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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #207564 > unrolled thread

Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types

Started byCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
First post2019-04-16 17:10 +0200
Last post2019-04-25 20:20 +0200
Articles 17 on this page of 37 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-16 17:10 +0200
    Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-04-16 20:50 +0200
      Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-16 21:30 +0200
    Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-04-17 03:50 +0200
      Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-17 04:20 +0200
    Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Kevin DAGNEAUX <kevin.dagneaux@fiitelcom.fr> - 2019-04-17 08:40 +0200
      Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-17 14:20 +0200
        Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Kevin DAGNEAUX <kevin.dagneaux@fiitelcom.fr> - 2019-04-17 15:40 +0200
          Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-17 18:00 +0200
        Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-04-17 16:10 +0200
          Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-17 18:00 +0200
            Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-17 18:20 +0200
              Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-17 18:40 +0200
                Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-17 18:50 +0200
                  [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable IP  addresses / connection types) Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-04-17 21:40 +0200
                    Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable  IP addresses / connection types) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-04-17 22:10 +0200
                      Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable  IP addresses / connection types) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-18 15:00 +0200
                        Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable  IP addresses / connection types) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-04-18 15:20 +0200
                          Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable  IP addresses / connection types) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-18 15:30 +0200
                            Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable  IP addresses / connection types) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-04-18 22:40 +0200
                          Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable   IP addresses / connection types) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-04-18 17:10 +0200
                            Re: [OT] IP address collisions Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-04-19 03:40 +0200
                    Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable  IP addresses / connection types) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-18 15:00 +0200
                      Re: [OT] IP address collisions Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-04-18 20:50 +0200
                  Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-18 00:20 +0200
                    Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-18 00:50 +0200
                      Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-18 02:50 +0200
                        Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-18 15:00 +0200
                          Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-18 16:10 +0200
                            Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-18 16:20 +0200
                              Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-04-18 16:50 +0200
                                Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-05-03 23:00 +0200
                              Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-18 16:50 +0200
        Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-04-17 19:00 +0200
          Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-17 19:40 +0200
            Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-04-20 20:30 +0200
              Re: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-04-25 20:20 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#207677 — Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types)

FromDan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date2019-04-18 17:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types)
Message-ID<xOgPM-4Sy-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207671
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:57 AM Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, the ULA is the IPv6 equivalent of RFC1918 space--you can use it
>> internally without central registration by choosing a subnet from
>> fd00::/8. The space is so much larger that it's much less likely that
>> two sites would pick the same prefix, but there are no guarantees.
>>
> But isn't it irrelevant whether they pick the same prefix or not? Routers
> that respect ULA and RFC1918 shouldn't route any traffic destined to them
> off the logical subnet. Right?

No.  RFC1918 / ULA are merely "unroutable on The Internet" (as in, they
cannot be directly accessed from the public internet).  You can freely
route between them on "private" networks to your heart's content.

For example, I have the RFC1918 subnets

 - 192.168.1.0/24, .2.0/24, .10.0/24, and .20.0/24  (LAN networks)
 - 10.90.0.0/16 (VPN[1])

[1] way overkill, but lets me move around a bit in case a hotel is using
part of that range. (I only have the server hand out a /24 out of that
range, but the LAN's routing table uses the full /16).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAly4kEMACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEtPwgAkNULTlTgrX/BBf05jekTkQdINI8Q9CxO+ghG+a9cxOZJWszq9nZmz5QX
aTmy7bHGFA9hYyTb9Ty5+uDDhVLLOvsFY7GaDDLQv+NM+mHWmBlerd+tbMj8k64I
mT3jCxXHdDm23eoCHfNdZpOP1Yv9UBbRcbhjCOt/e4paMx1vde3ZQ71cISjnBsQQ
+GaE2vqtL5hfvss9BOpfoWqpR5PVexVuRg8TtFt/1cgYe5TjawBsgl2ZVYHR+CqS
m1C4uX09RiJnro15JH5NwI1sHwu/ssrTvYAN+Lpx93ybOeSk7gRaaFqCPrTl7Y2T
/Mjie8A6RfSd+Gi7QeaV+br5ttkbhw==
=K64f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

#207683 — Re: [OT] IP address collisions

FromJoe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
Date2019-04-19 03:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [OT] IP address collisions
Message-ID<xOqFr-29b-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207677
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:

> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:57 AM Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, the ULA is the IPv6 equivalent of RFC1918 space--you can use it
>>> internally without central registration by choosing a subnet from
>>> fd00::/8. The space is so much larger that it's much less likely that
>>> two sites would pick the same prefix, but there are no guarantees.
>>>
>> But isn't it irrelevant whether they pick the same prefix or not? Routers
>> that respect ULA and RFC1918 shouldn't route any traffic destined to them
>> off the logical subnet. Right?
>
> No.  RFC1918 / ULA are merely "unroutable on The Internet" (as in, they
> cannot be directly accessed from the public internet).  You can freely
> route between them on "private" networks to your heart's content.
>
> For example, I have the RFC1918 subnets
>
>  - 192.168.1.0/24, .2.0/24, .10.0/24, and .20.0/24  (LAN networks)
>  - 10.90.0.0/16 (VPN[1])
>
> [1] way overkill, but lets me move around a bit in case a hotel is using
> part of that range. (I only have the server hand out a /24 out of that
> range, but the LAN's routing table uses the full /16).

I use 192.168.13/24 for my home machines, externally available on my
VPN as 10.13.13/24, on the theory that hotels will be sensitive to
offending superstitious guests.  Haven't had a problem yet!

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

#207668 — Re: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types)

FromMichael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
Date2019-04-18 15:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [OT] IP address collisions (was: Accessing a host with variable IP addresses / connection types)
Message-ID<xOeNX-3qv-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207658
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:37:36PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>Le 17/04/2019 à 18:42, Michael Stone a écrit :
>>On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>>>On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:10:56 -0400 Michael Stone 
>>><mstone@debian.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:57:43AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>>>>>I was rather shocked to see that there was no definitive solution to
>>>>>avoid address collisions
>>>>
>>>>Sure there is--globally unique IPs.
>>>
>>>I assume you're referring to IPv6? I was referring to IPv4.
>>
>>It applies to both, though we've run out of IPv4. There's no other 
>>way to guarantee the absence of network collisions.
>
>A properly generated IPv6 ULA (Unique Local Address) prefix is 
>unlikely to have collisions.

A randomly selected subnet from 10/8 is also *unlikely* to have 
collisions. But there's a defined difference between "unlikely" and 
"guaranteed".

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

#207680 — Re: [OT] IP address collisions

FromPascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Date2019-04-18 20:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [OT] IP address collisions
Message-ID<xOkgG-6Lh-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207668
Le 18/04/2019 à 14:52, Michael Stone a écrit :
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:37:36PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>
>> A properly generated IPv6 ULA (Unique Local Address) prefix is 
>> unlikely to have collisions.
> 
> A randomly selected subnet from 10/8 is also *unlikely* to have 
> collisions.

The probability of collision between two subnets in 10.0.0./8 is orders 
of magnitude higher than between two IPv6 ULA networks (which is 2*10^-12).

> But there's a defined difference between "unlikely" and 
> "guaranteed".

Indeed. "Guaranteed" means it cannot happen. "Unlikely" means it may 
theoretically happen but it won't practically happen in your lifetime.

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

#207662

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2019-04-18 00:20 +0200
Message-ID<xO14m-3At-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207650
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:42:06 -0400
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:10:56 -0400 Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:57:43AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >> >Thanks. When I first set up the VPN, I did some reading about this, and
> >> >I was rather shocked to see that there was no definitive solution to
> >> >avoid address collisions
> >>
> >> Sure there is--globally unique IPs.
> >
> >I assume you're referring to IPv6? I was referring to IPv4.
> 
> It applies to both, though we've run out of IPv4. There's no other way 

In other words, with IPv4, there's no *practical* solution, since a
typical end user isn't going to get arbitrary numbers of IP addresses.

> to guarantee the absence of network collisions.

Celejar

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

#207663

FromMichael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
Date2019-04-18 00:50 +0200
Message-ID<xO1xn-3KY-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207662
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:11:43PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>In other words, with IPv4, there's no *practical* solution, since a
>typical end user isn't going to get arbitrary numbers of IP addresses.

So use IPv6.

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

#207665

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2019-04-18 02:50 +0200
Message-ID<xO3pv-4TY-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207663
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 18:41:46 -0400
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:11:43PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >In other words, with IPv4, there's no *practical* solution, since a
> >typical end user isn't going to get arbitrary numbers of IP addresses.
> 
> So use IPv6.

You make it sound like it's a trivial, straightforward change. Is it?
Will all my applications work correctly over IPv6 without much work? Is
there clear documentation, suitable for a non-expert, explaining how to
transition a Debian system to IPv6? [The Debian Wiki page doesn't seem
that comprehensive.]

Celejar

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

#207670

FromMichael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
Date2019-04-18 15:00 +0200
Message-ID<xOeNY-3qv-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207665
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 08:45:50PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>You make it sound like it's a trivial, straightforward change. Is it?

Pretty much.

>Will all my applications work correctly over IPv6 without much work?

Unless you've written something yourself (badly) IPv6 has "just worked" 
in debian for many, many years.

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

#207673

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2019-04-18 16:10 +0200
Message-ID<xOfTH-4jw-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207670
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:50:17 -0400
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 08:45:50PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >You make it sound like it's a trivial, straightforward change. Is it?
> 
> Pretty much.

> 
> >Will all my applications work correctly over IPv6 without much work?
> 
> Unless you've written something yourself (badly) IPv6 has "just worked" 
> in debian for many, many years.

Thanks. But you've snipped the last part of my message:

> Will all my applications work correctly over IPv6 without much work? Is
> there clear documentation, suitable for a non-expert, explaining how to
> transition a Debian system to IPv6? [The Debian Wiki page doesn't seem
> that comprehensive.]> 

Can you point me to such documenation? You've said that it's a trivial,
straightforward change: what, exactly, do I do to start using IPv6?

Celejar

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

#207674

FromMichael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
Date2019-04-18 16:20 +0200
Message-ID<xOg3n-4mJ-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207673
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:00:28AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>Can you point me to such documenation? You've said that it's a trivial,
>straightforward change: what, exactly, do I do to start using IPv6?

Find an IPv6 provider. There's not much debian can document about that. 
Alternatively, for internal-only stuff, you can use ULAs. IPv6 
autoconfiguration is generally handled at the router, which is still 
generally not a debian documentation question. Once you have something 
on the network advertising the local prefix then your debian systems 
will either autoconfigure or can be configured to do so fairly 
trivially (add an "inet6 auto" line in /etc/network/interfaces for the 
appropriate interface or click the corresponding button for other 
configuration mechanisms). But mostly this isn't a debian-specific 
question.

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

#207675

FromMichael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
Date2019-04-18 16:50 +0200
Message-ID<xOgwp-4wo-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207674
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:18AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>> Alternatively, for internal-only stuff, you can use ULAs. IPv6
>
>The context of our discussion is seamless and collision-free host access
>across a VPN, not "internal-only stuff" - unless your directions below
>are going to work even when the ISPs on both ends don't provide IPv6?

Yes, you can run IPv6 across a VPN over an IPv4 network.

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

#208091

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2019-05-03 23:00 +0200
Message-ID<xTNrI-3b5-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207675
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:43:55 -0400
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:18AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >> Alternatively, for internal-only stuff, you can use ULAs. IPv6
> >
> >The context of our discussion is seamless and collision-free host access
> >across a VPN, not "internal-only stuff" - unless your directions below
> >are going to work even when the ISPs on both ends don't provide IPv6?
> 
> Yes, you can run IPv6 across a VPN over an IPv4 network.

[Sorry for the delayed reply - this went into a spam folder.]

Thanks. I assume you mean tunneling? [If not, please explain further.]
Again, is there a simple, straightforward howto for doing this? Your
simple suggestion to just "use IPv6" implies that this is a simple matter.

Celejar

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

#207676

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2019-04-18 16:50 +0200
Message-ID<xOgwp-4wo-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207674
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:10:38 -0400
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:00:28AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >Can you point me to such documenation? You've said that it's a trivial,
> >straightforward change: what, exactly, do I do to start using IPv6?
> 
> Find an IPv6 provider. There's not much debian can document about that. 

Fair enough, but your previous suggestion "So use IPv6" then really
means "Find an IPv6 provider", which, given the lack of otherwise
appropriate ISP alternatives, either means "significantly compromise on
cost or value", or implement some of third party tunnel service. And
what about the ISP on the remote side, which I certainly don't
control?

> Alternatively, for internal-only stuff, you can use ULAs. IPv6 

The context of our discussion is seamless and collision-free host access
across a VPN, not "internal-only stuff" - unless your directions below
are going to work even when the ISPs on both ends don't provide IPv6?

> autoconfiguration is generally handled at the router, which is still 
> generally not a debian documentation question. Once you have something 
> on the network advertising the local prefix then your debian systems 
> will either autoconfigure or can be configured to do so fairly 
> trivially (add an "inet6 auto" line in /etc/network/interfaces for the 
> appropriate interface or click the corresponding button for other 
> configuration mechanisms). But mostly this isn't a debian-specific 
> question.

Thanks,

Celejar

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

#207652

FromRichard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz>
Date2019-04-17 19:00 +0200
Message-ID<xNW4G-f6-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207635

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 18/04/19 12:15 AM, Celejar wrote:
> Currently, my LAN is 192.168.0.0/24, which is also the addressing
> scheme of some of the networks out of my control that I'm setting up a
> VPN link from. I deliberately used 10.0.0.0/24 for the VPN to avoid
> address collisions with these other networks. It did occur to me to
> consider using a different address space, for the VPN or perhaps for the
> whole home LAN, but I'd rather not take that step just to solve what
> seems a relatively simple problem unless absolutely necessary

I ran into that - needing to VPN between 2 networks which clashed, and
neither of which I could renumber. In the end I gave up on IPv4, and all
my VPNs are now IPv6-only. It took some learning, but that was really an
added advantage.

Richard

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

#207654

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2019-04-17 19:40 +0200
Message-ID<xNWHo-HF-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207652
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 04:49:56 +1200
Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:

> On 18/04/19 12:15 AM, Celejar wrote:
> > Currently, my LAN is 192.168.0.0/24, which is also the addressing
> > scheme of some of the networks out of my control that I'm setting up a
> > VPN link from. I deliberately used 10.0.0.0/24 for the VPN to avoid
> > address collisions with these other networks. It did occur to me to
> > consider using a different address space, for the VPN or perhaps for the
> > whole home LAN, but I'd rather not take that step just to solve what
> > seems a relatively simple problem unless absolutely necessary
> 
> I ran into that - needing to VPN between 2 networks which clashed, and
> neither of which I could renumber. In the end I gave up on IPv4, and all
> my VPNs are now IPv6-only. It took some learning, but that was really an
> added advantage.

I've been toying with this, since IPv6 is probably worth moving to
anyway, but for the current problem, it still seems like overkill - the
crude solution of just editing /etc/hosts by hand just works ;)

Celejar

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

#207717

FromRichard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz>
Date2019-04-20 20:30 +0200
Message-ID<xP2Up-8lB-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207654

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 18/04/19 5:36 AM, Celejar wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 04:49:56 +1200
> Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
>> On 18/04/19 12:15 AM, Celejar wrote:
>>> Currently, my LAN is 192.168.0.0/24, which is also the addressing
>>> scheme of some of the networks out of my control that I'm setting up a
>>> VPN link from. I deliberately used 10.0.0.0/24 for the VPN to avoid
>>> address collisions with these other networks. It did occur to me to
>>> consider using a different address space, for the VPN or perhaps for the
>>> whole home LAN, but I'd rather not take that step just to solve what
>>> seems a relatively simple problem unless absolutely necessary
>>
>> I ran into that - needing to VPN between 2 networks which clashed, and
>> neither of which I could renumber. In the end I gave up on IPv4, and all
>> my VPNs are now IPv6-only. It took some learning, but that was really an
>> added advantage.
> 
> I've been toying with this, since IPv6 is probably worth moving to
> anyway, but for the current problem, it still seems like overkill - the
> crude solution of just editing /etc/hosts by hand just works ;)

I found the #ipv6 channel on freenode to be extremely helpful - as long
as you can cope with frequent digressions into ice hockey :-)

Richard

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

#207860

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2019-04-25 20:20 +0200
Message-ID<xQR8t-Wg-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#207717
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 06:22:24 +1200
Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:

...

> I found the #ipv6 channel on freenode to be extremely helpful - as long
> as you can cope with frequent digressions into ice hockey :-)

Thanks! I'll be sure to check it out if I seriously consider making the
move to IPv6.

> Richard

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web