Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #5018 > unrolled thread

IPv6 Hardware Firewall

Started byMike Mocha <mocha@mailexcite.com>
First post2022-02-09 08:16 +0000
Last post2022-02-15 09:16 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 174 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  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 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#5065

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2022-02-11 11:35 -0700
Message-ID<su6a98$mbm$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#5062
On 2/11/22 6:34 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
> IPv4 link-local (used for APIPA, no routing, 169.254.0.0/16)

"You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling." - Inception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcGbnX8Ay38

> All not intended for connecting to other sites, only for internal stuff.

Sadly, IPv6 site-local doesn't work for accessing the IPv6 internet, 
despite IPv6 NAT /because/ clients won't choose them for globally routed 
destinations.

You /can/ route IPv6 link-local if you get creative.  }:-)



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5066

FromMarco Moock <mo01@posteo.de>
Date2022-02-11 19:39 +0100
Message-ID<20220211193915.69a4c70c@ryz>
In reply to#5065
Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2022, um 11:35:33 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> Sadly, IPv6 site-local doesn't work for accessing the IPv6 internet, 
> despite IPv6 NAT /because/ clients won't choose them for globally
> routed destinations.

This is the right decision and was also intended for RF1918 addresses.

> You /can/ route IPv6 link-local if you get creative.  }:-)

It is against the protocol to do so. You can change the software, but
then it doesn't follow the RFC's rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5069

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2022-02-11 12:06 -0700
Message-ID<su6c35$u9s$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#5066
On 2/11/22 11:39 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
> This is the right decision ...
Probably.  I still have /some/ /minor/ qualms with it.

> was also intended for RF1918 addresses.

I disagree.

RFC 1918 IP addresses were intended for (re)use by multiple networks. 
Auspiciously networks that would never have direct IP connectivity to 
other outside IP networks.

However I'm not aware of any RFCs that state that RFC 1918 (or other 
non-globally routed IPs) should /not/ be used for non local network 
communications.

Site to site and business to business VPNs wherein each site / business 
uses RFC 1918 IP addresses are prime examples of where RFC 1918 IPs are 
used for non-local communications.

And the elephant in the room is all the RFC 1918 IP addresses that are 
being used to access the Internet via NAT.

Conversely, there are codified rules that indicate that IPv6 site-local 
IP addresses SHOULD NOT be used to communicate with external entities.

> It is against the protocol to do so.

Are you sure?

What about the /protocol/ changes, other than the value used for the end 
point addresses?

The only thing that cares is an arbitrary filter that exists in some 
software stacks to smack you on the hand.

The underlying IPv4 /protocol/ doesn't care.

> You can change the software, but then it doesn't follow the RFC's 
> rules.

What if the RFCs change such that a new RFC conflicts with an old RFC? 
Which one is wrong?  Which one is correct?  E.g. the ongoing effort to 
make part of 127/8 be globally routed.

Or what about older RFCs that did not treat 100.64/10 as shared in a 
similar way as RFC 1918?

The actual addresses don't matter to the software stack, save for the 
possibility of arbitrary filters.

It's by /convention/ that we agree on how we will use some things.

Site to site / business to business VPNs using non-conflicting RFC 1918 
on either side is a perfect example of this.

There is a *HUGE* difference in what the /technology/ supports as 
opposed to what usage /conventions/ approve of.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5076

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2022-02-12 10:50 +0100
Message-ID<su7vtg$82te$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#5065
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>Sadly, IPv6 site-local doesn't work for accessing the IPv6 internet, 
>despite IPv6 NAT /because/ clients won't choose them for globally routed 
>destinations.

If you want IPv6 Intenet, you deply Global Unicast Addresses.

>You /can/ route IPv6 link-local if you get creative.  }:-)

You don't need to be creative to use IPv6. It's all stupid, all easy.
That's how networks should be.

-- 
-------------------------------------- !! 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]

#5083

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2022-02-12 19:36 -0700
Message-ID<su9qqh$qgt$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#5076
On 2/12/22 2:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> You don't need to be creative to use IPv6. It's all stupid, all easy.
> That's how networks should be.

The hardest part about IPv6 is getting an ISP that provides it.

WAY too many don't provide IPv6.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5085

FromMarco Moock <mo01@posteo.de>
Date2022-02-13 07:55 +0100
Message-ID<20220213075525.7aeae1b0@ryz>
In reply to#5083
Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 19:36:15 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> On 2/12/22 2:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> > You don't need to be creative to use IPv6. It's all stupid, all
> > easy. That's how networks should be.  
> 
> The hardest part about IPv6 is getting an ISP that provides it.
> 
> WAY too many don't provide IPv6.

I completely agree. Here in Germany many small ISPs don't provide it,
but the big ones like Deutsche Telekom provide it even for home
customers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5086

FromBit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com>
Date2022-02-13 03:59 -0600
Message-ID<slrnt0hlja.2fqr.BitTwister@wb.home.test>
In reply to#5085
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:55:25 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2022, um 19:36:15 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:
>
>> On 2/12/22 2:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> > You don't need to be creative to use IPv6. It's all stupid, all
>> > easy. That's how networks should be.
>>
>> The hardest part about IPv6 is getting an ISP that provides it.
>>
>> WAY too many don't provide IPv6.
>
> I completely agree. Here in Germany many small ISPs don't provide it,
> but the big ones like Deutsche Telekom provide it even for home
> customers.


Frontier Fios here in Dallas Texas gives ipv4
  $ wget -qO - http://icanhazip.com
  47.183.233.188


--
The warranty and liability expired as you read this message.
If the above breaks your system, it's yours and you keep both pieces.
Practice safe computing. Backup the file before you change it.
Do a,  man command_here or cat command_here, before using it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5097

Fromjrg <jeff.g.group@att.net>
Date2022-02-13 14:02 -0800
Message-ID<subv65$uv8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#5086
On 2/13/22 01:59, Bit Twister wrote:

> Frontier Fios here in Dallas Texas gives ipv4
>    $ wget -qO -http://icanhazip.com
>    47.183.233.188

att gives me
2600:1700:79b1:20c0:2f4:8dff:fea6:fc3b

no clue, just in passing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5099

FromBit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com>
Date2022-02-13 18:05 -0600
Message-ID<slrnt0j76b.b6nt.BitTwister@wb.home.test>
In reply to#5097
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:02:44 -0800, jrg wrote:
> On 2/13/22 01:59, Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> Frontier Fios here in Dallas Texas gives ipv4
>>    $ wget -qO -http://icanhazip.com
>>    47.183.233.188
>
> att gives me
> 2600:1700:79b1:20c0:2f4:8dff:fea6:fc3b
>
> no clue, just in passing.

All those colons instead of 4 dots, tells me your isp, ATT-SBCIS,
is giving out ipv6 addresses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5105

Fromjrg <jeff.g.group@att.net>
Date2022-02-15 09:13 -0800
Message-ID<sugn0i$1ds8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#5099
On 2/13/22 16:05, Bit Twister wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:02:44 -0800, jrg wrote:
>> On 2/13/22 01:59, Bit Twister wrote:
>>
>>> Frontier Fios here in Dallas Texas gives ipv4
>>>     $ wget -qO -http://icanhazip.com
>>>     47.183.233.188
>>
>> att gives me
>> 2600:1700:79b1:20c0:2f4:8dff:fea6:fc3b
>>
>> no clue, just in passing.
> 
> All those colons instead of 4 dots, tells me your isp, ATT-SBCIS,
> is giving out ipv6 addresses.

Thanks, that much I figured but am surprised you don't get ip6 in 
Dallas.  I had never seen icanhazip before, don't know why, haven't been 
living under a rock...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5108

FromBit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com>
Date2022-02-15 11:36 -0600
Message-ID<slrnt0np5f.uchg.BitTwister@wb.home.test>
In reply to#5105
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:13:54 -0800, jrg wrote:
> On 2/13/22 16:05, Bit Twister wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:02:44 -0800, jrg wrote:
>>> On 2/13/22 01:59, Bit Twister wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frontier Fios here in Dallas Texas gives ipv4
>>>>     $ wget -qO -http://icanhazip.com
>>>>     47.183.233.188
>>>
>>> att gives me
>>> 2600:1700:79b1:20c0:2f4:8dff:fea6:fc3b
>>>
>>> no clue, just in passing.
>>
>> All those colons instead of 4 dots, tells me your isp, ATT-SBCIS,
>> is giving out ipv6 addresses.
>
> Thanks, that much I figured but am surprised you don't get ip6 in
> Dallas.

Spectrum Cable is also giving ipv4 to customers.

>  I had never seen icanhazip before, don't know why, haven't been
> living under a rock...

  Other options of getting your Internet ip address.

curl http://icanhazip.com
curl http://ident.me
curl whatismyip.akamai.com
curl https://ipecho.net/plain
wget -qO - http://icanhazip.com
wget -qO - http://ident.me/
wget -qO - http://smxi.org/opt/ip.php
wget -qO - https://ipecho.net/plain
wget -qO - http://myip.dnsomatic.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5125

Fromjrg <jeff.g.group@att.net>
Date2022-02-15 20:32 -0800
Message-ID<suhup6$h4d$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#5108
On 2/15/22 09:36, Bit Twister wrote:

> Other options of getting your Internet ip address.

<snip>

ifconfig is fine for me, thanks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5126

From"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org>
Date2022-02-15 23:39 -0500
Message-ID<op.1hn1wee4a3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net>
In reply to#5125
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:32:36 -0500, jrg <jeff.g.group@att.net> wrote:
> On 2/15/22 09:36, Bit Twister wrote:
>> Other options of getting your Internet ip address.
> ifconfig is fine for me, thanks

For ipv6, yes but for ipv4 it's the lan address, unless you only have one
computer, directly connected to the modem.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5089

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2022-02-13 13:52 +0100
Message-ID<suauud$d730$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#5083
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 2/12/22 2:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> You don't need to be creative to use IPv6. It's all stupid, all easy.
>> That's how networks should be.
>
>The hardest part about IPv6 is getting an ISP that provides it.
>
>WAY too many don't provide IPv6.

Thankfully, in technologically advanced countries dual stack or dual
stack lite Internet Access is commodity and easily bought on the
market, even with competetive pricing.

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]

#5110

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2022-02-15 11:50 -0700
Message-ID<sugskr$73a$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#5089
On 2/13/22 5:52 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Thankfully, in technologically advanced countries dual stack or dual 
> stack lite Internet Access is commodity and easily bought on the 
> market, even with competetive pricing.

There have been MANY technologies to more easily provide IPv6 access 
than going dual-stack from end-to-end.  Sadly, many ISPs aren't 
utilizing them.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5114

FromMarco Moock <mo01@posteo.de>
Date2022-02-15 20:09 +0100
Message-ID<20220215200938.10081c2b@ryz>
In reply to#5110
Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2022, um 11:50:18 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> There have been MANY technologies to more easily provide IPv6 access 
> than going dual-stack from end-to-end.  Sadly, many ISPs aren't 
> utilizing them.

I know, it is really sad.
Especially customers behind CG-NAT aren't able to use SIT to get IPv6
connectivity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5064

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2022-02-11 11:29 -0700
Message-ID<su69tq$haj$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#5061
On 2/11/22 6:22 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Which ones, for example?

Pick any U.S. DoD prefix for starters.  }:-)

Or any other entity that you know that you're not going to communicate with.

In many ways, the world is your oyster.

ProTip:  IP addresses / network prefixes are /locally/ /significant/. 
--  Once you truly grok anycast and how it works, you can get *REALLY* 
creative.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5077

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2022-02-12 10:52 +0100
Message-ID<su800s$82u7$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#5064
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 2/11/22 6:22 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Which ones, for example?
>
>Pick any U.S. DoD prefix for starters.  }:-)

Those belong to the U.S. DoD. You're not supposed to use them.

>Or any other entity that you know that you're not going to communicate with.

That's a really stupid idea.

>--  Once you truly grok anycast and how it works, you can get *REALLY* 
>creative.

Networks are not supposed to be creative. They're supposed to work.
And the simpler they are, the more reliable are they.

-- 
-------------------------------------- !! 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]

#5084

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2022-02-12 19:40 -0700
Message-ID<su9r2e$au4$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#5077
On 2/12/22 2:52 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Those belong to the U.S. DoD. You're not supposed to use them.

And yet there are many people doing exactly that.

Or using someone else's network.

> That's a really stupid idea.

I didn't say that squatting on someone else's IP space was a good idea.

> Networks are not supposed to be creative. They're supposed to work.
> And the simpler they are, the more reliable are they.
And how is having many (upwards of 10) IPv6 addresses on a single 
machine /simpler/?

What do you do if the multiple enterprises are using site-local, despite 
the deprecation?

How do you address the conflict /simply/ then?



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5090

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2022-02-13 13:58 +0100
Message-ID<suav9e$d7k7$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#5084
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 2/12/22 2:52 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Networks are not supposed to be creative. They're supposed to work.
>> And the simpler they are, the more reliable are they.
>And how is having many (upwards of 10) IPv6 addresses on a single 
>machine /simpler/?

You're fantasizing. In my most complex network (it's my home network)
I have at minimum four IPv6 addresses per machine¹, and that's just
cause I am too cheap to get decent BGP redundancy for my home. Any
business customer with a mind is going to have their own address space
and builds redundnacy network wise, which makes the network setup on
the actual server even easier.

¹ link local, SLAAC from the expensive, but static prefix, static
Unique Global Unicast from the expensive prefix for ssh, and SLAAC
from the dynamic but cheap and fast prefix for downloads. Add service
IP addresses from the expensive static prefix at will, I am a big fan
of having one IP address per service, which is WAY easier and WAY
cheaper with IPv4.

New setups I build with IPv6 only and provide IPv4 accress via NAT
(mainly for github, who have not woken up yet) and IPv4 services via
reverse proxy / ALG.

>What do you do if the multiple enterprises are using site-local, despite 
>the deprecation?

Organizational failure to adapt to changed environment. The market
will solve that, given enough time.

>How do you address the conflict /simply/ then?

I am not a psychologist.

-- 
-------------------------------------- !! 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]

Page 3 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