Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #5018 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mike Mocha <mocha@mailexcite.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-09 08:16 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-02-15 09:16 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 174 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking
IPv6 Hardware Firewall Mike Mocha <mocha@mailexcite.com> - 2022-02-09 08:16 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-09 10:01 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-09 11:18 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2022-02-09 15:17 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-09 16:39 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-09 11:16 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-09 16:54 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-09 17:57 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-10 08:27 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 10:59 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-10 19:14 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-10 20:39 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-10 20:25 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 14:45 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-10 22:24 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 12:49 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-10 20:48 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 14:46 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-10 10:08 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 11:01 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-10 19:15 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 12:44 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-10 21:34 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 14:01 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-11 14:22 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-11 11:27 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-12 10:49 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-02-13 19:43 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-13 21:14 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-14 08:47 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 11:48 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-15 20:08 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 12:19 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-15 21:09 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 18:09 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-10 20:43 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 14:06 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-10 21:54 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-11 14:22 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-11 14:34 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-11 11:35 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-11 19:39 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-11 12:06 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-12 10:50 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-12 19:36 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-13 07:55 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2022-02-13 03:59 -0600
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-13 14:02 -0800
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2022-02-13 18:05 -0600
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-15 09:13 -0800
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2022-02-15 11:36 -0600
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-15 20:32 -0800
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2022-02-15 23:39 -0500
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-13 13:52 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 11:50 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-15 20:09 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-11 11:29 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-12 10:52 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-12 19:40 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-13 13:58 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 11:53 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-16 09:28 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-16 13:04 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-16 21:17 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-17 10:59 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-13 14:05 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 11:56 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-15 20:11 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 12:17 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-16 09:29 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-16 13:08 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-17 11:00 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-10 04:08 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-10 08:30 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 10:56 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-10 19:49 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 12:13 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall meff <email@example.com> - 2022-02-11 04:07 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> - 2022-02-10 21:33 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-10 14:48 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 01:20 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-11 09:35 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-11 11:45 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-11 20:03 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-11 12:14 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-12 00:33 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-12 09:27 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-12 10:54 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-12 11:01 +0100
OT Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-12 12:06 -0800
Re: OT Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-12 21:39 +0100
Re: OT Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-13 13:27 -0800
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-14 02:12 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-14 02:06 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-15 09:14 -0800
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-10 10:10 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Mike Mocha <mocha@mailexcite.com> - 2022-02-11 07:28 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-11 09:41 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-12 00:38 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-13 11:49 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-13 13:51 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-13 14:54 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-13 15:31 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-13 14:07 -0800
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 12:25 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 12:15 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-15 21:18 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-15 18:18 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-16 16:24 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-16 13:16 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-17 11:03 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-17 10:20 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall meff <email@example.com> - 2022-02-16 01:53 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-16 09:37 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall meff <email@example.com> - 2022-02-16 19:50 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-17 11:41 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall meff <email@example.com> - 2022-02-17 21:22 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-16 16:26 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-16 16:48 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-16 19:13 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-16 19:15 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-16 20:56 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-16 21:18 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-17 11:06 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-17 10:27 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-18 08:26 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-18 12:05 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-18 10:41 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-18 10:43 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-18 20:20 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-18 20:34 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-18 13:46 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-19 10:03 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-19 17:03 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-20 07:39 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-20 08:52 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-20 14:05 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-20 22:50 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-20 18:10 -0800
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-21 08:16 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-21 08:57 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-21 18:41 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-21 11:31 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-21 21:09 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-22 16:44 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-20 08:51 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-19 17:11 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-20 07:41 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-19 17:13 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-20 07:42 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-18 20:33 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-18 20:47 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-19 10:03 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-18 10:35 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-18 20:36 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-18 13:41 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-19 07:43 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-19 10:08 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-19 10:07 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-19 17:08 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-16 13:01 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2022-02-16 19:12 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-17 09:12 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2022-02-17 10:31 -0700
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-18 09:25 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall meff <email@example.com> - 2022-02-17 21:21 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-18 09:25 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall meff <email@example.com> - 2022-02-11 10:28 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2022-02-11 10:56 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-12 00:36 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-12 10:56 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2022-02-14 02:15 +0000
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2022-02-14 08:52 +0100
Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> - 2022-02-15 09:16 -0800
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sugsr5$rmf$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5090 |
On 2/13/22 5:58 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > You're fantasizing. No I'm not. I've worked on many servers that have (at least) the following per interface: - link-local - old GUA - current GUA - new GUA With at least three interfaces. 3 x 4 = 12 That all assumes a single IPv6 address per prefix. Many systems that I've worked on have had multiple IPv6 addresses per prefix as part of how they offer services: - management IP - web service VIP - mail service VIP -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suicj1$qcj7$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5111 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >On 2/13/22 5:58 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> You're fantasizing. > >No I'm not. > >I've worked on many servers that have (at least) the following per >interface: > > - link-local > - old GUA > - current GUA > - new GUA > >With at least three interfaces. 3 x 4 = 12 > >That all assumes a single IPv6 address per prefix. Many systems that >I've worked on have had multiple IPv6 addresses per prefix as part of >how they offer services: > > - management IP > - web service VIP > - mail service VIP All those would also apply for IPv4, are thus not a liability of IPv6. -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sujlc7$eh$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5127 |
On 2/16/22 1:28 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > All those would also apply for IPv4, are thus not a liability of IPv6. Not quite. IPv4 doesn't /require/ the use of a link-local address. IPv6 does. IPv4 would likely not have the old, current, and new IPv4 address all at the same time. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 21:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220216211745.756e491c@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5139 |
Am Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2022, um 13:04:38 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > IPv4 doesn't /require/ the use of a link-local address. IPv6 does. True. > IPv4 would likely not have the old, current, and new IPv4 address all > at the same time. If you are using DHCP with short lease times you may have als the situation that more than 1 address is attached to an interface to ensure the communication can continue without interruption. If you don't like that for IPv6, use static addresses and don't use DHCPv6 or auto configuration via router advertisement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-17 10:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sul69t$v60o$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5139 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >On 2/16/22 1:28 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> All those would also apply for IPv4, are thus not a liability of IPv6. > >Not quite. > >IPv4 doesn't /require/ the use of a link-local address. IPv6 does. > >IPv4 would likely not have the old, current, and new IPv4 address all at >the same time. You're building a strawman. You constructed a machine with multiple interfaces and blamed the necessity of having more IP addresses on IPv6. -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 14:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220213140543.1275a4a8@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5084 |
Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 19:40:27 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > What do you do if the multiple enterprises are using site-local, > despite the deprecation? > > How do you address the conflict /simply/ then? site-local is deprecated since years. if they like to use a site-local-scope address range the should use ULA and should randomize the bits from bit to to bit 48 to ensure they have an unique prefix. If they then want to bring together 2 links with IPv6 ULA it works fine without changing one address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sugt0n$og5$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5091 |
On 2/13/22 6:05 AM, Marco Moock wrote: > site-local is deprecated since years. Agreed. Though I still think there are uses for it. E.g. the local SMTP relay server at this site. Road warriors don't need to reconfigure anything as they go office to office. > if they like to use a site-local-scope address range the should use > ULA and should randomize the bits from bit to to bit 48 to ensure > they have an unique prefix. If they then want to bring together 2 > links with IPv6 ULA it works fine without changing one address. That is contrary to the intention behind site-local / anycasted addresses. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 20:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220215201114.5bd35247@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5112 |
Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2022, um 11:56:37 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > > if they like to use a site-local-scope address range the should use > > ULA and should randomize the bits from bit to to bit 48 to ensure > > they have an unique prefix. If they then want to bring together 2 > > links with IPv6 ULA it works fine without changing one address. > > That is contrary to the intention behind site-local / anycasted > addresses. It is, but it makes sure that address conflicts are very seldom if you need to interconnect such ULA prefixes from to sites.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sugu8d$ia2$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5115 |
On 2/15/22 12:11 PM, Marco Moock wrote: > It is, but it makes sure that address conflicts are very seldom if you > need to interconnect such ULA prefixes from to sites. I have a problem with going through extra effort on the minuscule off hand chance that I will want to interconnect with another business entity that I've never even heard of. Especially if there are other technologies that allow me to do what I want and not have to worry about /potential/ conflict. I can either do the simple thing now and get immediate benefit from all of the LANs that I administer or I can go through more work now in the hopes to save some work for an unlikely event in the future. I'm all for pay-it-forward, but I feel like this is taking it too far. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 09:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suickf$qcjn$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5112 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >On 2/13/22 6:05 AM, Marco Moock wrote: >> site-local is deprecated since years. > >Agreed. > >Though I still think there are uses for it. E.g. the local SMTP relay >server at this site. Road warriors don't need to reconfigure anything >as they go office to office. That's what sane networks have DNS for. That being said, I like using the well-defined addresses for DNS servers that sadly never made it into a formal standard. Grüße Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sujlk2$qqe$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5128 |
On 2/16/22 1:29 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > That's what sane networks have DNS for. Not everything supports DNS. > That being said, I like using the well-defined addresses for DNS > servers that sadly never made it into a formal standard. You mean something like the same site-local address for the local DNS server? }:-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-17 11:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sul6ch$v6c6$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5140 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >On 2/16/22 1:29 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> That's what sane networks have DNS for. > >Not everything supports DNS. Sad. I havent seen such a system in this century. And I see a lot of them. Even the most stupid IoT cloud box does DNS. >> That being said, I like using the well-defined addresses for DNS >> servers that sadly never made it into a formal standard. > >You mean something like the same site-local address for the local DNS >server? }:-) | inet6 fec0:0:0:ffff::3/64 scope site deprecated | valid_lft forever preferred_lft 0sec | inet6 fec0:0:0:ffff::2/64 scope site deprecated | valid_lft forever preferred_lft 0sec | inet6 fec0:0:0:ffff::1/64 scope site deprecated | valid_lft forever preferred_lft 0sec Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 04:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20220209230421@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5018 |
On 2022-02-09, Mike Mocha <mocha@mailexcite.com> wrote: > I noticed something interesting the other day. If you are a typical home > user with cable or DSL Internet service, and your provider gives you > native IPv6 addresses and you desire to firewall the devices on your home > network; since IPv6 is not using NAT, every device behind your router > gets a unique IP address, so you basically have to either close down all > IPv6 ports at the main router, OR open all IPv6 ports at the router, and > then run a software firewall on each device on the network! This is not > practical or possible on many devices (gaming consoles, smart phones, IoT > devices, etc). I have no need for IPV6 and have it disabled on my home network. My own router behind the ISP's gateway runs DD-WRT and has IPV6 turned off. All of my computers and any other networked devices where it's configurable have IPV6 disabled. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3 Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5 The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 08:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220210083002.2871a659@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5026 |
Am Donnerstag, 10. Februar 2022, um 04:08:02 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake: > On 2022-02-09, Mike Mocha <mocha@mailexcite.com> wrote: > > I noticed something interesting the other day. If you are a > > typical home user with cable or DSL Internet service, and your > > provider gives you native IPv6 addresses and you desire to firewall > > the devices on your home network; since IPv6 is not using NAT, > > every device behind your router gets a unique IP address, so you > > basically have to either close down all IPv6 ports at the main > > router, OR open all IPv6 ports at the router, and then run a > > software firewall on each device on the network! This is not > > practical or possible on many devices (gaming consoles, smart > > phones, IoT devices, etc). > > I have no need for IPV6 and have it disabled on my home network. My > own router behind the ISP's gateway runs DD-WRT and has IPV6 turned > off. All of my computers and any other networked devices where it's > configurable have IPV6 disabled. You will need that in future because IPv4 has too less addresses. NAT is very annoying and many home user ISPs don't provide public IPv4 addresses to their customers anymore. They can only use IPv6 to operate a server. Now IPv4 creates additional costs and need resources. I really like to get rid of IPv4 as soon as possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <su3jjb$em0$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5028 |
On 2/10/22 12:30 AM, Marco Moock wrote: > You will need that in future because IPv4 has too less addresses. Probably. But maybe not. > NAT is very annoying and many home user ISPs don't provide public > IPv4 addresses to their customers anymore. NAT is annoying to /some/. Many if not most of the home users don't even realize that their router doesn't have a globally routed IP. Most of those aren't aware that their workstation quite likely doesn't have a globally routed IP. NAT, despite it's various cons, is simple and reliable enough that it's the defacto way that the vast majority of the world accesses the Internet. > They can only use IPv6 to operate a server. Now IPv4 creates additional > costs and need resources. I really like to get rid of IPv4 as soon > as possible. I too would like to see more wide spread adoption and embrace of IPv6. But we've been transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 for (at least) the /last/ 20 years and I bet we will still be transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 for (at least) the /next/ 20 years. We are far from access parity between IPv4 and IPv6. We haven't even approached the midpoint, much less started the decades long process for IPv6 to surpass and out mode IPv4. I've been advocating for IPv6 for a decade, and do so weekly. But I'm a pragmatist that realizes that IPv4 is going to be around for the rest of my career. So, for better or worse -- my money's on worse -- we have been, are, and will be in a dual protocol network. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 19:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220210194906.44813ebc@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5031 |
Am Donnerstag, 10. Februar 2022, um 10:56:07 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > NAT is annoying to /some/. Many if not most of the home users don't > even realize that their router doesn't have a globally routed IP. > Most of those aren't aware that their workstation quite likely > doesn't have a globally routed IP. > > NAT, despite it's various cons, is simple and reliable enough that > it's the defacto way that the vast majority of the world accesses the > Internet. True, but it destroys the way internet is designed. You can't run your own servers at home. This will just support big tech companies and destroy the original concept of the internet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <su3o4t$mob$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5034 |
On 2/10/22 11:49 AM, Marco Moock wrote: > True, but it destroys the way internet is designed. You can't run > your own servers at home. This will just support big tech companies > and destroy the original concept of the internet. Most people are satisfied with "access to" the Internet. Others want to "be on" the Internet. (Nested) NAT is usually sufficient for the former category. NAT is problematic for the latter category, especially nested NAT. I'm going to say that there is probably an 80/20 split (if not more like 90/10 or even 95/5) for "access to" vs "be on" the Internet. There are multiple ways to fulfill "access to". Not all of them use NAT. Not all of them even require (any version of) IP. Application layer proxies that use something other than IP between the client and the proxy are very interesting. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | meff <email@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 04:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su4neo$v7t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5035 |
On 2022-02-10, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: > On 2/10/22 11:49 AM, Marco Moock wrote: > There are multiple ways to fulfill "access to". Not all of them use > NAT. Not all of them even require (any version of) IP. Application > layer proxies that use something other than IP between the client and > the proxy are very interesting. There's a bunch of new overlay networks out there these days that can help you "be on" the internet, as such. ZeroTier, TailScale, and Wireguard (which underpins TailScale) are some of these overlay networks. For a long time I used to hand out IPv6 addresses on one of these overlays until I finally switched to an ISP with native IPv6. I've just (personally) had it with crappy CGNAT getting in the way of communication.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1644528793@f1.n250.z2.fidonet.ftn> |
| In reply to | #5031 |
<20220209230421@news.eternal-september.org> <20220210083002.2871a659@ryz> <su3jjb$em0$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> Hello Grant! Thursday February 10 2022 17:56, Grant Taylor wrote to All: > On 2/10/22 12:30 AM, Marco Moock wrote: >> You will need that in future because IPv4 has too less addresses. ... > /last/ 20 years and I bet we will still be transitioning from IPv4 to > IPv6 for (at least) the /next/ 20 years. > We are far from access parity between IPv4 and IPv6. We haven't even > approached the midpoint, much less started the decades long process > for IPv6 to surpass and out mode IPv4. > I've been advocating for IPv6 for a decade, and do so weekly. But I'm > a pragmatist that realizes that IPv4 is going to be around for the > rest of my career. So, for better or worse -- my money's on worse -- > we have been, are, and will be in a dual protocol network. You have to be using a ISP that has it implemented and my last two do not. Plusnet Virgin Media Vincent
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <su4170$9h0$3@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5047 |
On 2/10/22 2:33 PM, Vincent Coen wrote: > You have to be using a ISP that has it implemented and my last two do not. Having (native) IPv6 from an ISP is really helpful. But it's not strictly /required/. My current ISP doesn't support IPv6. Yet I use IPv6 every single day. You can do what I do and get an IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel from someone like Hurricane Electric. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking
csiph-web