http://www.osnews.com/story/16408/Every_Vista_PC_To_Get_a_Domain_Name Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:19:46 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread?179522 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179522 Why would they make it so complicated? There's nothing like firing up cmd.exe to actually use something... Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Buck) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179523 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179523 Seems like a way to steal another bit of privacy and obtain more "control" over people's PC. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fepede) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179524 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179524 "What's that? Will it hurt?"

I don't care if every CEO and his dog is ponying up to MS over the Novell announcement - there's just no way I'm gonna be fool enough to install even a free, pirated copy of Vista on any computer I have control over, never mind throw good money after bad. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179525 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179525 Well, people have been saying MS are copying OSX and linux DEs feature for feature

I'm not sure I like how it works though - how does the registration work? What's to stop someone using my email address for a PC "domain name"? Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JCooper) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179526 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179526 What's with the speech marks around that word?! Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179528 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179528 Home routers nothing, it isn't supported by almost any ISP in North America at this point, and damn few elsewhere. In fact, IPv6 will likely take 20 years to become commonplace because of the IPv4 infrastructure that has already been deployed. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Shaman) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179529 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179529 Sweeet, so we have a feature that the majority of the world can't use, because their routers don't support IPV6, let alone everyone else that uses it.

And the people who do want something like that, probably already know about DynDNS Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Finchwizard) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179533 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179533 "IPv6 will likely take 20 years to become commonplace because of the IPv4 infrastructure that has already been deployed."


You are confusing U.S.A with the world. Ipv6 is seeing wide and increasing deployment in both Europe and Asia (China and Japan in particular).
While it wont have worldwide deployment tomorrow it certianly won't be 20 years. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179537 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179537 Now I don't have to get peoples IP address to hack them! Man I love Microsoft! LOL!

Just think, your domain name will always be the same even if your Dynamic IP changes. That means if I know your domain name I can find your PC any place on earth that it is broadcasting from!

Man! Make the work EASY for me. :-)

IPV6 COME ON baby! Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Windows Sucks) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179538 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179538 Another example of Microsoft misusing a standard protocol. As if Microsoft's smb isn't chatty enough clogging and spewing on our networks, now we'll have this nonsense to deal with. A billion Vista boxes broadcasting (read puking) in an attempt to find one another..."I'm here!"

Fact is the people that find those boxes might not be so kind. I'm sure IPV6 has been thoroughly tested on Vista like the rest of the rewritten network stack. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (celt) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179540 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179540 DNS and key ip protocols need to be completely open and run by an independent supra-national organization, imho. Otherwise there will always be trouble because corporations will never be able to resist moving in with their patents, pwnage and royalty schemes.

So thanks but no thanks. If this was to happen, I'd prefer a system that offered a connector but to a DNS system independent of Microsoft or anyone else. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (moleskine) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179541 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179541 "Now I don't have to get peoples IP address to hack them! Man I love Microsoft! LOL!"

Good thing you cant hack people without their IP address. Oh wait, you can. Mapping a name to an ip address does in itself not make "hacking" anyones computer easier. Individual computers arent targets, IP addresses, regardless of connected computer, are.

"Just think, your domain name will always be the same even if your Dynamic IP changes. That means if I know your domain name I can find your PC any place on earth that it is broadcasting from!"

Uh, do you have ANY clue about how this works? How the Internet works? I'm wagering not.

"IPV6 COME ON baby!"
This has nothing todo with IPv6. IPv6 is awesome and the more people that uses it the better. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179542 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179542 Comcast's rules (and probably most other high speed ISP's rules) say you cannot host a website from your home. It's true that the slow upload data rate makes impractical to run a published website, but there are plenty of people who could benefit from running a small legitimate website for friends or organization members.

This development will shine a spotlight on that rule, which I believe is very wrong and should be outlawed. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KenJackson) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179544 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179544 Sigh.

They don't know much about networks, do you?

- Gilboa Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179545 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179545 Twenty years? The name 'internet' is barely older than that. In fact, I only used a graphical browser for the very first time just about 10 years ago. An awful lot can happen in the internet era in a short time.

I've always considered IPV6 a nuisance, but it's needed and I predict it will be real common real soon. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KenJackson) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179546 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179546 The article itself is pretty thin on technical details, AFAICS, Microsoft decided to reinvent the wheel, and as always, found new ways to lock in (or should I say screw) its clients.

First, why on -earth- would I want to let DNS-like P2P traffic eat away my precious uplink bandwidth on an already bandwidth starved DSL/cable line? (let alone that fact the my ISP might object to me being used as a local DNS-like server...)
Second, did they event consider the security implications of giving Internet-wide access to a local service running on a non-DMZ desktop/server?
Last and not least, why on earth should I bother when I can simply use FreeDNS (afraid.org) / NoIP, DynDNS for free?

- GilboaEdited 2006-11-07 13:41 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179550 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179550 Yep.

I've been looking more into that Novell deal, too, and it seems like it's all about locking non-Novell OO.org out of .doc and/or "Open"XML, and non-Novell Linux programmers out of .Net/Mono.

And they say Microsoft is now more Care Bear than Brown Bear. Bwhahahah. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179551 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179551 PRNP is patented by MS. There, it's the end of the story, especially knowing MS behaviour (look at the mail antispam issue).
No router will include this technology.
MS still has not understood what standards are, they still haven't learned the lesson from 15 years before, when they said Internet was just a fad.
DNS is already better just for being standard and free to use to all.
Dynamic DNS is completely irrelevant here, as we're talking IPv6, where Dynamic DNS just isn't needed at all.
So I find it disturbing that the article says it's useful, as your protocol won't even pass through the first IPv6 router or firewall.
Or is PRNP free for all to use ? I have high doubts about that. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ookaze) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179552 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179552 Fortunately, as someone else alluded to in the comments, presently you need to use a command line to enable it - which, as Windows fanboys keep reminding us, should keep it out of the reach of most users! ;-) I wonder if THAT little detail was Microsoft's "concession" to antitrust rulings.

Microsoft is a repeat offender. Its recidivism rate is high, and isn't going down any time soon. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179554 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179554 Really, isn't this basically just taking what most people would really want (a computer that is invisible to the rest of the Internet) and forcing people to show their face, so to speak?

Microsoft really just doesn't 'get it' do they?

Tell me if I'm wrong here, but for the most part, the only people who would want this, would be corporations, which will have a domain name registered anyhow. Not to mention someone who is smart enough to know what they'd want to access from their home PC would be smart enough to know how to find their IP address and access it that way.Edited 2006-11-07 13:58 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (leech) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179557 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179557 Don't worry... very obviously it is meant to be a kind of DNS service like DynDNS, so no puking involved which wouldn't work on the internet anyway.

So don't worry, there will be enough bandwith for your porn left. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Alleister) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179564 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179564 Yes, until they don't make it enabled by default. Oh, why would they do that ? Well, well, this reminds me of an old joke: Hey, fella, how old are you ? - 23. - Well, and you stil believe in fairytales ? Meaning that MS has again created a monster on top of a standard that, if widespread, would lockin everyone. How unsurprising. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (l3v1) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179565 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179565 they still haven't learned the lesson

Oh yes, they do learn. They just don't give up. They try and try until one day... Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (l3v1) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179577 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179577 Ummmmm, yes you can by IP duh! But people whos IPs change can sometimes get out of your "grasp" because you can no longer find the machine. Now with a domain name just like a website you will be able to find the machine by the domain name no matter the IP.

"This has nothing todo with IPv6. IPv6 is awesome and the more people that uses it the better."

Please read first before you comment! The system in Vista for this only work on IPV6 networks. So it has a lot to do with IPV6! Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Windows Sucks) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179578 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179578 And what is it I don't know about networks. Please enlighten me.

Please tell me how if home users use this I won't be able to get to them. Also please tell that to all the hackers who do this on a regular now. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Windows Sucks) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179580 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179580 I actually thought that they'd got over this whole 'Windows naming' thing when it was made abundantly clear that no one was going to use WINS over DNS as a naming service for the internet, and Microsoft actually started moving everything to a DNS architecture. No one wants your idiotic, proprietary and patented naming schemes, OK?

Looks like things really do never change at that company. They just step back, rinse and then repeat at a later date. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179584 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179584 You are confusing U.S.A with the world. Ipv6 is seeing wide and increasing deployment in both Europe and Asia (China and Japan in particular).
While it wont have worldwide deployment tomorrow it certianly won't be 20 years.

You do realise that in the US of A, people are still haven't figured out metric, and are running about measuring things with various body parts? ;-)

Worldwide means everywhere in the world, including America (and third world countries). 20 years might be optimistic. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Brendan) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179593 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179593 For starts, why does a hacker need your domain name to hack you?
(As I said down below, the protocol itself has severe security implication, but I doubt that your post had anything to do with that...)

- Gilboa Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179595 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179595 If you read my post you will know why a hacker would need a domain name. It makes it more easy to keep track of machines with dynamic IP's. The IP will change but not the domain name. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Windows Sucks) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179600 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179600 IPv6 is only needed on the peer. Tunneling is used (when necessary) for communication over the Internet or other v4 networks. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n4cer) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179605 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179605 Yeah, and their fanboys keep modding the truth down, too. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179607 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179607 Tell me a single ISP in China, Japan or Europe that offers IPv6 for home users.

Because I don't know of any, but I will change to it if there's one ;-) Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grfgguvf) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179608 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179608 Article states that there are two kind of addressess: 1) classic ones looking like domain names; 2) "secure" kind, beeing 128bit hash values.

First, second type is not secure, but obfuscated only. Security by obscurity don't work.

Second, why even bother with long domain names, when you can just use IPv6 address? They are 128bit, too. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zdzichu) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179616 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179616 The modding system looks totally moot to me. I tried to mod down some nonsense, but it tells me I should only mod down attacks. Yet others seem to mod down something they simply do not agree with.

How come you don't have the average comment modding beside your name? Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grfgguvf) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179618 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179618 I'm not sure what you mean - the number in brackets? Well you don't have it besides yours now, but you did when I saw your comment at first. I think it "disappears" when you reply to someone's comment; it should come back again when you hit "submit" and reread the comment.

EDIT: disappeared again. Very odd. Anyway you can find out by clicking on a posters name, what their rating is.Edited 2006-11-07 17:39 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179621 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179621 Sweeet, so we have a feature that the majority of the world can't use, because their routers don't support IPV6, let alone everyone else that uses it.

It's got to start some where. (not to say that this is only the start) Later on, when ISPs and routers begin supporting IPV6, it will already be in most people's OS. Maybe this will even push the change forward a bit, as people begin seeing more use for IPV6. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dmdavis) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179623 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179623 The unsecure addresses are not unique. Multiple people may have used the same name to refer to their respective machines. Use of unsecured names is recommended only for private networks.

The secure addresses are guaranteed to be unique and to be the machine to which you assigned it. They are signed using a certificate on the machine to which they are assigned.

The addresses are 256 bits. 128-bits are hashed in the case of secured addresses. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n4cer) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179624 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179624 This uses Teredo tunneling which tunnels IPv6 inside UDP inside IPv4, so the router needs not to support IPv6.

Otherwise I also think it's totally useless. And Teredo also feels slooow. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grfgguvf) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179629 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179629 Ughhh... OK. I get your point.
Side note, if you would have -started- by saying: "Microsoft is helping hackers keep track of their pray" instead of starting with "Good thing you cant hack people without their IP address".

- Gilboa Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179630 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179630 IPv6 Networking is backwards compatible, in that IPv4 Addresses can be translated into IPv6 addresses.
The question is wether the ISPs hardware will support IPv6 protocols or not? Or wether IPv6 will run over IPv4 Networks. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stestagg) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179631 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179631 In what way? Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stestagg) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179632 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179632 PRNP is patented by MS. There, it's the end of the story, especially knowing MS behaviour (look at the mail antispam issue).
No router will include this technology.

Router doesn't need to implement PRNP, router needs to route IPv6 or at least support IPv6 tunneling (many home routers don't).

IMHO such service from Microsoft can really push IPv6 forward.

What kind on router you'll buy - with or without PRNP support? What kind of ISP you'll choose - with or without IPv6 support? Once router makers and ISP smell that IPv6 may grow their sales - IPv6 support will included. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DonQ) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179634 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179634 And what prevents any "hacker" from simply installing a dynamic-dns service on your computer?
Or let your computer contact some other computer to say what ip-number it has currently?

Why bother keeping a large database of "hacked" computers directly on the "hackers" machine?
If you're into that kind of business and rely on that kind of techniques, you're nothing but a moron. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Marcellus) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179635 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179635 Side note if you READ before comment then you would not make up what I said. If you look at my original post you will see I said:

"Now I don't have to get peoples IP address to hack them! Man I love Microsoft! LOL!"

Not your made up statement of: "Good thing you cant hack people without their IP address".

Say this to yourself several times over " Read, then comment, Read, then comment, Read, then comment!"

Thank you.. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Windows Sucks) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179637 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179637 No one said you were prevented from doing anything. No one said anything about databases of machines or anything?? What are you talking about.

My point was that I may be after one machine, their IP address may change before I can install Dynamic DNS software etc. Who knows.

Now I don't have to do any of that! Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Windows Sucks) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179638 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179638 I can translate my IPv4 address into an IPv6 one, but will the ISP route respose packets to that back to me? Or are you talking about 2002::/3 addresses? I tried those, it has huge egress latency and is therefore unusable for browsing for example.Edited 2006-11-07 18:17 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grfgguvf) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179648 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179648 I'm not sure I like how it works though - how does the registration work? What's to stop someone using my email address for a PC "domain name"?

It appears to be like screen names; the first PC to claim a particular name gets it. Because of this, people should probably not use email addresses as the basis for their computer names, because there is no guarantee of a 1:1 mapping. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Wes Felter) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179649 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179649 Things will accelerate when there are sufficient financial incentives to move over to the new protocol. For now, there simply aren't enough advantages to justify the cost. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179650 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179650 Assuming that other ISPs move to IPv6, Comcast will probably no other choice but change the rule. But, in all likelihood, they will probably introduce a new schedule for bandwidth costs to ensure that we don't start pigging out on their network. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179652 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179652 I consider it to be a stupid feature. We'd all be better of if Microsoft just launched a dynDns, afraid, no-ip clone with the freaking standard protocols.

But... that IS Microsoft and they HAVE a hell of power (it even smells like sulfur, you know) to push this thing forward to the home user... Man I'm scared to the effects it might have in the internet.

The article talks about cloud, so it makes me think that, despite what another poster said, it WILL be p2p and will have a lot of traffic going up and down our "pipes"...

And above all: We already have a pretty insecure world with the internet and the clients people are used to, buggy software, buggy standard implementations, all lead to easily hackable machines (yeah, stupid users helps a lot too). But in "the good old days" one had to find a machine to hack, it was pretty hard to get to a SPECIFIC machine without trojan stuff or some social engeneering, you had to find out the IP Address of that specific fellow you knew (at the specific time you were trying) if you wanted to mess with anything in his machine. Now you will only have to learn his "domain"... which will probably become public anyways because of the users we have...

Gee... I fear it. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (AlexandreAM) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179655 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179655 Well, you have

Nerim
« http://www.nerim.net/connectiviteenipv6.php »

and i think Orange does it to, but I couldn't find it on their website.

( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Acc.C3.A8s_.C3.A0_IPv6 ) Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (holywood) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179656 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179656 Except I don't understand how they hope to make this work. If there's no central authority to guarantee name-to-ip association (ie. DNS server) than anyone can pretend to have a certain name. What's to stop several computers shouting "I'm Spartacus"? Who arbitrates such conflicts? Isn't this just like someone taking your IP on the LAN? All it does is deny both machines a connection. Except they slapped a so called "peer to peer DNS" on top of it to make it seem more clever. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (wirespot) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179657 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179657 there's just no way I'm gonna be fool enough to install even a free, pirated copy of Vista on any computer I have control over...

And yet, the vast majority of people in Asia/Russia will pay a few dollars for a pirated copy of Windows than install a "free" copy of Linux.

Which is why their are so few Linux users online. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NotParker) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179666 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179666 Actually I think celt has a point. Even though the protocol might be relatively quiet, think about how many more people will be using it to connect to things like SMB shares. Most people don't have remote access to their home PC's now because they don't know how to set it up. If this makes it so much easier, then people will no doubt be mapping their My Documents from work or wherever else they want to all the time. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (brewmastre) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179673 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179673 What I was talking about was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_mapped_address

of the form:
::ffff:192.0.2.128

However it seems that I was using old information and this practice has been condemned as insecure. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stestagg) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179675 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179675 Dynamic DNS is completely irrelevant here, as we're talking IPv6, where Dynamic DNS just isn't needed at all.

Why does IPv6 remove the need for dynamic DNS? Having a lot more IP addresses out there doesn't remove the need to translate a human-readable name into a long string of numbers... unless I'm missing something?Edited 2006-11-07 21:24 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (danwarne) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179678 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179678 So you tell me routers don't need to implement PRNP, and the article says the contrary : who is right ?
A patented service won't ever push anything.
An unreliable service (for an enterprise) mainly made for gamers that want to do LAN parties won't push any IPv6. At least try to find some valid reason why it would push IPv6.
I'll never buy a router with PRNP support, that makes no sense, as this protocol makes no sense to me (especially since I have only Linux machines, and my main router is a n old Linux laptop). When my ISP get IPv6 support, I'll switch, I surely won't switch to another because it has IPv6 before, that makes no sense either.
IPv6 won't grow any ISP sells. IPv6 is far more complicated than IPv4, which most home users just don't get at all already.
Case in point, this tutorial for PRNP furiously mimics a Linux howto with lots of command line. Ask the Windows zealots what they think of command line ...
So much for pushing IPv6.

No really, I would not complain if it wasn't for the stupid patent on this. The MS some so-called smart people said could adapt actually can't : they didn't change their way one bit since the start of the internet era for everyone (1996 I think), where they tried to impose their protocols nearly the same way. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ookaze) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179684 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179684 OMG !!!!
The problem is not the DNS part of "Dynamic DNS", the problem is the "Dynamic" part.
Let me give you the minimum clues to continue this discussion (let's think right) :
1st question : what is Dynamic DNS for ? It's for people who can't be sure they'll get the same IP address the next time their machine is connected to the internet, so that you can get to them anyway.
Why is it so that some people don't get the same IP address every time ? That's because there is not enough IP address reserved by lots of ISP, so they can't assign one unique IP address to everybody (which also means they can't have everybody connected at once).
One of the benefits of IPv6, is that there are so much IP address available, that EVERY single people on earth will be able to have not only one IP address, but an entire subnetwork of IPs just for him alone (and there will still have plenty available after that).
So Dynamic DNS will disappear, as it won't have any purpose anymore. That's also perhaps why most free DynDNS services also allows you to have some free static DNS service (but it's in their domain, so you're better off with a .info which is very cheap, 1 € / year in France). Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ookaze) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179713 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179713 Hmm, good point Ookaze... hadn't thought of the fact that with IPv6 every device can have a static address.

However... is it certain that that's going to be how it works? For example, how will home routers handle DHCP? Surely home users won't be expected to set a static IP on every device...? Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (danwarne) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179716 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179716 I guess someone at MS doesn't like the progression of IPv6 so they're going to try and push it along a bit. Good for them....another useless "feature" of Vista.

Chalk another one up in the "Who Cares?" category. Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phloptical) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179733 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179733 you also have Sunet (www.sunet.se) which is the swedish university computer network.
Not really available for the average home user, but it is available for most students that live in student appartments.
I think they qualify as home users..

I'm sure there are other ISP's that have it aswell.. Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (plague) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179808 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179808 http://www.ipv6style.jp/en/statistics/services/index.shtml Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179809 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179809 "So it has a lot to do with IPV6!"

Only in that IPv6 happens to be the transport, flaws and shortcomings in PNRP has nothing to do with IPv6. Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179810 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179810 "No router will include this technology."

Routers dont need to implement it.

"Dynamic DNS is completely irrelevant here, as we're talking IPv6, where Dynamic DNS just isn't needed at all."

IPv6 doesn't magically give every machine a resolvable name so Dynamic DNS has just a much use with v6 as with v4.

"So I find it disturbing that the article says it's useful, as your protocol won't even pass through the first IPv6 router or firewall."

It will pass thru any ipv6 router and any ipv6 firewalll that doesnt block PNRP. Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179812 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179812 "My point was that I may be after one machine"

Being after a particular machine that doesnt have a DNS entry is not the typical case. Also note that it is possible to change the address of a machine. Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179814 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179814 "that EVERY single people on earth will be able to have not only one IP address, but an entire subnetwork of IPs just for him alone (and there will still have plenty available after that)."

Everyone will not have their own subnet. In fact, Ipv6 does not even have a notion of subnets in the way ipv4 does.

"So Dynamic DNS will disappear, as it won't have any purpose anymore."


No it won't . What is easier to remember: fd20:d91b:fb3:0:202:b3ff:fe99:e370 or mymachine.dyndns.com? Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179855 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179855 Souldbender, don't confuse "Dynamic DNS" with "DNS". Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (presi) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179870 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179870 "Souldbender, don't confuse "Dynamic DNS" with "DNS"."

Im not confusing them. Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179872 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179872 Sigh.
I -did- read your comments.
Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but your post was incoherent.

If one read didn't understand your post, he was an idiot.
If two, you're the .... well, you get my point.

- Gilboa Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?179882 http://www.osnews.com/thread?179882 Everyone will not have their own subnet. In fact, Ipv6 does not even have a notion of subnets in the way ipv4 does

Whatever. You want us to be even more technical when you don't even understand the difference between the purpose of DNS and Dynamic DNS ?

No it won't . What is easier to remember: fd20:d91b:fb3:0:202:b3ff:fe99:e370 or mymachine.dyndns.com?

mymachine.dyndns.com is easier, which will use DNS and not Dynamic DNS.
I have dyndns domain, but I sure enough doesn't use their Dynamic DNS service, but the static one, which is plain DNS. Which is exactly what I said earlier.
Which just shows you don't have any clue of what you're talking about. Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ookaze) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?180319 http://www.osnews.com/thread?180319 "You want us to be even more technical when you don't even understand the difference between the purpose of DNS and Dynamic DNS ?".

I understand perfectly well the difference, thank you.

"mymachine.dyndns.com is easier, which will use DNS and not Dynamic DNS"

Really? Any particular reason mymachine.dyndns.com (wich is an EXAMPLE) can not be dynamic?
It's pretty obvious that you're the one who doesn't understand how DNS works. Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments