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 (DNS). Mockapetris believes Vista's introduction will cause a surge in DNS traffic because the operating system supports two versions of the Internet Protocol, a technology standard used to send information over computer networks."If you adopt Vista, your DNS traffic is going to double," Mockapetris said in an interview. With many DNS servers already running close to capacity, this can have serious consequences, he 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."
My DNS servers consume about 0.001% of the CPU and bandwidth available to them.
I could accommodate ~100,000 new protocols if this were the real cost. %-P
Rgds
Damon
And, even if it doesn't slow down the internet, there surely must be a more efficne tway to do this.
I don't get why it needs to 2 lookups though. I mean, it can tell the IP version by the IP address, right. And if it knows the IP, it knows that IP version use, no? If it doesn't - it does one lookup for the domain, finds the IP, and then knows what version of the Internet Protocol to use, no?
This is one of my weak areas though!
[edited by: Chico_Loco at 2:36 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2006]
Storm in a teapot if you ask me, based on largely incorrect information.
network.dns.disableIPv6
>>Perform IPv6 DNS lookups on IPv6-capable OSs. (Default everywhere else)
[edited by: BillyS at 5:19 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2006]
The technical term for these kind of predictions is "The Chicken Little Syndrome".I'm not so sure. Most people here would not have experience of running extremely busy DNS (not the average DNS with a few hundred domains) and given Microsoft's track record on banjaxing most things it does, Vista may well have such an effect.
Regards...jmcc
Most ISP's cache DNS.
Obviously no-one technical wrote that document.Most ISP's cache DNS.
So? When the client does a lookup for an uncached host, there will still be two values that the ISP has to fetch instead of one, meaning twice as many requests to the DNS server. So caching is irrelevant, surely?
That is, unless you invested in expensive Y2K compliant software & hardware.
The people selling the compliant stuff made a killing, and they were the ones mostly responsible for spreading Y2K hysteria.
There was an outcry from another technical person (Steve Gibson) before Windows Whistler (XP) was released, also to do with the networking implementation. The argument was that since XP allowed access to "raw sockets", DDoS attacks would be much easier and the world would end etc etc. Didn't really happen.
Regardless of what you say about/think of MS, they aren't stupid - they will have (okay, *hopefully* will have) implemented this in a sensible way.
What would have have been stupid would have been not implementing IPv6 at all.
Even if the prediction that Windows Vista could in someway impact Internet congestion were true, it would be completely negligible - requiring everyone to drop XP and trade up to Vista by the masses for the effect to be seen at all. Which based on previous adoption rates for new versions seems highly unlikely.
My DNS servers consume about 0.001% of the CPU and bandwidth available to them.
Yeah, but your DNS servers actually service about 0.000000000000001% of all DNS requests on the web.
The logic of your refutation is exponentially flawed :-).
Look at the crap traffic to websites in general - spybots, crapbots, weird lookups etc. And they then request all your images etc.
Whoever wrote that article is an absolute idiot - in fact a prime pillock!
And the fact this is even newsworthy is a scandal as well - tell you what Brett, I run a company that hosts 100k customers on Windows servers (I use Rackspace as well) and I can tell you that Microsoft Windows hosting technology is now far more advanced than mickey mouse Linux stuff. (And my background is Linux too)
The days of "evil Windows and Microsoft" are a distant memory except the idiots that don't use that server technology and yet love to slag it off. Well, if you do - more fool to you because you ain't makin the best of the opportunities available. I only do things that make money, and it works for me.
Guess my application for a forum moderator won't be accepted!
What Windows Vista does is the least of our problems - 10mb file downloads from all "those" sites probably aren't helping!
....now where was that download link to 10mb of porn....................oh damn can't get access because of the DNS lookups of Windows Vista - so bandwidth intensive.
I once worked with Paul Mockapetris and can't say I'm surprised by these comments. He's been trying to commercialize DNS software for years. Saying teh internets will grind to a halt due to Vista is self serving. I'll bet his license plate says Founder of DNS on it...
His company would very much like to sell their DNS servers to handle this.
So? When the client does a lookup for an uncached host, there will still be two values that the ISP has to fetch instead of one, meaning twice as many requests to the DNS server. So caching is irrelevant, surely?
The statement is slowing down the internet, how does a request that never gets out to the internet in the first place slow down the internet?
Double the load of a typical DNS server and you have nothing to worry about.
AOL might actually have to put in 2 new servers, big deal.
And why is it on the front page? There are many issues discussed especially on the Google forums over the past few months that haven't had the time of day.
I would rather Brett contributes something useful to these forums rather than the banal crap that has been sent our way recently.
zipit:-
Microsoft would NEVER do anything like this... they always get things right. It is completely bogus.
