From: "Geo" 

"Mike N."  wrote in message
news:dj60g2h0if2mshl30r7hdc20djfsu6mpak{at}4ax.com...

>    This is just alarmist crap.   A discard or reject on the DNS server
> takes much less CPU than a full resolve.   DNS requests themselves are a
> tiny fraction of the overall net traffic and doubling it would not be
> noticible.

I don't disagree for the most part, but why double it at all? I mean this
is the same sloppy "oh it doesn't matter" bullshit that has
caused windows to bloat up and be so damn chatty. More surface area for
attacks too. You would think for a company with so many security issues
that reducing that surface area would be a prime area of concentration?

>   I haven't looked at the Vista IP configuration, but if it's like Linux
> the answer is subtle.   They probably make an IPV6 config decision based
on
> the presence of a configured IPV6 address.   The local loopback is likely
> configured as IPV6.   They would have to revise this to mean IPV6/On not-
> Loopback interface.   It still seems as if it would be useful to have a
> confguration flag to turn this off.

Why enable IPv6 by default, why not just ask during setup and force the
user to pick one? Just more shit in memory, more stuff to exploit, more
crap running that nobody uses. You want to see insanity,  boot a default
install of vista and take a look at the list of services that are running
by default, it's pathetic.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5