system transparent to the user.
Wallace Wang is a freelance computer journalist and author whose books include "Microsoft Office for Dummies" and "Steal This Computer Book."
Mark Casazza
All optional "features" should always be set to OFF by default. If an option is useful to the person using the computer, then he/she can change the setting whenever appropriate.
However, Vista will not appreciably slow down the Web with its current settings. It could have an effect if it was suddenly and widely adopted, but from all indications I've seen, it will at best trickle into use. Thus any increase in traffic will build slowly and give network administrators plenty of time to accommodate the additional traffic.
Mark Casazza is the director of academic information for the City University of New York.
Robert McLaws
When it comes to Vista, the sky is always falling, isn't it?Sounds like the guy is just trying to sell more of his product to me. DNS was in need of an upgrade long before Vista came along. It is an outdated technology that is far too susceptible to attack in the first place.
IPv6 is not going to be an optional feature at some point in the near future, and its benefits far outweigh any supposed downside. It's not Microsoft's problem to deal with DNS availability...That's up to the individual service providers.
Anyways, IPv6 is very easy to shut off in Windows Vista. But shutting off "all optional features" is impractical at best. Who decides what is optional and what isn't? Media Player may seem optional to adults, but is mandatory for most teens. Who decides who is savvy and who isn't? My mom is computer-savvy but doesn't care about the difference between IPv4 and IPv6.
No, it's best that Microsoft leave things the way they are, and not decide for people what is "optional."
Robert McLaws is an IT consultant, community leader and Vista enthusiast. He has been running Vista enthusiast site Longhornblogs.com since 2002.
Joe Rud
I think the make-or-break statement of the article is "if Vista was all of a sudden deployed everywhere..." The fact of the matter is that Vista won't be deployed that way. The last company I worked at we didn't install XP until 2004, and that deployment was anything but "all of a sudden." Companies--especially large companies, the ones that this will affect--will necessarily implement a large testing protocol to make sure all of their applications, etc., will work in their environment.
Also, as I read in several other articles, there are other operating
systems that already support IPv6 (Unix, Mac) and they don't appear to
be affecting things noticeably.
Joe Rud is a computer industry professional from St. Louis Park, Minn.
Perry Reed
The notion that Microsoft's new DNS lookup will "double" is not entirely true. In many cases, only one lookup will be needed. Furthermore, most DNS servers have ample capacity to absorb the additional traffic.
Microsoft's support of the IPv6 network-addressing standard--the reason
behind the additional lookups--is a great step forward in alleviating
the limits of the current IPv4 system, which is at risk for running out
of available IP addresses for users. Disabling the feature by default
will greatly reduce the positive impact of supporting the new standard
since generally, new features not turned "on" by default are not used by most people. Non-savvy users probably wouldn't know the difference
whether or not this feature was "off" by default--but their network
administrators sure will.
Perry Reed works by day in software QA for a large
home shopping television network, and in his spare time, he hosts The Tablet PC Show podcast.
Bill Johnson
If I were Microsoft, I would set all optional features "off" by default and should the user want to turn the optional features "on," he can do so by using the Control Panel. The choice is ultimately up to Microsoft--whichever route they choose will pose an impact in some way.
Overall, I think by turning "off" optional settings by default can only improve the overall quality of the operating system. Giving a user
a choice of what options he or she wants to use is great.
Bill Johnson is a Minnesota-based computer technician and journalist who also runs a Microsoft Windows-related community called AplusDownloads.
Josh Phillips
IPv6 is the future of the Internet and needs to be "on" to have a chance to succeed. This small amount of additional traffic on the DNS servers is a small price to pay and will not "stall Net traffic." Services like Google Video and Youtube are far more likely to impact the Internet than this ever will.
Josh Phillips is an IT professional based in California.
Brian Scates
Should Vista include IPv6 support, but not enable it, the driving force in desktop computing in the world would be hampering the worldwide adoption of a needed Internet infrastructure upgrade. It's unfortunate that it seems no matter what Microsoft does, on any issue, they are criticized endlessly.Vista's default settings should be progressive, with a focus on system security. Turning off everything they can by default does nothing to move the computing world into the next century, and we need Microsoft to take us there. As much as the OS X and Linux fans may hate the idea, Microsoft is the biggest force in mainstream adoption of new computing functionality.
So I think they're right in adopting IPv6 as a default feature. While it may be true that immediately switching a billion PCs to IPv6 would strain the world's DNS servers, the world wont be adopting Vista immediately. It will be a gradual growth, which backbone operators should be able to absorb over time.
Brian Scates is the president of Web hosting company Foing.com.
Matt Selnekovic
This is a combination of fear mongering and ignorance. Will this guy say the same about Linux or OS X when they add IPv6 support? Moreover, if Vista doesn't have an IPv6 address, it won't make that DNS request. Pretty simple, no?Matt Selnekovic works for an independent software vendor as a software developer, mostly for mobile applications.
Mack D. Male
The notion that a double lookup by Vista will stall the Internet is absurd, for many reasons. Even more absurd is that people are worrying about something other than the release date for Vista!Mack. D. Male is the co-founder of Paramagnus Developments, a software company building tools and services for podcasting. An avid beta tester, he has experience developing applications for Windows.
Brian Clarke
I think that the DNS inventor's credibility is damaged by the fact that he now works for a company that would benefit from selling more DNS hardware/software.Windows is THE most used OS in the world, bar none. If Vista doesn't come with IPv6 turned on by default, that will be a major roadblock to widespread IPv6 adoption.
And Sidebar should be off by default, because it seems bloated.
If Microsoft makes it load faster, they can leave it on by default.
Brian Clarke, a student at Shippensburg University, says he has reinstalled Windows more times than he cares to remember.
Stewart Retsis
If it indeed improves performance, Microsoft would be insane for leaving it out.Stewart Retsis is a normal PC user who lives in Thurso, Scotland.
John Kneeland
It's bad enough when Windows makes Windows users miserable. The last thing we need is Windows ruining the entire Internet for everybody. Of course they should change it.
John Kneeland is an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is majoring in international relations and East Asian studies.
The Vista Views panel is being brought together by CNET News.com to discover what people on the street think about Microsoft's new operating system.
We're looking for a range of perspectives--from beta testers to business buyers to home PC owners.
Interested in joining the panel pool? Here's how it works:
Whenever key Vista news breaks, we'll e-mail a question to contributors. Sometimes, we'll ask a yes/no question and use the answers for a simple poll. Other times, we'll look for more in-depth feedback on Vista events. It doesn't matter whether you send us two pages or two sentences--we value your comments. And if you don't have an opinion on a particular story, or you don't have time to respond, that's fine too.
The feedback will often reach our readers. Our writers may quote panel remarks in stories. Or we may pull together comments--your two cents--in an article of their own. Occasionally, we'll ask contributors to take part in a weekly podcast to discuss their views with News.com editors and industry experts.
We want to know what our readers think, as Microsoft gets ready for one of its most important launches in years. If you haven't signed up yet, send an e-mail to us at vista-views@cnet.com.
Reader comment from Callum Jones:
"I think nothing should be copied--it just gives Apple fans another thing to point and laugh about. With MS doing that, we would be flooded with too many forum threads about Leopard vs. Vista. MS should sit down and focus on what they need to create, not re-create."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Bloggers to Microsoft: Take your time with Vista
Reader comment from Wallace Wang:
"We've been waiting over five years already for the successor to Windows XP, so we might as well wait a few more months for Microsoft to ship a secure, reliable operating system."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista
Reader comment from Brian Clarke:
"Symantec needs to find a better business model than fear-mongering and profiting off of insecure operating systems from Microsoft."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Gates: 20 percent chance of Vista delay
Reader comment from Robert McLaws:
"Everyone has complained for years that Microsoft doesn?t listen to its customers. So why now is everyone complaining when they finally DO start listening?"
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Gates to bow out at Microsoft
Reader comment from John Kneeland:
"Ideally, it would mean that Microsoft will focus less on adding new junk and instead focus on making the existing junk work well."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Piecing together Vista
Videos
Peek at Vista
New features are designed to appeal to nonbusiness users. February 22, 2006
Windows' chief answers questions from News.com readers. January 27, 2006
Blog
The latest Windows blog postings on News.com.
Design: Gautama Swamy
Production: Kristina Wood
In case none of you have been curious about why some releases of Firefox seemed to slow to a crawl when looking up IPs, IPv6 support was why. It really does send double the packets in a lot of cases, because one nameserver will get the first query (v6) and another nameserver often gets the second query (v4), preventing caching. Dumb implementations wait for the v6 lookup to fail before asking for v4 information, too.
Ideally one packet would ask for v6 and v4 information all at once. As far as I recall, the DNS protocol seemed to support that but no application ever used it, which probably means no de facto support in the wild. I'm too lazy to enter the ********* and confirm this.
Yes, sometimes (usually?) the "internet is slow" because of sheer incompetence.
To prove that this isn't a problem in your build of Vista, run windump (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.winpcap.org/windump/" target="_newWindow">http://www.winpcap.org/windump/</a>) on port 53.
should be new IP6 addresses. Turn on IP6 turn off IP4 Microsofts DNS (if the program is written correctly) lookup should take care of it.
X when they add IPv6 support?"
IPv6 has been shipping in OSX since Jaguar (10.2) in 2002.
configured its address per the IPv6 protocol. The difference
however is that it does not send IPv6 traffic across my local
network let alone the internet.
Microsoft's implementation will tunnel the IPv6 communication
thru IPv4, the current IP standard. From Microsoft's website:
"If you want to access IPv6 resources and your network
infrastructure does not support IPv6, don't worry, Windows Vista
also builds in support for automated tunnels such as ISATAP and
Teredo. If Windows Vista does not detect IPv6 within the network
it will try well known IPv6 tunneling mechanisms. This means
that anyone who installs Windows Vista or turns on a new
computer with Windows Vista could have automatic access to
IPv6-based Web sites and resources over an existing Internet or
intranet connection, if their network administrators allow it
even if the enterprise's ISP does not support IPv6."
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/" target="_newWindow">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/</a>
ipv6wv.mspx
This is why people are so concerned.
Regardless of the technical merits of the operating systems, the number of users of both MAC OS X & LINUX is insignificant compared to the number of Windows users.
What "they" do really doesn't matter as far as volume is concerned.
Doug
is the biggest force in mainstream adoption of new computing
functionality."
This should read something like: No matter how clever OS X or
Linux become, innovation isn't really mainstream until it's used by
the average Windows user.
But by then it isn't really innovation, is it?
Though I will give MS credit for occasionally coming up with some good ideas of their own.
Though I will give MS credit for occasionally coming up with some good ideas of their own.
to god that no one that ever uses this site takes your posts
seriously. You are a ridiculous extreme and need to stop being
ignorant and became a bit more open minded. You can start by
accepting that windows vista is a copy and a crappy one at that.
IPv6 is a great idea in theory but needs large amounts of work
before it can be implemented in the wild. "DNS is outdated
technology!" - So is every windows operating system but you still
use and respect it...! - p.s Mac4ever
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://mehmeterturk.blogspot.com/2006/09/xgl-on-linux.html" target="_newWindow">http://mehmeterturk.blogspot.com/2006/09/xgl-on-linux.html</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/" target="_newWindow">http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/</a>
Microsoft is network friendly... NOT!!!
Microsoft is network friendly... NOT!!!
Microsoft is network friendly... NOT!!!
Microsoft is network friendly... NOT!!!
Final answer... Microsoft is NOT network friendly!!!
No two ways about it!!!
Walt
Let's engage next time in an exchange of "I know you are, but what am I?" loops. It appears to be the time of dialogue you might just enjoy.
MFB
Simple if you don't have a IPv6 address, it won't send 2 requests.
As for not sending out a IPv6 DNS request if ONLY IPv4 is installed... you are correct.
But how many security weaknesses are there in store for Vista by having that IPv6 DNS protocol turned on?
It may not break DNS, but it just adds to the number of unnecessary running processes which make for a less security operating system per C2 security guidelines.
So it's not only simply about IPv6 DNS.
Walt
I'd bet for some of those you might be able to find some form of 'prior art' that you could claim MS stole from, but I'm also willing to bet the same could be said for pretty much everything apple does as well. In fact, I think I could argue that Apple 'borrows' just as many ideas from Microsoft as MS does from Apple.
So, here they are, provide both by default and now they are again the bad guy for slowing down the net and told to turn it off by default and make someone go to the control panel to enable it.
Well, guess what, if they had announced they were doing that in the first place, the world would be screaming "It's too hard for my grandma to know what she has to do to access these new faster/better site lookups". She has no clue, how could "M$" do such a thing and make it so complicated?
Well to all of you compainers, you can't have it both ways. Most of you would complain either way since the story involves "M$" as you put it.
It's a fact: Computer software design involves trade-offs between: Functionality, Security, Performance, Easy of use, Understandability, Configurability, Time to ship, Cost of development.
Providing support for both current and future internet DNS services, on by default with a small cost of a double lookup in limited cases (not all the time like the ENQUIRER-Headline this 'story' implies) seems like a good design to me.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/08/windows-vista-pre-rc1-sucks-too.html" target="_newWindow">http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/08/windows-vista-pre-rc1-sucks-too.html</a>
So it is inevitable that one day IPv4 will no longer be and IPv6 will become the norm.. will take some time but will still happen.
Joe Blogs out there buy a PC, never upgrade, never patch, no hot fixes or upgrading. This is just a way to cover their ass, future proof. Imagine Joe buys PC, Feb 2007.. 2009 IPv6 is the norm and IPv4 ends& no more internet for Mr Blogs.
And in the question of hogging down the net, its a DNS request. How many bytes is that. I'd be amazing if it is more than a couple of Kb's for sure. Hardly likely to hog down the terabytes of bandwidth on the internet!