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.'"

Microsoft's IPv6 stack

The future of security issues.

Re:Microsoft's IPv6 stack

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

That problem is fixed in

MS Vista 2.0. Now only £99.99

 

Obligatory

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

Re:Obligatory

The really cool thing with that is, there are so many adresses that networms cannot jump to machines via the usage of random ip adresses and you cannot scan entire subnets anymore. It's like to try fishing in an ocean with a gun. Maybe you'll never hit any crature in the big water.

Re:Obligatory

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

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

Order of magnitude more orders of magnitude

"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

I suspect that also IPv4 is having problems.

MS' Teredo (IPv6) blog

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...

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 ..

"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 ..

"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...

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? ;)

Very funny, but...

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...

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.

They need a better implementation

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

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

Some kids are just social outcasts

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

Re:Some kids are just social outcasts

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.

*gasp*

say it ain't so... say it ain't so... vista, noooooooo

It's a feature!

'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?

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...

We run out of IPV4 addresses.

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

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

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

Pretty sad considering...

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

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

Absolutely Unacceptable

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

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

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

Oh, is that all?

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:

Embrace, Extend, and Explode! :D

Vista Performance Tip

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!

We at MS...

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

Micro$oft SOP Extract...

Standard Operating Procedure: To usurp a world standard and boost Microsoft sales:

(1) Deliver a "world standard" implementation
(2) ???
(3) Offer Microsoft-only extensions with subsequent "patch" (for efficiency of course)
(4) Developers use the extensions
(5) Standard subverted!!
(6) Profit

Implementation Notes:
step (2) may be completely omitted for already well established and widely adopted standards (e.g. C, C++)
step (2) has recently been proposed as "Break something important"

Vienna vil fix it

This might just be another trick to get people over to the next generation of MS-OS. Vienna is scheduled to arrive in 2009, perfect for "Get all the advantages of better networking with IPv6, perfectly integrated in Windows Vienna!"... Then just cut some crapware of Vista, implement WinFS and get a new rip-off GUI (beryl?) and they might stay in their near-monopoly position for another two-three years.

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

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.

Let's clear a few things up (ok, a rant)

This will probably be redundant by the time I end up posting, but then again, maybe not.

It seems like there are a few things that are causing confusion. Also, I want to rant about ipv6 adoption.

First of all, this looks like it's probably the printer's (or printer driver's) fault and not Microsoft's.

Second, about ipv6 in general...

It hurts me a bit to see people saying "Just disable ipv6 whenever you install vista." I think MS is doing a great thing by enabling ipv6 by default. If the instructions to support desk people, or some "best practice" becomes to disable ipv6 right away, ipv6 will take *another* 10 years to enter the mainstream.

This is pretty bad considering that ipv4 addresses are running out in the next 5 years.

It is exactly these kind of firmware/driver bugs (not having ipv6 support in a network appliance should now be considered a bug) that need to be flushed out before the internet is thrust into ipv6 adoption when the address space runs out.

IPv6 *does* solve problems, and it *will* be the primary mode of accessing the internet for consumers. Shaking out bugs by actually using ipv6 is necessary.

So, MS should *not* be berated because of this. This particular instance is not their fault, and they're doing the right thing by putting ipv6 up front in vista.

Lastly, I'd like to say that deploying ipv6 in the home is actually ridiculously easy. I have a tunnel through hurricane electric [tunnelbroker.net]. Stateless autoconfig, which happens with ipv6 by default, assigns addresses without a dhcp server, and allows things to run right away.

IPv6 and OS support is not the problem. Application and network hardware vendors *have* to get with the program and start to support ipv6 in a very real way.

Vista working very well with IPv6

I thought you might be interested in some points I've made in a comment to the above article at Network News (see http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1598 8#comment-66945 [networkworld.com]). I've quoted it in full below:

At Erion we have been using IPv6 for many years. This includes using Vista with IPv6 since the early betas of Vista. We have had very few problems. Non of the problems we have experienced have been related to faults in the IPv6 stack.

The article doesn't provide enough detail to be able to analyse the alleged problems with Vista and IPv6. However, I suspect that they are not really problems with Vista or IPv6. As another comment has observed the author is 24 orders-of-magnitude out in the difference between the number of IPv4 addresses and the number of IPv6 addresses. This does not instill confidence in the accuracy of the rest of the article.

Regarding the printer problems, it is extremely unlikely that these are caused by IPv6. As any IT administrator knows there are many reasons why printing can go wrong. If the corruption was caused by IPv6 then it wouldn't just affect printing, it would affect all other network services too.

The ICMP issue described in the article does not make sense. ICMPv6 is IPv6's version of ICMP. It carries out the functions that ICMP carries out in IPv4 plus many new functions only found in IPv6. Applications interface to ICMP (and IP) using the socket API. The way in which applications use the socket API is largely the same for IPv4 and IPv6. Not only this but the socket API is almost identical across all operating systems supporting IPv6, not just Vista. This means that ICMP errors are exposed to applications through the socket API. It is hard to understand what the author means here.

I hope my comments above make it clear why I suspect that the conclusions drawn in the article are wrong.

At Erion we have a lot of experience of implementing IPv6. We have found that IPv6 is reliable and stable across many platforms. Indeed, it is in widespread use around the world. We have found that problems with IPv6 are more often to do with misconfiguration of naming services, routing and transition mechanisms than anything to do with IPv6 itself. We always recommend that anyone interested in implementing IPv6 undertakes IPv6 training. For further information see http://www.ipv6training.com/ [ipv6training.com] and http://www.ipv6consultancy.com./ [www.ipv6consultancy.com] On the subject of IPv6 and Vista I gave a recent presentation at SambaXP on this subject. You can find that at http://www.ipv6consultancy.com/ipv6blog/?p=8 [ipv6consultancy.com].

Personally, I am very pleased that Vista and Windows Server 2008 (Longhorn) support IPv6 as their default stack. We have many clients who are keen to implement IPv6 but have held back due to the limitations in IPv6 support in Windows operating systems. I suspect that the release of Windows Server 2008 will increase the usage of IPv6 in two very different ways. Firstly, organisations who are not interested in IPv6 will implement it as a side-effect of implementing Windows Server 2008. Secondly, organisations who are keen to use IPv6 but have been held back by the lack of IPv6 support in AD will be able to move ahead with IPv6 AD support in Windows Server 2008.

While You're In There

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

Re:Simple solution.

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:Oh My God

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

Re:Oh My God

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

Re:Simple solution.

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

Re:Simple solution.

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.

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:Simple solution.

Right. Can you do me a favour and "easily remove" kernel modules from any OS please. Meanwhile, removing the IPv6 stack from Windows is trivial -- just a few clicks of the mouse, and you're there.

I'm not a Windows apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but this blatant misinformation needs to be corrected.

Re:Simple solution.

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)

Microsoft's Simple Solution

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:Bug?

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:don't the idiots at MS test anything?

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

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

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

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

etc...

The problem often is in the OS itself, but sometimes the applications and drivers are the problem. So why is this news? Well, judge by yourself.

Re:And this is news because?

***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:Who is surprised?

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

Re:Simple solution.

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.

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

Re:Simple solution.

99% of Mac users don't "need" Bonjour either, but it's convenient to have anyway. Avahi is another implementation of the same thing.

Since Avahi only resolves names in the ".local" zone, what are the "lot of problems with DNS" you're referring to?