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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 01:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1644542408@f1.n250.z2.fidonet.ftn> |
| In reply to | #5050 |
Hello Grant! Thursday February 10 2022 21:48, Grant Taylor wrote to All: > 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. Dumb nut question 1 - So what does it do for a system that only has a ipv4 address from the isp ? Reason for asking is I run a BBS and some of my downlinks have a v6 address along with a v4 and when the v4 cannot connect my system has a quick look at v6 says protocol not supported and gives up on that poll. Vincent
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 09:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220211093521.6c720ec9@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5053 |
Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2022, um 01:20:08 Uhr schrieb Vincent Coen: > Thursday February 10 2022 21:48, Grant Taylor wrote to All: > > like Hurricane Electric. > > Dumb nut question 1 - So what does it do for a system that only has a > ipv4 address from the isp ? It uses Protocol 41. It tunnels all the IPv6 packages via IPv4 to the tunnel endpoint at Hurricane electric. The IPv6 packages are simply inside of the IPv4 packages. At the tunnel endpoint they will be extracted and are normal IPv6 packages. I also use that service from HE, works fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <su6asn$iu9$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5053 |
On 2/10/22 6:20 PM, Vincent Coen wrote: > Dumb nut question 1 - So what does it do for a system that only has > a ipv4 address from the isp ? It provides IPv6 address(es) from the tunnel provider. Think along the lines of a VPN. You get IPv6 inside the tunnel for your use while the tunnel itself uses only IPv4 on the outside. From a simplistic view point your system thinks that it has two Internet connections, one of which only provides IPv4 addresses and the other only provides IPv6 addresses. I say simplistic because there are a lot of different ways that you can configure things, some of which have (logical) interfaces, others do not. > Reason for asking is I run a BBS and some of my downlinks have a v6 > address along with a v4 and when the v4 cannot connect my system has a > quick look at v6 says protocol not supported and gives up on that poll. I'm not quite tracking what downlinks means in this case. I'm assuming that it's down in a FTN network topology perspective. Thus from an IP network topology perspective, they are simply peers. If your system can't connect to an IPv4 peer for some reason and you don't have IPv6, then you actually can't connect (at that time). -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 20:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220211200306.2ded03f8@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5067 |
Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2022, um 11:45:56 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > Think along the lines of a VPN. You get IPv6 inside the tunnel for > your use while the tunnel itself uses only IPv4 on the outside. One advantage over VPN is that it only has the IPv4 header as additional overhead. Also no auth is supported, the tunnel endpoint at the customer side is detected only by the IPv4 address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <su6chi$sf$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5068 |
On 2/11/22 12:03 PM, Marco Moock wrote: > Also no auth is supported, the tunnel endpoint at the customer side > is detected only by the IPv4 address. It is highly dependent on what type of tunnel is used. IP protocol 41 (a.k.a. SIT?) may have the properties that you say. But other types of tunnels, including full blown encrypting VPNs can provide the same IPv6 in IPv4 connectivity. Then there's devious behavior in using IP protocol 41 in IPsec Transport Mode only with Authentication Header (no Encapsulating Security Payload). That provides quite strong authentication for IP protocol 41. }:-) It also doesn't incur the encryption / decryption processing overhead. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20220211193242@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5028 |
On 2022-02-10, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: > 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. I've been hearing that song and dance for the last 20 years. Sorry to disappoint you but I doubt IPV4 will be going away any time soon. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 | 2022-02-12 09:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220212092711.2bf5b260@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5071 |
Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 00:33:44 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake: > I've been hearing that song and dance for the last 20 years. Sorry > to disappoint you but I doubt IPV4 will be going away any time soon. I agree, IPv4 will keep for at least 10 years, but everybody not implementing IPv6 ins his networks slows down the process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 10:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <su805i$83jt$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5074 |
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: >Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 00:33:44 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake: > >> I've been hearing that song and dance for the last 20 years. Sorry >> to disappoint you but I doubt IPV4 will be going away any time soon. > >I agree, IPv4 will keep for at least 10 years, but everybody not >implementing IPv6 ins his networks slows down the process. It's like the vaccination. Things would be best if everybody did it, but since a vocal minority doesn't do it AND TAKES PRIDE IN NOT DOING IT, the whole process is slowed down for everybody significantly. With the vaccination, the price we pay is lifes, with IPv6, it's only money. -- -------------------------------------- !! 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 | 2022-02-12 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220212110159.6eff003a@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5078 |
Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 10:54:57 Uhr schrieb Marc Haber: > Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: > >Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 00:33:44 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake: > > > >> I've been hearing that song and dance for the last 20 years. Sorry > >> to disappoint you but I doubt IPV4 will be going away any time > >> soon. > > > >I agree, IPv4 will keep for at least 10 years, but everybody not > >implementing IPv6 ins his networks slows down the process. > > It's like the vaccination. Things would be best if everybody did it, > but since a vocal minority doesn't do it AND TAKES PRIDE IN NOT DOING > IT, the whole process is slowed down for everybody significantly. > > With the vaccination, the price we pay is lifes, with IPv6, it's only > money. A really bad comparison. If other's servers are not reachable via IPv4 I need to be able to access it, maybe via NAT64. If other servers that need to communicate with me can't use IPv6, I HAVE to provide IPv4. If others do not want vaccination, I don't need to care about. They also don't need to care about my vaccination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 12:06 -0800 |
| Subject | OT Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall |
| Message-ID | <su93ve$tf5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5080 |
On 2/12/22 02:01, Marco Moock wrote: > If others do not want vaccination, I don't need to care about. They > also don't need to care about my vaccination. Wrong. You are correct in your assessment of that sig in general - one can't cure stupid. But the statement " I don't need to care about. " is equally stupid, as is the obverse you continued to use. It shows simply an attitude of "hurray for me and screw you". With the number of deaths involved, EVERYONE needs to be aware of the risks the carrier of the "plague" puts on all those around them. If you can't grasp the point, do the rest of us a favor and STFU - try visiting a leper colony to see how your "enlightened" position works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 21:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall |
| Message-ID | <20220212213913.24b32972@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5081 |
Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 12:06:04 Uhr schrieb jrg: > On 2/12/22 02:01, Marco Moock wrote: > > If others do not want vaccination, I don't need to care about. They > > also don't need to care about my vaccination. > > Wrong. > You are correct in your assessment of that sig in general - one can't > cure stupid. But the statement " I don't need to care about. " is > equally stupid, as is the obverse you continued to use. It shows > simply an attitude of "hurray for me and screw you". With the number > of deaths involved, EVERYONE needs to be aware of the risks the > carrier of the "plague" puts on all those around them. If you can't > grasp the point, do the rest of us a favor and STFU - try visiting a > leper colony to see how your "enlightened" position works. I just wanted to make clear that the comparison between no vaccination and no IPv6 isn't a good one. Regardless if you are vaccinated or not, I can decide myself if I want to be or not. I can't do that with IPv4/IPv6.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 13:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT Re: IPv6 Hardware Firewall |
| Message-ID | <subt3b$1m7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5082 |
On 2/12/22 12:39, Marco Moock wrote: > Regardless if you are vaccinated or not, I can decide myself if I want > to be or not. Of course you can but you live in a society which affords you a living and something other than a cave to live in, though it seems you wouldn't know the difference and you wouldn't have the internet connection, a good thing since it would remove your ability to spew your skewed opinion of whats good for everyone. Fortunately, in the end, Darwin's Law prevails, though its doubtful it could apply to IPv4/6. P.S. my spelchekker suggests Muck or Mooch as an alternative to Moock. I'll leave that alone...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-14 02:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20220213210652@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5078 |
On 2022-02-12, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > With the vaccination, the price we pay is lifes, with IPv6, it's only > money. Sorry, but real-world data contradicts that statement. The safety and effectiveness of the so-called "vaccines" (which don't actually prevent spread of the disease) are highly over-rated. The official narrative does not hold up under close examination. https://www.informedchoiceaustralia.com/post/1000-peer-reviewed-studies-ques tioning-covid-19-vaccine-safety The only way you'll "vaccinate" me is to kill me first. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-14 02:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20220213210523@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5074 |
On 2022-02-12, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: > I agree, IPv4 will keep for at least 10 years, but everybody not > implementing IPv6 ins his networks slows down the process. It will probably be longer than that. I am quite happy to be old and in the way. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 | jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 09:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <sugn2f$1ds8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5100 |
On 2/13/22 18:06, Roger Blake wrote: > old and in the way great album, that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-10 10:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <su2kpj$1gb44$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5026 |
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: >I have no need for IPV6 and have it disabled on my home network. My own >router behind the ISP's gateway runs DD-WRT and has IPV6 turned off. All >of my computers and any other networked devices where it's configurable >have IPV6 disabled. And you're soooooo proud of that, aren't you? -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Mocha <mocha@mailexcite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 07:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9eoNJ.42368$%uX7.41616@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #5030 |
Thanks for all the responses! Something that still is not making sense to me, if for example we have a home network that contains many different IPv6 devices connected, how do we control what ports get exposed on each device? That is the primary question I was trying to ask. For example, on one of my daily use Linux machines I have many different services running, and as soon as I open the IPv6 firewall on my ISPs router, it means that all of those services are open to the world! I don't want that! I can setup iptables on this box, but what about all the other IPv6 devices on my network? Random IoT devices, webcams, game consoles or whatever, I have no idea what services they are running, and I'm worried that if someone could get on one of those devices then they could eventually make their way into my Linux box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 09:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220211094118.25fc3210@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5055 |
Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2022, um 07:28:05 Uhr schrieb Mike Mocha: > Thanks for all the responses! Something that still is not making > sense to me, if for example we have a home network that contains many > different IPv6 devices connected, how do we control what ports get > exposed on each device? The concept of the internet (IPv4 and IPv6) is that every device has an unique address that is reachable from any other node. NAT and all that crap are just temporary solutions for keeping IPv4 alive. We should switch to IPv6 ASAP. > That is the primary question I was trying to ask. For example, on > one of my daily use Linux machines I have many different services > running, and as soon as I open the IPv6 firewall on my ISPs router, > it means that all of those services are open to the world! True. > I don't want that! Then don't let that services listen on your public IPv6 address. For that purpose you can use an IPv6 ULA prefix that is not routed in the internet. > I can setup iptables on this box, but what about all the > other IPv6 devices on my network? I recommend getting rid of devices you can't control. Do you have the control or the manufacturer? Think about this. > Random IoT devices, webcams, game consoles or whatever, I have no > idea what services they are running, and I'm worried that if someone > could get on one of those devices then they could eventually make > their way into my Linux box. Use nmap from other devices to check if they respond on any UDP or TCP port. If so, switch these services off or configure them properly. Randomly finding them with their IPv6 address is also a PITA. Mostly you have a /64 net and they either use EUI64 with their MAC address or privacy extensions with a randomly generated host identifier (also 64 bits). Randomly finding such an address is very seldom. If you want security here run an SPI firewall and only allow traffic from outside for specific ports (but allow ICMP all the time for Path MTU discovery).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20220211193652@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5057 |
On 2022-02-11, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: > ... We should > switch to IPv6 ASAP. I'm not making that switch. I doubt it will happen en masse any time soon, probably not within my lifetime. (Or if it does I'll be too old to give a rat's ass about the internet.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suanni$gn6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5057 |
On 11/02/2022 09:41, Marco Moock wrote: > Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2022, um 07:28:05 Uhr schrieb Mike Mocha: > >> Thanks for all the responses! Something that still is not making >> sense to me, if for example we have a home network that contains many >> different IPv6 devices connected, how do we control what ports get >> exposed on each device? > > The concept of the internet (IPv4 and IPv6) is that every device has an > unique address that is reachable from any other node. That /was/ the original idea - back when IP networking was for a few specialised uses such as military research, universities, and a few niche companies. Such a concept does not scale to today's networking needs, and that has /nothing/ to do with the number of IPv4 addresses. It is a /long/ time since computers and users have had the level of trust that existed then. With more software, has come more security holes. The average level of knowledge of users has dropped as computers arrived on every desk, not just the desks of experts. The number of connected nodes has increased dramatically over the decades. Unique addressing is not the issue - it's an irrelevancy. A system where any node can address any other node simply does not scale. So what we have is a somewhat hierarchical system - basically on two levels. There is the "internet" which supports wide-range access and routing, with many servers directly on that network. And there is there are countless local networks with interaction within the network, and access to internet-based servers, but with no need for anything outside to get in. Rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, all computers are client-only. (Yes, the remaining fraction that act as servers is important.) They are mobile phones, home computers, work desktops, etc. All of these need to be able to access servers on the internet. /None/ of them need to be accessed by any other computer. The only time something tries to directly access them, is an attack from some hacker, worm or other malware. No one wants that, or to make that easier. Of course you can say that it is the job of the firewall to block incoming connections while allowing packets of established connections to pass through from the internet. But when the firewall is already doing this connection tracking, it can also do NAT'ing at little cost. That then makes the routing process upstream /hugely/ easier. What benefit would there be from each device having a unique IP address that is used directly, without NAT? The device would /not/ be reachable from any other node - if you think that would be a good thing, with every hacker on the other side of the globe having direct access to your grandma's mobile, you are living on a different planet. The only people that would see this as a direct benefit are the Facebooks of the world, and the porn-site based scammers and blackmailers. (That includes "legitimate" porn sites that get hacked by scammers and blackmailers.) They'd love to know /exactly/ which computer was used, as accurately as possible, rather than seeing common router IP addresses. > NAT and all that > crap are just temporary solutions for keeping IPv4 alive. NAT is a fine example of the flexibility of IP networking, and does a fine job of helping compartmentalise and modularise the network. It is also extremely easy to have a simple NAT setup - these days pretty much every home has a NAT router with Wifi, that comes out of the box with a setup that provides a basic level of security for the home (except for the NAT routers that have hopeless default passwords). In the days of dial-up, people would take their Windows XP machines and connect directly to the internet, getting a global IP that was reachable from any node. Their machine would be taken over by hostile hackers and bots long before it had managed to download the latest service packs and updates, which at best only blocked half the attacks anyway. Now they connect their new Windows machines to their NAT router, and /no/ attacks get in (until they do something stupid, like click on a phishing email link). > We should > switch to IPv6 ASAP. > There are certainly cases where a greater availability of globally unique addresses would be helpful. While almost all computers are not servers, /some/ are, and sometimes a unique address on the internet would be handy. I see some benefits to IPv6, but not enough to bother much about it as yet. And when I do start using it seriously, it will be with NAT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 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