> Hi All.
>
> Please can you help with the query below.
>
> We are deploying Windows 2008 Domains on a new network and our
> network team have informed us that they have no plans to move to a
> IPv6 network.
>
> I am now thinking I should diable the IPv6 protocol stack on the
> Windows 2008 servers.
>
> We ave the following queries on IPv6.
>
> - Does disabling the Windows 2008 IPv6 protocol stack cause any
> problems for Windows 2008 server communications.
>
> - Does leaving IPv6 installed cause any problems if our network team
> have no plans to move to an IPv6 network.
>
> - We intend to deploy Windows XP desktop and not Windows Vista on the
> desktop and we have no plans to add IPv6 to the Windows XP desktop
> build So is there any benefit in leaving the Windows 2008 IPv6
> protocol stack installed.
>
> - All the Windows 2008 servers will be placed on the intyernal LAN
> and not in the DMZ. Our current understanding is that  IPv6 is to
> help with IP addressing issues on the internet so is there any
> benefit on running IPv6 on servers that are not connected to the
> internet.
>
> Please can you help as we are very confused on the IPv6 protocol.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Dan.

> Hi All.
>
> Please can you help with the query below.
>
> We are deploying Windows 2008 Domains on a new network and our network
> team have informed us that they have no plans to move to a IPv6
> network.
>
> I am now thinking I should diable the IPv6 protocol stack on the
> Windows 2008 servers.
>
> We ave the following queries on IPv6.
>
> - Does disabling the Windows 2008 IPv6 protocol stack cause any
> problems for Windows 2008 server communications.
>
> - Does leaving IPv6 installed cause any problems if our network team
> have no plans to move to an IPv6 network.
>
> - We intend to deploy Windows XP desktop and not Windows Vista on the
> desktop and we have no plans to add IPv6 to the Windows XP desktop
> build So is there any benefit in leaving the Windows 2008 IPv6
> protocol stack installed.
>
> - All the Windows 2008 servers will be placed on the intyernal LAN and
> not in the DMZ. Our current understanding is that  IPv6 is to help
> with IP addressing issues on the internet so is there any benefit on
> running IPv6 on servers that are not connected to the internet.
>
> Please can you help as we are very confused on the IPv6 protocol.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Dan.
>

"Desparate Dan" <Desparate***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2E28B5D-049B-49A6-B19E-ACA7BAF3617C@microsoft.com...
>
> Hi All.
>
> Please can you help with the query below.
>
> We are deploying Windows 2008 Domains on a new network and our network
> team
> have informed us that they have no plans to move to a IPv6 network.
>
> I am now thinking I should diable the IPv6 protocol stack on the Windows
> 2008 servers.
>
> We ave the following queries on IPv6.
>
> - Does disabling the Windows 2008 IPv6 protocol stack cause any problems
> for
> Windows 2008 server communications.
>
> - Does leaving IPv6 installed cause any problems if our network team have
> no
> plans to move to an IPv6 network.
>
> - We intend to deploy Windows XP desktop and not Windows Vista on the
> desktop and we have no plans to add IPv6 to the Windows XP desktop build
> So
> is there any benefit in leaving the Windows 2008 IPv6 protocol stack
> installed.
>
> - All the Windows 2008 servers will be placed on the intyernal LAN and not
> in the DMZ. Our current understanding is that  IPv6 is to help with IP
> addressing issues on the internet so is there any benefit on running IPv6
> on
> servers that are not connected to the internet.
>
> Please can you help as we are very confused on the IPv6 protocol.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Dan.
>
>

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> You can probably get away with disabling IPv6 for now. Going forward we will
> all have to learn to live with it. Some features in Server 2008 R2 and
> Windows 7 rely on IPv6. This tells us that as Windows is updated over time
> more and more things will rely on IPv6. Even though you are using XP there
> is a distinct possibility that in the near future you will have to install
> IPv6 in XP to access some feature. Exchange 2007 on SBS 2008 requires IPv6
> on the server in it's default configuration. You can make it work with IPv6
> disabled but every time you run one of the SBS wizards it will be
> re-enabled. I haven't tried Exchange 2010 yet but I understand it also
> relies somewhat on IPv6. Certainly within the next ten years, if not sooner,
> IPv6 may be required for the Internet. If it's not deployed internally how
> much of a problem will this be? The answer is not certain. This is all a
> long winded way of saying if IPv6 is causing a problem turn it off for now.
> Then find out what caused the problem with IPv6 and fix it before you need
> to use IPv6 because sooner or later you will need to use it.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
>
>
>
>
> "Desparate Dan" <Desparate***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F2E28B5D-049B-49A6-B19E-ACA7BAF3617C@microsoft.com...
> >
> > Hi All.
> >
> > Please can you help with the query below.
> >
> > We are deploying Windows 2008 Domains on a new network and our network
> > team
> > have informed us that they have no plans to move to a IPv6 network.
> >
> > I am now thinking I should diable the IPv6 protocol stack on the Windows
> > 2008 servers.
> >
> > We ave the following queries on IPv6.
> >
> > - Does disabling the Windows 2008 IPv6 protocol stack cause any problems
> > for
> > Windows 2008 server communications.
> >
> > - Does leaving IPv6 installed cause any problems if our network team have
> > no
> > plans to move to an IPv6 network.
> >
> > - We intend to deploy Windows XP desktop and not Windows Vista on the
> > desktop and we have no plans to add IPv6 to the Windows XP desktop build
> > So
> > is there any benefit in leaving the Windows 2008 IPv6 protocol stack
> > installed.
> >
> > - All the Windows 2008 servers will be placed on the intyernal LAN and not
> > in the DMZ. Our current understanding is that  IPv6 is to help with IP
> > addressing issues on the internet so is there any benefit on running IPv6
> > on
> > servers that are not connected to the internet.
> >
> > Please can you help as we are very confused on the IPv6 protocol.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Dan.
> >
> >
>

"Dave Warren" <dave-use***@djwcomputers.com> wrote in message
news:shj0455uscm8ddpv74fe7rutlrlr24rbto@4ax.com...
> In message <983CFDBA-66B6-485F-84F7-83387C6D4***@microsoft.com> Anteaus
> <Ante***@discussions.microsoft.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>What you say about its use soon being forced on us is unfortunately very
>>probable, however I prefer to disable IPv6 on the basis that there is a
>>longstanding Windows tradition of unwanted and unneeded services providing
>>backdoor-access to hackers. A key question here is whether IPv6 might
>>provide
>>a way to circumvent an otherwise-secure but only IPv4-aware firewall. I'm
>>not
>>sure about the likelihood of this being possible, but I sleep easier
>>knowing
>>it definitely ain't possible because IPv6 is off.
>
> There definitely are potential ways for IPv6 to be used as a backdoor,
> although mainly with otherwise problematic security designs.
>
> For me, the reason to turn off IPv6 was that we're not using it
> internally, and as a result it sits in an unconfigured state,
> effectively making up a 169.254 type IP for every machine on the LAN.
>
> I don't know about you, but I don't make it a habit to have my gear
> answering to randomly determined dynamically assigned IPs, and doing so
> adds substantial complexity.
>
> When and if I can actually route IPv6 packets directly over the internet
> peer-to-peer like IP was originally designed without using IPv4<-->IPv4
> hacks, I'll turn it on without a second thought, but until then, all it
> adds is needless complexity to a LAN, and potential backdoors from a
> WAN.

"Ace Fekay [Microsoft Certified Trainer]" <ace***@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org>
wrote in message news:e2nzS7A9JHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:uKqpdhA9JHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> I don't disagree with anything you or Anteaus are saying.  You both have
>> some understanding of IPv6 and should be ready if/when it becomes needed.
>> Most people don't understand it. My point was that most network admins
>> are simply disabling it and hoping it will go away. It probably won't.
>> They should be learning about it, ensuring their network is ready for it,
>> then making an informed decision about if its currently needed on their
>> network.
>>
>
>
> Kerry,
>
> FWIW, I agree with you that this is the wave of the future. However, in
> some instances, even Microsoft had advised me directly when I was having a
> problem with Exchange 07 Outlook Anywhere connectivity where DSAccess
> requests were being dropped. I couldn't figure it out after hours of
> messing with it and with my knowledge of Ex07 and AD 2008. I finally
> called PSS, and after about 45 minutes, they suggested to disable it on
> both 2008 DCs, and on the Ex07 box, and voila! everything started working.
> Go figure..
>
> Here was one of the links the PSS engineer cited:
> The installation of the Exchange Server 2007 Hub Transport role is
> unsuccessful on a Windows Server 2008-based computer
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=952842
>
>
> --
> Ace
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Please reply back to the newsgroup/forum to benefit from collaboration
> among responding engineers, as well as to help others benefit from your
> resolution.
>
> Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSA Messaging, MCT
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
> ace***@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org
> http://twitter.com/acefekay
>
> For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please
> check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
>
>

"Phillip Windell" wrote:

>  I don't see any way that my internal private network that has its addresses
> isolated from the rest of the world will ever *need* it.

>
> The Web Site will not be aware of, or ever "care", what IP version I
> run on the Private Side of my LAN.  The Firewall would just run IPV4
> on the Private Side and IPV6 (if forced by the ISP) on the Public
> Side.
>
> Yes, extending to 5 Octets would have been all they needed to do.
> For that matter they could have used 8 octects to give a 64 bit
> address and accomplished the same thing as the 64 bit  IPV6 address
> and not screwed up all the routing and management principles that
> IPV4 operated on.    People have been beating the IPV6 "war drums"
> accompanied by the paniced cry of "we're runnig out of addresses" for
> 10 years and it has never took hold yet,...this whole thing is not a
> recent or new thing,...it is just that so many people in IT have not
> been in it for ten years yet (too young) and no one remembers history
> beyond last week.
>
> Now,...someday,...if I am absolutely completely and totally forced
> to,...I will used IPV6,...but not two seconds before that happens.