digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

VISTA will STALL Internet Traffic - DNS Inventor Says

news.com.com — 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 Mockapetris believes Vista's introduction will cause a surge in DNS traffic because the operating system supports two versions of the Internet Protocol

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • birdwatcher3000, on 10/12/2007, -9/+124Doomsayers are my second favourite after conspiracy theorists. :)
    • jessecollins, on 10/12/2007, -12/+159* insert witty "the tubes are going to be full" joke here *
    • KWhat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+74Dont all other OS's support ipv6 already... if it was such a bad idea, why was it created?
    • GravyTrain6, on 10/12/2007, -53/+9but will Vista support ipv2.0 Beta? *insert snazzy logo*
    • spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -11/+140Vista has built in pipecleaners, to ensure proper tube flow. Everything will be ok.
    • st1nkf1nger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+95I wish I had built in pipecleaners :(
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59Seriously, how many times have we heard that some new technology was going to bring the Internet to a halt? I remember when cable and DSL were first being introduced, people said that the Internet couldn't support all that bandwidth and it would just cease to function. And how many times has the Internet stopped working? Oh that's right 0 times!
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+46Windows Vista: Y2K 2.0
    • gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5He means IPX not IPv6 :)
    • mcdavis941, on 10/12/2007, -2/+68NEWS FLASH! Internet traffic to increase over time!
    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32This is just one conspiracy nut trying to tarnish Microsoft's new product before it is even released. What a jerk.
    • bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@KWhat
      IPv6 is not a bad thing it is a necessary evolution in ip technology. the current IPv4 addressing scheme is limited to 4,294,967,296 ip addresses. witch seams like a lot more than it is you figure the average person has 1 pc at work and 1 at home and that adds up.IPv6 allows 34000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (ish i think that is 37 0's )addresses to be assigned.

      what is the problem that is arising is the transition period will take many years so most people will have both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses witch they say will double the strain on the dns servers. witch i relay doubt.
    • mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29This is crap. Only routers that support IPv6 will even route the DNS requests to the Internet. The average Internet user doesn't have an IP v6 address that is route-able and the average ISP won't even route IPv6. This would only be an issue for small networks that use IPv6 in tandem with IPv4, not the Internet of today.

      Vista won't cause this problem, the gradual migration to IPv6 will cause this problem...because every OS that wants to use both IPv4 and IPv6 will have to support both. Seriously how many web pages have an IPv6 address?
    • idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5@st1nkf1nger
      I've got built-in pipecleaners, if you catch my drift.
      </innuendo>
    • davidod87, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@blapierre: that's a retarded comparison.
    • Giga, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"blapierre:: Seriously, how many times have we heard that some new technology was going to bring the Internet to a halt? I remember when cable and DSL were first being introduced, people said that the Internet couldn't support all that bandwidth and it would just cease to function. And how many times has the Internet stopped working? Oh that's right 0 times!"

      In New Zealand the internet has gone down several times due to insufficient bandwidth...
    • mnemonicmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11mb96net: "Seriously how many web pages have an IPv6 address?"

      Web pages don't have IP addresses. Web servers do. Most web servers are owned by big corporations that have the capital to invest in better systems that will eventually make them profit. Thus it will be an issue.
    • sporkmonger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9blapierre:

      That's not really quite correct. The Internet was effectively brought down by the Morris worm in 1988. So it has happened before.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"This is just one conspiracy nut"

      Conspiracy nut? Maybe he is, but he's also a guy talking about the very same DNS system he helped invent.
    • Snuffkin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21KWhat: XP ALREADY supports IPv6. Vista just enables it by default.
    • Daedalus2067, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This is simply absurd - it's a claim that supporting IPv6 is a bad thing. What an idiot.
    • r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Vista's going to drag the internet down to a halt because an insane number of people will be downloading it illegally.
    • cyberbian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11We already know that Vista will eat your children after all ;)

    • Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"And how many times has the Internet stopped working? Oh that's right 0 times!"

      You must not have Comcast....
    • alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Vista's going to drag the Internet down to a halt because an insane number of people will be downloading it illegally."
      And legally. I think Microsoft wants to get RC1 out to 4,000,000 people. What is that? 10,800 TB of data transferred?
      Of course, that's assuming that everyone only downloads just one copy of the 32 bit version. (the 64 bit version is bigger, some users will download that instead, and some will download many copies of both.)
      wow, that's a lot of bandwidth. :S
    • mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, and I'm sure that every single Windows computer on the internet will instantly be converted to Vista when it's launched [/sarc]. Vista is demanding, and unless it comes loaded, most people who don't need it won't get it. Even if it does make a noticeable change in internet traffic, the change will be gradual.
    • dwnwrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Vista has built in pipecleaners, to ensure proper tube flow. Everything will be ok."

      I'm pretty sure the pipecleaner will be a third-party program, available for only $59.95 from Symantec and McAfee. Trend Micro will have a more effective but less popular version available for $39.95.

      Once Microsoft realizes that other companies are building an entire market based on cleaning their pipes, they will release a free (but inferior) pipecleaner add-on, which will succeed in shutting the pipes entirely.
    • xzourska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think many of the DNS servers are already being upgrated to handle the IPv4 to IPv6 change unless the ISP's are dumb and procrastinators that think IPv4 is the only thing needed.

      Well if Vista comes with pipe cleaners, Gore is going to be rich since he created the internet!.
    • internetworld7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL!
  • yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+49Guys all of these IPv6 devices are slowing down the Internet. We need to stop IPv6 before it's implemented! What's that you say? It's been out in the wild since WHEN? 2000-2002? I DEMAND JUSTICE!
    • n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Nowhere in the article does it say that ipv6 is a 'bad' thing. The guy is just unhappy the way Microsoft implemented it.
    • oyourmom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4God all we need is some CLR, clean out the tubes and we'll be ok! Its not like a truck where we have to remove the pieces and put them somewhere we can just clean the tube and everything will be ok!
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3N0xie

      That was the sound of a joke acheiving mach 5 over your head.
  • shout, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45well my OS is going to support THREE version of the Internet protocol. THREE!
    • oyourmom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes and the upgrade of that will be FOUR and then all the internet will have to be completely wiped out, and new tubes will need to be placed.
  • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I think this is kind of sensationalist. Since the adoption of Vista is not likely to be immediate, or widespread, Windows 2000 is still the most used Windows version in the US. It's not like XP came around and rewrote the book.

    Plus this doesn't address the issue of, if the IPv6 request is successful, does it bother to make the IPv4 request? If not, then it won't be so bad. Plus i suspect somewhere deep in the registry you'll be able to modify the networking properties so that only IPv6 is used. Also, all the backbones and government will be switched over in 2008. Meh.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14They've got an quote right at the top of the second page of the article, calling this exactly what it is: FUD.

      I guess this is cnet's new strategy: post ***** news, and make sure to point out that it *is* *****, right in the article.

      Next up,
      "HAIRY GUY ON STREET CORNER SAYS ARMEGEDDON THIS TUESDAY"
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This comming Tuesday?
      *****, I'd better make plans and kill all those people that pissed me off in grade school!
    • dwnwrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well I'm NOT going to my dental appointment Monday if the world ends Tuesday!
  • JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Ubuntu comes default to try ipv6 first then fail to ipv4
    • alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Isn't that what Vista does also?
    • dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -22/+40No Vista just fails all the time and doesn't bother to try very hard. :)
    • wqwert, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1and for the time being, it actually speeds up your connection quite a bit to disable ipv6.
  • noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well, I guess Verisign better start saving up some of its dirty money for some new DNS servers.

    Also, I agree with maninblac1.
  • Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I don't the internet will crash all of a sudden because all the tubes are clogged. Adoption will be pretty spread out. When the volume license version comes out in November and it hits Bittorrent it'll help spread out the load so the DNS servers can survive.
  • o0joshua0o, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It will stall it because of the sudden increase in torrent traffic, or what?
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11It'll be due to the bigger security updates everyone needs to download for VISTA.
  • netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43...We need an 'author is retarded' bury option...
  • MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -32/+2A perfect example of why digg sucks. This article is ridiculous.

    marked as spam (and spam shouldn't make the front page).
    • SugarRay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9..exactly why you suck and should be dugg down... oh wait, that already works
  • trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmmm not sure if I understand this thoroughly but if you run Vista behind a router, would a router change this? If anything else, just disable IV6 and it won't be requesting the extra DNS packets.
  • djjuice, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2just a reminder yes OS X already supports IPv6 but the small user base doesnt do damage to the DNS servers, now combining that along with the large vista adopters could cause a problem. The better fix would be to finally switch over to IPv6. But then again the USA will be the last to do that since we created IPv4 (at least thats what i remember)
  • bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Every one build up your host table. who needs dns?

    any way what are these people smoking XP suports IPv6 i have it running on my home network but my router like 85% of all personal routers does not suport IPv6
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2XP supports, it but it's one of those features you have to install specifically to enable. Like WPA2, XP will run them both, but you have to install the protocols, IPv6 is easy, WPA2, not so easy.
  • Crypty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Y2K ended up to be nothing.
    • mexter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It was an expensive nothing, to be sure.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well, that's mostly because for the 4-5 years prior programmers were working overtime to rewrite all the code that would be affected.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pfft... My copy of Windows 95 worked perfectly after 2000.
  • grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'd have to agree that this probably isn't going to be a problem. No digg.
  • slippin84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5But it's Vista that's going to cause it, not the implementation of IPv6 right? If you are going to be scared of something, at least be scared of the right thing. But, anything to take cheap shots at Microsoft I guess...
  • mk32066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Diggeffect... Version 2.0!
  • H2SO4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8How can it be any worst than the Tom and Katie baby pics slowing down the Internet?
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Steve Irwin dying (RIP!) killed the net more then baby xenu.
  • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Marked as super lame.
    Find a new target other than MS, it's getting old...
  • jawbreaker4fs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Maybe I missed something... what happened to ipv5?
  • mouthster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Vista also creates tension in the Middle East, is responsible for Global Warming, and sometimes even kills puppies.
    • porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11...and it also eats small children.
    • poipoipoi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1comedy alert: the old puppies/kittens/clown-death line hasn't been funny/clever/original for at least two years. You shoulda stopped at "... Middle East."
    • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The candy, fireworks, and puppy-dog store?!?!?!?!?"
      "Oh no, you'll be working over here"
    • n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But does it play DVD?" - Chris Rock
    • dwnwrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But do we have the video?!!???!!!?

      - The Young Ones
  • simpat1zq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Good thing I only surf using IP addy's....in binary.
    • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Do you mean "surfing" the web or the Internet in general? (Does "surfing" the Internet even exist as a separate activity from surfing the web anyway, or is it just used by people who treat the terms synonymously?)

      If it's the former... you can't do it with IP addresses alone, because web pages almost exclusively link via machine names, not their IP address. For example, when I was setting up a machine once and the DNS wasn't yet working, I knew the IP address of the google server, and was able to access the page and all local resources. However, clicking on any non-local link failed because.... well, we know why. End of story.
    • dwnwrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good thing no one has more than one web site hosted on the same IP address.

      /sarcasm
  • zumpiez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This was a good laugh.
  • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This seems like an unnecessary pot-shot at Microsoft to me. I mean, the reason for these forecasted problems with DNS stem from Vista supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time. Don't other OS's do this as well? I don't see why Microsoft is being singled out here.
  • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If your ISPs DNS server sucks, YOU may slow down. But it's not going to be some world-wide thing.
  • Velocity211, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Haha, microsoft is funny.
  • vermicin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you remember, Linux/Unix geeks have a hard-on for running DNS and other servers of that "low demand" type on ghetto hardware. They'll brag nonstop about how they run a DNS server on a 386 with 2 megs of ram.

    Wow, upgrade to a 500 dollar dell box, problem solved for another few years.

    You people should be paying me for this.
  • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Despite the other comments I'm seeing I've dugg this. Apparently this DNS guy is worried that if Vista becomes a main OS in use that the DNS requests may double because it's support for multiple IP protocols. This is an interesting question. How will the current DNS servers handle the increase in DNS requests as more OS's start supporting multiple IP protocols?
  • kitsonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5WOAH! What sort of ignorance is this... Especially the comment that "lots of DNS server are running at capacity"... While you may make a request to your local DNS server there is this MIRACLE of Time To Live and caching that goes on. So if you keep asking for the same information the local DNS server will cache it locally for a certain amount of time before going out to one of the upstream or root DNS servers. Silly silly silly silly... The worst thing that is going to happen is that some local ISPs or companies might need to upgrade their local DNS servers to hand a few more requests. I could hit my local DNS server with 100X as many queries and have a zero net effect on the Internet as a whole! Silly silly silly
    • Snuffkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everyone decided to say "screw TTL" some time ago. Remember when nameserver changes used to take up to 72 hours to propagate?
  • nullynull, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Typical MS solution. Turn everything on to avoid complaints, and more importantly support calls. Same logic behind C$/Everyone/Full Rights, MS client being part of the default install, and the gobs of other services, policies, etc that are enabled or installed by default. The pseudo-reasonable justification is to make easier for the end-user to connect a wireless device, or to a MS network, etc. Which is weak at best and I'd argue that (other then unattend.txt) MS should provide the RTFM folk the option of configuring this stuff during install.

    Just another example of lowest common denominator impacting those of us with a clue, well at least those capable of reading instructions ;P. Which one could argue contributes to the Linux; "Is too hard, I just want to turn my pc on and browse the tubes for pr0n"
  • Virion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Duh, the problem is so obvious, IPv4 and IPv6 at once will add up to IPv10, which will misread as a binary 2, crashing the Internet and leading to a rebellious overthrow headed by token-ring fanatics.

    Better get you aluminum shielding on computer to keep it safe!
    • DeathtoG4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1very funny lol (i actually laughed out loud)
    • dwnwrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Funny, but you ran out of spelling toward the end :)
  • adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yay! This was funny!

    No. Wait. You mean to say that this is not satire?
  • gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So what about this article got it reported as possibly inaccurate: that the source article doesn't come from CNet (the URL resolved to http://news.com.com/Will+Vista+stall+Net+traffic/2100-1016_3-6112338.html) or that the author of the CNet article is wrong and no editor at CNet verified the story before publishing?

    Or, could it possibly be that the article does not present Microsoft's latest OS in a good light?
    • duckedtapedemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.com.com is a cnet domain. Click news on cnet.com
    • greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i miss news.com. ;(
  • dr3d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Vista is the first Windows version to support the new IP version 6"

    ***** / buried
  • brandonking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, because you know the speed of 'the tubes' hasn't increased since the invention of DNS. I know he deserves some respect, but shuddup gramps.
  • greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1even windows 2000 supported IPv6 if you cared enough to jump through the hoops.

    the problem is that so few routers on the internet actually actively support IPv6, so those of us who have been /TRYING/ to make the switch have been held back. i submit that Vista will be a GOOD thing for the internet.... for once. we can finally begin the long, slow process of ditching the antiquated IPv4 for good.
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I hate articles like this.

    Page 1: Wild speculation! DOOM GLOOM!

    Page 2: Uh never mind, actually it's a non-issue. Thanks for the extra page click. K THNX
  • lordTalus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There has been a butt load of crap articles hitting the front page lately...
  • farm3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good effort. Even though I sympathise and wholeheartedly dislike M$ i think that article against them should be a bit more accurate. It's not as if there isn't enough true material against M$ products..
  • airphloo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Why is this marked inaccurate?
    You may not like the article but it is news just by virtue of Mockapetris' reputation.
    The article also gives many rebuttals to Mockapetris and I left thinking that most people disagree with Mockapetris. So, how is this inaccurate news?
    If President Bush says that Iraq has WMD and the NY Times reports on that but they also report that several former UN weapons inspectors say no, is that inaccurate news? Bush may be wrong but the NY Times wasn't wrong for reporting it. Fox News however...
    If you read TFA you will find it balanced even if the headline sounds sensational.
    • Maasneotek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wow im impressed, you managed to link Microsoft/ipv6 FUD to WMDs... :)
  • cgseller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Small pain today - large gain tomorrow. It would be nice to have an option to "turn off IPV6 DNS queries" to allow people to not use IPV6 unless they are on I2 or be a friendly netitizen
  • GhostFreeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DNS Queries aren't that consuming, are they? They can't quite possibly eat up more bandwidth than say BitTorrent or WoW.

    Then again, all signs point to a replacement of the DNS in our not too distant future.
  • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This SHOULD NOT have been flagged as innacurate. If you actually read the story they report on both sidest. Does anyone actually read the articles before flagging them or do they just read the headline and knee jerk form an opinion. Good grief, use more than your brain stem.
    • jstone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, maybe the content of the article is accurate, but the title here on digg says "Vista will stall DNS traffic" even though the article says it may not. The title should be "Vista may stall DNS traffic."
  • shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Windows XP: start > run > "ipv6 install"

    *cough*
    • jawbreaker4fs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Huh... I just did that. Hope I don't crash the internet.
  • nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would have loved to have seen the internet traffic when HL2 got released.
    I remember Steam going down fairly quickly.

    Oh yeah, and your ISP has to be willing to hand out an IPv6 ip address for anything useful to happen.
  • OneFishTwoFish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Actually, this would not be the first time that Windows has had a serious negative impact on DNS.

    The queries that Mockapetris is concerned about are reverse lookups, the mapping IP addresses back to names. When Windows first broke away from WINS and enabled DNS and Dynamic DNS updates they crushed the core DNS servers with reverse lookups for 192.168.x.x addresses (and the rest of the RFC 1918 address space, 10.x.x.x and 172.16-31.x.x, that just about everybody uses inside their firewalls). The bogus DDNS updates didn't help either.

    In self defense, the root servers of in-addr.arpa (the reverse lookup domain space) were configured to return "non-existent domain" to any queries for RFC 1918 addresses. This didn't solve the problem but it dramatically reduced the impact.

    It won't be so easy to solve the problem for IPv6, because there's no IPv6 analog to RFC 1918. Everybody will have a unique IPv6 address -- that's part of the beauty of IPv6, but it also means that there's no way to easily classify a bogus reverse lookup as bogus.
  • felderado, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3HELLO I AM MR CAPS LOCK.

    A SUGGESTION TO YOU IDIOT ADMINISTRATORS:

    IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 5 PCS THAT ACTIVELY SURF THE INTERNET, HOW HARD IS IT TO SETUP A LOCAL DNS CACHE? THAT WILL SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. I RECOMMEND BIND.

    HAVE A NICE DAY
  • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1in other news the moon is realy a all powerful laser in dormancy that will destroy the earth resulting in doom
    not dugg because of tech doomsaying
  • arturobandini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think that if Microsoft had decided not to support IPv6, which, WILL BE needed in the near future the same nay-sayer who submitted this article would title it...

    "Million of users crippled by VISTAS choice to not include IPv6 - DNS Inventor Says"
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1millions to switch to apple/linux
      due to mircosofts not having ipv6
  • ravenofwinter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This just in: Paul Mockapetris has been hired by Symantec.

    Symantec's explanation was that his overly hysterical fear-mongering is just what their company needs to "shake things up" .

    Details at 11.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.