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 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-21 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sv0cp6$tsk$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5184 |
On 2/20/22 3:50 PM, Roger Blake wrote: > IPv4 thinking is the only thinking that counts as far as I am concerned. > No IPv6 here, not now, not ever. Unless you /actively/ disable IPv6, there is a very good chance that IPv6 is enabled on contemporary devices /by/ /default/. I remember when Microsoft started enabling IPv6 by default on server OSs. It was possible to ignore it for a while. But then things started to try to use it. As such, it required active management or active disabling. That was 10-15 years ago. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-21 18:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sv0isc$1ink7$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5187 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >I remember when Microsoft started enabling IPv6 by default on server >OSs. It was possible to ignore it for a while. But then things started >to try to use it. As such, it required active management or active >disabling. That was 10-15 years ago. Do you guys know that Microsoft stopped testing Windows in IPv4 only environments years ago? Do you really want to run all those untested code paths? If I remember correctly, on premises Exchange isnt even supported any more in IPv4 only setups. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-21 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sv0lpu$oam$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5188 |
On 2/21/22 10:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > Do you guys know that Microsoft stopped testing Windows in IPv4 only > environments years ago? No, I was not aware of that. > Do you really want to run all those untested code paths? I feel like the IPv4 code paths are (quite close to) the same in both IPv4 only and dual IPv4 and IPv6 environments. > If I remember correctly, on premises Exchange isnt even supported > any more in IPv4 only setups. The first MUST HAVE IPv6 issue I ran into was related to Microsoft Exchange. I think it was a 2003 or maybe 2008. Back when I first ran into the MUST HAVE IPv6, I was able to get away with a link-local IPv6 address in an otherwise IPv4 only environment 15 years ago. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-21 21:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220221210904.6898e56a@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5188 |
Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, um 18:41:32 Uhr schrieb Marc Haber: > If I remember correctly, on premises Exchange isnt even supported any > more in IPv4 only setups. It definitely works without global IPv6 connectivity, but sometimes uses link-local IPv6 to communicate with other Exchange servers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 16:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sv30cl$1mugs$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5190 |
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: >Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, um 18:41:32 Uhr schrieb Marc Haber: >> If I remember correctly, on premises Exchange isnt even supported any >> more in IPv4 only setups. > >It definitely works without global IPv6 connectivity, but sometimes >uses link-local IPv6 to communicate with other Exchange servers. Yes, that's what I remember. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-20 08:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220220085102.3d173d99@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5174 |
Am Samstag, 19. Februar 2022, um 17:03:46 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > So why is SLAAC actually /needed/ in a DHCPv6 environment? It isn't needed. You can enable it by setting the A flag for a prefix, but a network works perfectly fine without SLAAC. Just don't set the A flag for the prefix, but set the M flag in the Router Advertisement to tell the computers that they should contact a DHCPv6 server via link-local multicast. I already tried in a test environment with ULA addresses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-19 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sus0vr$hn7$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5170 |
On 2/19/22 2:03 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > Using something other than a /64 is applying IPv4 practices to IPv6. I have seen people use something other than /64 on networks as memory protection against exploding a neighbor cache on a link with very few systems. E.g. a mostly point to point link using a /120 ~ /124 or even a /127. Particularly on non-point-to-point links that are used as point-to-point links, e.g. Ethernet cross over cable. The reason for the /120 ~ /124 is to allow multiple / redundant devices on either end. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-20 07:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <susnqn$1c4bh$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5176 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >On 2/19/22 2:03 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> Using something other than a /64 is applying IPv4 practices to IPv6. > >I have seen people use something other than /64 on networks as memory >protection against exploding a neighbor cache on a link with very few >systems. E.g. a mostly point to point link using a /120 ~ /124 or even >a /127. Particularly on non-point-to-point links that are used as >point-to-point links, e.g. Ethernet cross over cable. Yes. One can detect networks built by experienced IPv4 people by seeing multiple /120 crammed into a sincle /64 address space to "save" addresses. Experienced IPv6 people will reserve a /64 per transfer network and just use a /120 from that. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-19 17:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sus120$hn7$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5170 |
On 2/19/22 2:03 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > Using something other than a /64 is applying IPv4 practices to IPv6. I've seen people use /128s out of a single /64 for (primary) loop-back addresses on all their routers. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-20 07:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <susns7$1c4ci$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5177 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >On 2/19/22 2:03 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> Using something other than a /64 is applying IPv4 practices to IPv6. > >I've seen people use /128s out of a single /64 for (primary) loop-back >addresses on all their routers. I bet you'll find some more exceptions if you look closely enough. But that's just proving the rule. 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 | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-18 20:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suos9j$15fl5$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5158 |
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: >Also, if you have a /56 from your provider, you mostly need to use /64 >for your client nets, so you still do a process like >subnetting/supernetting (for routing). This is just choosing a different prefix for your network. There is no magic in that. 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 | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-18 20:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220218204726.5e66d9e8@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5163 |
Am Freitag, 18. Februar 2022, um 20:33:06 Uhr schrieb Marc Haber: > This is just choosing a different prefix for your network. There is no > magic in that. But to do that correctly you need to be aware how subnetting works. You need to understand what /<any number> means etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-19 10:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suqbpn$182e9$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5166 |
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: >Am Freitag, 18. Februar 2022, um 20:33:06 Uhr schrieb Marc Haber: > >> This is just choosing a different prefix for your network. There is no >> magic in that. > >But to do that correctly you need to be aware how subnetting works. >You need to understand what /<any number> means etc. Yes, agreed. IPv4 subnetting is more than just knowing that. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-18 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <suolbr$id8$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5155 |
On 2/18/22 12:26 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > Many people still learn that in school and are actually required to > reproduce that knowledge in exams. And then they begin working with > real networks and we have to make them forget. I don't think that we need to make them forget. Contrarily I'd rather they remember how to do it, but choose not to use it. Do we actually want people forgetting that sticking their hand over / into an open flame is painful? I don't think so. There is also the fact that the sub-network concept applies equally well to IPv6 as it does to IPv4. We just have different grouping sizes that we use by convention. But the binary math therein, that's still important to know, independent of 32-bit and 128-bit. > Correct way to teach IP networks is to begin with IPv6, and then > gradully add IPv4 and explain the crutches that IPv4 needs to still > work. That way, people would not learn those crutches as being > essential part of the protocol like they do today. I don't know that I agree with that. Many people will not inherently derive that B is better than A or that A is worse than B. This seems to be especially true when people are in the frame of mind to ingest information without actually processing it. As such, we need to give them both A and B as well as C wherein C is the pros and cons of A & B. > But it still is the network on the internal interface of the router. We hope that it's the /internal/ interface. I've seen it on the /outside/ interface. >:-| -- That was one of the earlier CGN deployments that I ran into. > That sounds acceptable to me. I will still try to say "slash > vierundzwanzig". :-) > Wise. :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-18 20:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suosgh$15ghg$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5159 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >On 2/18/22 12:26 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> Many people still learn that in school and are actually required to >> reproduce that knowledge in exams. And then they begin working with >> real networks and we have to make them forget. > >I don't think that we need to make them forget. Classful thinking is harmful to today's networking, even in the IPv4 world. It is bad to examine people in a discipline that they will never actively need. That is only relevant for historians. -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-18 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sup09v$nav$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5165 |
On 2/18/22 12:36 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > Classful thinking is harmful to today's networking, even in the IPv4 > world. It is bad to examine people in a discipline that they will > never actively need. That is only relevant for historians. I disagree on multiple fronts: 1) There is a *HUGE* /difference/ in explaining what something is verses advocating for it's use. Point in case: Marc, you couldn't be as strong an advocate against classfull networking if you weren't aware of it. 2) Most people need at least some understanding off why something is bad in order to choose not to sue it. That is predicated on having a minimal understanding of what said thing is. 3) If people have never been exposed to something, much less why it's bad, there is a reasonable chance that some of them will either re-invent (a variant of) it or discover it and take it up as a good idea. All three of these require some very basic knowledge of what clasfull networking is. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-19 07:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220219074304.491dd47d@ryz> |
| In reply to | #5167 |
Am Freitag, 18. Februar 2022, um 13:41:50 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > All three of these require some very basic knowledge of what clasfull > networking is. I agree. Also it is helpful to know the history to know why the default mask in Windows is depending on the IP address entered. I also only understood that after knowing what classful IPv4 is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-19 10:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suqc39$183ar$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5169 |
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: >Am Freitag, 18. Februar 2022, um 13:41:50 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor: > >> All three of these require some very basic knowledge of what clasfull >> networking is. > >I agree. >Also it is helpful to know the history to know why the default mask in >Windows is depending on the IP address entered. I also only understood >that after knowing what classful IPv4 is. All you nee to know about this is "Windows is going to paste some wrong value in the netmask/prefix field, just ignore it and enter the correct value". 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 | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-19 10:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <suqc0t$182pr$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #5167 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >1) There is a *HUGE* /difference/ in explaining what something is >verses advocating for it's use. > >Point in case: Marc, you couldn't be as strong an advocate against >classfull networking if you weren't aware of it. I want people to stop knowing about it. It has been irrelevant in the internet for nearly three decades. You are free to run your own private internet with classful addressing as long as you don't try to connect to the Internet. Then pain begins. If you don't know about classful networks, you're not tempted to use that knowledge. >2) Most people need at least some understanding off why something is >bad in order to choose not to sue it. That is predicated on having a >minimal understanding of what said thing is. Not knowing is fine. >3) If people have never been exposed to something, much less why it's >bad, there is a reasonable chance that some of them will either >re-invent (a variant of) it or discover it and take it up as a good idea. I am not against telling people in the last hour of class "now that you know how things work, I'm going to tell you how things started. This is just a history lesson, don't ever try to implement this on the Internet." Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-19 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sus0os$a0c$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #5172 |
On 2/19/22 2:07 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > I want people to stop knowing about it. ... > I am not against telling people in the last hour of class "now that > you know how things work, I'm going to tell you how things started. > This is just a history lesson, don't ever try to implement this on > the Internet." You just contradicted yourself. If you want people to stop knowing about it then you also want to not tell them about it at any point in class. If you want to provide the history lesson -- ostensibly for those that care -- then you don't want people to stop knowing about it. So, which is it? -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 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