Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:49:41 -0800 (PST) From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org> To: j mckitrick <jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: IPv6 and MS (was Re: How do basic OS principles continue to improve?) Message-ID: <20020214110654.Y21734-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20020214190521.A54361@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, j mckitrick wrote: > I wonder if this could be part of the conspiracy theory that once XP is > well-circulated, MS will attempt to force net users into a new 'safe and > secure' IP protocol that only MS machines will support. Rumor has it > this 'safe' protocol might already be ready and waiting inside XP or > perhaps SP1. MS's system was: extend and control. first, they would extend the functions of a protocol, then take that protocol and make sure their implementation broke with the standard. with their domination of the installed OS base, this would give them default control of any and all communication protocols. at least, in theory this is what should happen. but to happen, this would require that both the client and server have the same extentions. as was shown by the MS extentions to kerberos. MS has given us one addition to IPv6, a protocol called shipworm: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-04.txt while this is not really an extention to IPv6 in the line of their kerberos extentions, it does show the interest MS has in v6. despite MS' reputation for being a multiarmed octopus, i doubt that they would try to exchange their current "compatable setup" with a custom protocol. it would fit in with the early MSN service (which wasn't all that unlike CompuServe, Prodigy, or AOL in the use of internal protocols) to do this. so far, they have invested in IPv6 becoming more common. which, due to the ubiquious nature of Windows, it will be. besides, with IPSec being fairly standard in v6, why wouldn't that become the "more secure" protocol? i don't think it would be that much of an extention to make sure that the certificates for any "non-.NET/MS/IIS/VeriSign" IDd system would not be exchanged or recognised by the IPSec stack. of course, it would probably lead to another set of lawsuits for anticompeditive practices. -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+ http://caustic.org/~jan jan@caustic.org "John Ashcroft is really just the reanimated corpse of J. Edgar Hoover." -- Tim Triche To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020214110654.Y21734-100000>