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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #209975 > unrolled thread

IPv4 v IPv6

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

Contents

  IPv4 v IPv6 mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-06-17 11:10 +0200
    Re: IPv4 v IPv6 <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-06-17 11:20 +0200
      Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Aidan Gauland <aidalgol@fastmail.net> - 2019-06-17 12:30 +0200
        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2019-06-18 09:30 +0200
    Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-06-17 12:10 +0200
      Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-17 16:40 +0200
        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-17 17:00 +0200
          Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-17 18:30 +0200
          Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-17 19:00 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-06-17 19:10 +0200
              Re: SOLVED was IPv4 v IPv6 discussion that went off the rails. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-18 02:10 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-17 19:10 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-17 19:40 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-17 20:00 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-17 20:00 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-06-18 14:50 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-06-18 14:50 +0200
                  Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-06-18 15:10 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Dennis Wicks <wix@mgssub.com> - 2019-06-27 22:40 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-27 23:30 +0200
          Re: IPv4 v IPv6 John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-17 20:30 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-17 22:10 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Robin Hammond <rdhdroid@gmail.com> - 2019-06-17 22:20 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-06-18 00:50 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-18 04:10 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-18 02:20 +0200
        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-06-17 17:40 +0200
          Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-06-18 12:00 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-06-18 12:40 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-06-18 13:50 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-06-18 16:20 +0200
                  Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-06-18 16:50 +0200
                    Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-06-18 18:20 +0200
                      Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Linux Dave <mckisicd@gmail.com> - 2019-06-20 20:40 +0200
                      Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-06-20 20:40 +0200
                        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2019-06-20 20:50 +0200
                          Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-06-20 21:00 +0200
                        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-06-20 21:10 +0200
                  Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 17:40 +0200
                    Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-06-18 18:30 +0200
                  Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-06-18 18:20 +0200
                    Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-06-18 18:30 +0200
        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-18 18:20 +0200
          Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-06-18 18:30 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 18:40 +0200
            Re: IPv4 v IPv6 David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-22 05:10 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-06-22 10:50 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-24 20:20 +0200
              Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-06-22 21:40 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-22 22:50 +0200
                  Re: IPv4 v IPv6 John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 23:40 +0200
                    Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-23 02:30 +0200
                      Re: IPv4 v IPv6 John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 05:00 +0200
                        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-23 08:30 +0200
                          Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-06-23 11:20 +0200
                Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-06-26 20:40 +0200
                  Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-06-26 21:00 +0200
      Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-06-18 11:50 +0200
        Re: IPv4 v IPv6 Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-06-21 17:30 +0200
    Re: IPv4 v IPv6 andreimpopescu@gmail.com - 2019-07-02 11:10 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#209975 — IPv4 v IPv6

hello,
I know nothing about IPv6.
Can somebody point to a good explanation ?
Without knowing anything about it I'm wondering if I should request an 
IPv6 range from my ISP to use locally.
A network card have IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that are different, not the 
same address in different notation ?
Then with firewalling do you need to specify both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges ?

mick

-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#209976

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

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:05:11AM +0100, mick crane wrote:
> hello,
> I know nothing about IPv6.
> Can somebody point to a good explanation ?

I'd recommend skimming the relevant Wikipedia [1] page.

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

-- t

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

#209978

On 17/06/19 9:09 PM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:05:11AM +0100, mick crane wrote:
>> hello,
>> I know nothing about IPv6.
>> Can somebody point to a good explanation ?
> I'd recommend skimming the relevant Wikipedia [1] page.
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
I don't entirely agree that's a good introduction for someone without
any background knowledge in TCP/IP, but certainly a good resource when
one has some of the basics already.

To answer OP's questions,
> Without knowing anything about it I'm wondering if I should request an
> IPv6 range from my ISP to use locally.
Given that you do not already have a reason to do so, I would say not.
> A network card have IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that are different, not
> the same address in different notation?
A network card (also called an interface) can have both, and they are
not the same address.  IPv4 and IPv6 are two different network stacks,
with different addressing, routing, etc.
> Then with firewalling do you need to specify both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges?
Yes, for the same reason as above.

Sadly, most of the world is still on IPv4, so until IPv6 is deployed
across the majority of the Internet, then if you're not a large entity,
there's not much reason to use IPv6 other than playing around.

Here's a gentler introduction to IPv6 that might also help:
http://www.steves-internet-guide.com/ipv6-guide/

Regards,
Aidan Gauland

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

#210025

Hi there


On 17/06/2019 12:11, Aidan Gauland wrote:

> On 17/06/19 9:09 PM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:05:11AM +0100, mick crane wrote:
>>> hello,
>>> I know nothing about IPv6.
>>> Can somebody point to a good explanation ?
>> I'd recommend skimming the relevant Wikipedia [1] page.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
> I don't entirely agree that's a good introduction for someone without
> any background knowledge in TCP/IP, but certainly a good resource when
> one has some of the basics already.
> 
> To answer OP's questions,
>> Without knowing anything about it I'm wondering if I should request an
>> IPv6 range from my ISP to use locally.
> Given that you do not already have a reason to do so, I would say not.
>> A network card have IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that are different, not
>> the same address in different notation?
> A network card (also called an interface) can have both, and they are
> not the same address.  IPv4 and IPv6 are two different network stacks,
> with different addressing, routing, etc.
>> Then with firewalling do you need to specify both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges?
> Yes, for the same reason as above.
> 
> Sadly, most of the world is still on IPv4, so until IPv6 is deployed
> across the majority of the Internet, then if you're not a large entity,
> there's not much reason to use IPv6 other than playing around.
> 
> Here's a gentler introduction to IPv6 that might also help:
> http://www.steves-internet-guide.com/ipv6-guide/

I really like this one;
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/


Regards,
Rob

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

#209977

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:05:11AM +0100, mick crane wrote:
>Without knowing anything about it I'm wondering if I should request an 
>IPv6 range from my ISP to use locally.

You don't need a global IPv6 address allocation in order to have local
IPv6 addresses. Much like 127.0.0.0/8 (etc.) for IPv4 there are reserved
ranges.

If you want to have globally-accessible IPv6 addresses for machine(s)
in your home, then you would need to request a range from your ISP (if
they aren't already assigning you one). But I would start with learning
a bit more about it first, and experimenting in the local range if that
helps.

>A network card have IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that are different, not 
>the same address in different notation ?

That's right.

>Then with firewalling do you need to specify both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges ?

Yes, generally, anywhere you may have specified an IPv4 address or range
you would need to rethink or add IPv6 equivalents.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#209982

On Monday 17 June 2019 05:59:52 am Jonathan Dowland wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:05:11AM +0100, mick crane wrote:
> >Without knowing anything about it I'm wondering if I should request
> > an IPv6 range from my ISP to use locally.
>
> You don't need a global IPv6 address allocation in order to have local
> IPv6 addresses. Much like 127.0.0.0/8 (etc.) for IPv4 there are
> reserved ranges.
>
> If you want to have globally-accessible IPv6 addresses for machine(s)
> in your home, then you would need to request a range from your ISP (if
> they aren't already assigning you one). But I would start with
> learning a bit more about it first, and experimenting in the local
> range if that helps.
>
> >A network card have IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that are different, not
> >the same address in different notation ?
>
> That's right.
>
> >Then with firewalling do you need to specify both IPv4 and IPv6
> > ranges ?
>
> Yes, generally, anywhere you may have specified an IPv4 address or
> range you would need to rethink or add IPv6 equivalents.

But that opens yet another container of worms. If I arbitrarily assign 
ipv6 local addresses, and later, ipv6 shows up at my side of the router, 
what if I have an address clash with someone on a satellite circuit in 
Ulan Bator.  How is that resolved, by unroutable address blocks such as 
192.168.xx.xx is now?

What I've read so far has not addressed this serious security concern. Or 
even mentioned it.  If in the future all addressing is by dhcpd6, how do 
the other machines on my local net, advertise their presence to the 
other machines on my local net. So I can still ssh -Y vna.coyote.den for 
instance, if I can ever make ssh work to a win-10-home edition box.  
Thats a rarely used hookup at best. Presently the hosts file duplicated 
on all machines fill's this requirement.

These are the questions I'll need to address if and when ipv6 shows up on 
my side of the router.  And the wiki pages I've read, haven't discussed 
it.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#209983

Gene Heskett wrote: 
> But that opens yet another container of worms. If I arbitrarily assign 
> ipv6 local addresses, and later, ipv6 shows up at my side of the router, 
> what if I have an address clash with someone on a satellite circuit in 
> Ulan Bator.  How is that resolved, by unroutable address blocks such as 
> 192.168.xx.xx is now?

Sort of.

IPv6 has a concept of "scope" that says: this address space is
purely local. This address space is global. This address space
is for a link.

If you fire up 'ip -6 address' on a stock Debian machine with
IPv6 enabled (which is the default these days), you will see
something like this:

1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 state UNKNOWN qlen 1
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

3: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 state UP qlen
1000
        inet6 2001:570:1c07:ff7:d63d:7eff:fe93:e318/64 scope
global 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::a2d3:c1ff:ce24:b122/64 scope link 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

Your loopback interface has one address with scope host: it's only on
this machine.  The eth0 has two addresses: one is scope global,
and can be used for routing to your machine from the outside
world, and one is scope link, and should only be used to talk to
your local network. IPv6 routers should never forward those
packets.

If you don't get an address block from your ISP, you won't have
a scope global address.

> What I've read so far has not addressed this serious security concern. Or 
> even mentioned it.  If in the future all addressing is by dhcpd6, how do 
> the other machines on my local net, advertise their presence to the 
> other machines on my local net. So I can still ssh -Y vna.coyote.den for 
> instance, if I can ever make ssh work to a win-10-home edition box.  
> Thats a rarely used hookup at best. Presently the hosts file duplicated 
> on all machines fill's this requirement.

Most IPv6 boxes don't use dhcpd6; they use SLAAC: stateless
automatic address configuration. But you're asking about local
naming, and that's done the same way on IPv4 and 6: zeroconf,
aka Rendezvous, Bonjour or Avahi.

Try (installing avahi-utils if needed)_  avahi-browse-domains -a

-dsr-

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

#209987

On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > But that opens yet another container of worms. If I arbitrarily
> > assign ipv6 local addresses, and later, ipv6 shows up at my side of
> > the router, what if I have an address clash with someone on a
> > satellite circuit in Ulan Bator.  How is that resolved, by
> > unroutable address blocks such as 192.168.xx.xx is now?
>
> Sort of.
>
> IPv6 has a concept of "scope" that says: this address space is
> purely local. This address space is global. This address space
> is for a link.
>
> If you fire up 'ip -6 address' on a stock Debian machine with
> IPv6 enabled (which is the default these days), you will see
> something like this:
>
> 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 state UNKNOWN qlen 1
>     inet6 ::1/128 scope host
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> 3: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 state UP qlen
> 1000
>         inet6 2001:570:1c07:ff7:d63d:7eff:fe93:e318/64 scope
> global
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>     inet6 fe80::a2d3:c1ff:ce24:b122/64 scope link
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> Your loopback interface has one address with scope host: it's only on
> this machine.  The eth0 has two addresses: one is scope global,
> and can be used for routing to your machine from the outside
> world, and one is scope link, and should only be used to talk to
> your local network. IPv6 routers should never forward those
> packets.
>
> If you don't get an address block from your ISP, you won't have
> a scope global address.
>
> > What I've read so far has not addressed this serious security
> > concern. Or even mentioned it.  If in the future all addressing is
> > by dhcpd6, how do the other machines on my local net, advertise
> > their presence to the other machines on my local net. So I can still
> > ssh -Y vna.coyote.den for instance, if I can ever make ssh work to a
> > win-10-home edition box. Thats a rarely used hookup at best.
> > Presently the hosts file duplicated on all machines fill's this
> > requirement.
>
> Most IPv6 boxes don't use dhcpd6; they use SLAAC: stateless
> automatic address configuration. But you're asking about local
> naming, and that's done the same way on IPv4 and 6: zeroconf,
> aka Rendezvous, Bonjour or Avahi.
>
> Try (installing avahi-utils if needed)_  avahi-browse-domains -a
>
> -dsr-


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#209988

On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > But that opens yet another container of worms. If I arbitrarily
> > assign ipv6 local addresses, and later, ipv6 shows up at my side of
> > the router, what if I have an address clash with someone on a
> > satellite circuit in Ulan Bator.  How is that resolved, by
> > unroutable address blocks such as 192.168.xx.xx is now?
>
> Sort of.
>
> IPv6 has a concept of "scope" that says: this address space is
> purely local. This address space is global. This address space
> is for a link.
>
> If you fire up 'ip -6 address' on a stock Debian machine with
> IPv6 enabled (which is the default these days), you will see
> something like this:
>
> 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 state UNKNOWN qlen 1
>     inet6 ::1/128 scope host
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> 3: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 state UP qlen
> 1000
>         inet6 2001:570:1c07:ff7:d63d:7eff:fe93:e318/64 scope
> global
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>     inet6 fe80::a2d3:c1ff:ce24:b122/64 scope link
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> Your loopback interface has one address with scope host: it's only on
> this machine.  The eth0 has two addresses: one is scope global,
> and can be used for routing to your machine from the outside
> world, and one is scope link, and should only be used to talk to
> your local network. IPv6 routers should never forward those
> packets.

That's if ipv6 is even propagated thru my router, running a semi-current 
dd-wrt. I've not seen a thing about ipv6 in its configuration.
 
>
> If you don't get an address block from your ISP, you won't have
> a scope global address.

I have for eth0, two scope global addresses in a new stretch install of 
an r-pi-3b, one from avahi and one from e/n/i.d/eth0, but the instant it 
goes global, it sends from the avahi address 169.etc. Since thats out of 
my local/24 domain, it of course doesn't work for global access as my 
router doesn't pass it.  As this is a hosts file local network, how can 
I turn off the avahi stuff forever?  It's screwing me up.

> > What I've read so far has not addressed this serious security
> > concern. Or even mentioned it.  If in the future all addressing is
> > by dhcpd6, how do the other machines on my local net, advertise
> > their presence to the other machines on my local net. So I can still
> > ssh -Y vna.coyote.den for instance, if I can ever make ssh work to a
> > win-10-home edition box. Thats a rarely used hookup at best.
> > Presently the hosts file duplicated on all machines fill's this
> > requirement.
>
> Most IPv6 boxes don't use dhcpd6; they use SLAAC: stateless
> automatic address configuration. But you're asking about local
> naming, and that's done the same way on IPv4 and 6: zeroconf,
> aka Rendezvous, Bonjour or Avahi.

I'd rather nuke avahi. Not the first time its been a problem child but 
usually I've been able find the right knife to neuter it. Not this 
time...

> Try (installing avahi-utils if needed)_  avahi-browse-domains -a
>
> -dsr-

Thats the entire point, with a hosts file based local net, its a 
hindrance that has become a showstopper. And short of commenting every 
line in /e/i.d/avahi-* out, I don't know how to stop that PITA from 
screw that machine up. Apparently systemctl disable avahi-daemon is NOT 
sufficient. systemctl, spit. If it can't do what its told to do, what 
good is it?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#209989

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:00:53PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> sudo apt remove avahi*

The * needs to be quoted (backslash is one form of quoting) so the
shell won't expand it.

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

#210013 — Re: SOLVED was IPv4 v IPv6 discussion that went off the rails.

On Monday 17 June 2019 01:02:54 pm Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:00:53PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > sudo apt remove avahi*
>
> The * needs to be quoted (backslash is one form of quoting) so the
> shell won't expand it.

I fixed it finally. running totally blind as I could always dd a new u-sd 
card, I removed avahi* and dhcpcd, then purely on a hunch, elided ALL 
the extra lines I had added to /e/n/i.d/eth0, leaving only the ipv4 
address/24 line and the gateway, pointed at my router.  Worked perfectly 
and has continued to for at least a dozen reboots now.

Many thanks to all who tried to help. 

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#209990

Gene Heskett wrote: 
> On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
> I have for eth0, two scope global addresses in a new stretch install of 
> an r-pi-3b, one from avahi and one from e/n/i.d/eth0, but the instant it 
> goes global, it sends from the avahi address 169.etc. Since thats out of 
> my local/24 domain, it of course doesn't work for global access as my 
> router doesn't pass it.  As this is a hosts file local network, how can 
> I turn off the avahi stuff forever?  It's screwing me up.

sudo apt remove avahi*

or

edit /etc/avahi/avahi-daemon.conf and comment out both
use-ipv4=yes                                                                        
use-ipv6=yes

> Thats the entire point, with a hosts file based local net, its a 
> hindrance that has become a showstopper. And short of commenting every 
> line in /e/i.d/avahi-* out, I don't know how to stop that PITA from 
> screw that machine up. Apparently systemctl disable avahi-daemon is NOT 
> sufficient. systemctl, spit. If it can't do what its told to do, what 
> good is it?

Indeed.

-dsr-

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

#209992

On Monday 17 June 2019 01:00:53 pm Dan Ritter wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> > I have for eth0, two scope global addresses in a new stretch install
> > of an r-pi-3b, one from avahi and one from e/n/i.d/eth0, but the
> > instant it goes global, it sends from the avahi address 169.etc.
> > Since thats out of my local/24 domain, it of course doesn't work for
> > global access as my router doesn't pass it.  As this is a hosts file
> > local network, how can I turn off the avahi stuff forever?  It's
> > screwing me up.
>
> sudo apt remove avahi*
>
> or
>
> edit /etc/avahi/avahi-daemon.conf and comment out both
> use-ipv4=yes
> use-ipv6=yes
>
didn't help, eth0 still has 2 global addresses:
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether b8:27:eb:d3:47:2d brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.168.71.12/24 brd 192.168.71.255 scope global eth0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet 169.254.163.253/16 brd 169.254.255.255 scope global eth0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

?????????????????  is it cached someplace on a r-pi-3b?

> > Thats the entire point, with a hosts file based local net, its a
> > hindrance that has become a showstopper. And short of commenting
> > every line in /e/i.d/avahi-* out, I don't know how to stop that PITA
> > from screw that machine up. Apparently systemctl disable
> > avahi-daemon is NOT sufficient. systemctl, spit. If it can't do what
> > its told to do, what good is it?
>
> Indeed.
>
> -dsr-


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#209993

Gene Heskett wrote: 
> On Monday 17 June 2019 01:00:53 pm Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:
> > >
> > > I have for eth0, two scope global addresses in a new stretch install
> > > of an r-pi-3b, one from avahi and one from e/n/i.d/eth0, but the
> > > instant it goes global, it sends from the avahi address 169.etc.
> > > Since thats out of my local/24 domain, it of course doesn't work for
> > > global access as my router doesn't pass it.  As this is a hosts file
> > > local network, how can I turn off the avahi stuff forever?  It's
> > > screwing me up.
> >
> > sudo apt remove avahi*
> >
> > or
> >
> > edit /etc/avahi/avahi-daemon.conf and comment out both
> > use-ipv4=yes
> > use-ipv6=yes
> >
> didn't help, eth0 still has 2 global addresses:
> 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
> state UP group default qlen 1000
>     link/ether b8:27:eb:d3:47:2d brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>     inet 192.168.71.12/24 brd 192.168.71.255 scope global eth0
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>     inet 169.254.163.253/16 brd 169.254.255.255 scope global eth0
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
> 
> ?????????????????  is it cached someplace on a r-pi-3b?

You'll need to reconfigure the interface afterwards. A reboot
will certainly work, if nothing less drastic.

-dsr-

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

#209994

On Monday 17 June 2019 01:00:53 pm Dan Ritter wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> > I have for eth0, two scope global addresses in a new stretch install
> > of an r-pi-3b, one from avahi and one from e/n/i.d/eth0, but the
> > instant it goes global, it sends from the avahi address 169.etc.
> > Since thats out of my local/24 domain, it of course doesn't work for
> > global access as my router doesn't pass it.  As this is a hosts file
> > local network, how can I turn off the avahi stuff forever?  It's
> > screwing me up.
>
> sudo apt remove avahi*
>
Even removing it didn't help, pings to yahoo.com are issued from the 
169.254 etc address.  So its got to be cached someplace. Damn, according 
to syslog, its dhcpcd doing it. But I'm guessing at the log times 
because the clock is AFU since ntp can't reach its pool servers anymore 
than my pings can get to yahoo.

But I just disabled dhcpcd and now the local address is unreachable.  So 
I'll have to go see wtf happened from its own keyboard. Laterz.

I need to go get a new ground drive belt for my rider, some idiot, 
probably me, put a 3/8" belt of it 3 or 4 years ago, and its supposed to 
be a 1/2" belt, this one is narrow enough to slip between the guides 
when I step on the clutch. No end to it I tell you, and excedrin has not 
assigned a headache number it, yet. :)


> or
>
> edit /etc/avahi/avahi-daemon.conf and comment out both
> use-ipv4=yes
> use-ipv6=yes
>
> > Thats the entire point, with a hosts file based local net, its a
> > hindrance that has become a showstopper. And short of commenting
> > every line in /e/i.d/avahi-* out, I don't know how to stop that PITA
> > from screw that machine up. Apparently systemctl disable
> > avahi-daemon is NOT sufficient. systemctl, spit. If it can't do what
> > its told to do, what good is it?
>
> Indeed.
>
> -dsr-


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#210037

Le 17/06/2019 à 19:00, Dan Ritter a écrit :
> 
> sudo apt remove avahi*

This may raise some dependency issues. Here :

The following packages will be REMOVED:
   adwaita-icon-theme avahi-daemon bochs bochs-term bochs-x
   ca-certificates-java colord default-jre default-jre-headless epdfview
   firefox-esr firefox-esr-l10n-fr galculator gksu gnome-icon-theme
   gnome-themes-standard gnome-themes-standard-data gparted gpicview
   gtk2-engines gvfs-backends icedove icedove-l10n-fr iceweasel
   iceweasel-l10n-fr leafpad libatk-wrapper-java-jni libavahi-client3
   libavahi-common-data libavahi-common3 libavahi-core7 libavahi-glib1 
libcups2
   libfm-gtk4 libfm-modules libgimp2.0 libgksu2-0 libglade2-0 libgtk-3-0
   libgtk-3-bin libgtk-3-common libgtk2.0-0 libgtk2.0-bin libgtkmm-2.4-1c2a
   libnm-gtk0 libnss-mdns libreoffice libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer
   libreoffice-base libreoffice-base-core libreoffice-base-drivers
   libreoffice-calc libreoffice-core libreoffice-draw libreoffice-gtk
   libreoffice-help-en-us libreoffice-impress libreoffice-math
   libreoffice-report-builder-bin libreoffice-writer libsane libsmbclient
   libvte-2.90-9 libvte9 libwnck22 lightdm lightdm-gtk-greeter lxappearance
   lxappearance-obconf lxde lxde-common lxde-core lxinput lxlauncher lxmusic
   lxpanel lxrandr lxsession lxshortcut lxtask lxterminal 
network-manager-gnome
   obconf openjdk-7-jre openjdk-7-jre-headless pcmanfm pinentry-gtk2
   policykit-1-gnome python3-uno samba-libs synaptic task-lxde-desktop
   thunderbird thunderbird-l10n-fr xarchiver xmms2-plugin-gvfs xsane
   xscreensaver

I think I'll object to removing software such as Firefox, Thunderbird, 
LXDE or LibreOffice...

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

#210038

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:39:53PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 17/06/2019 à 19:00, Dan Ritter a écrit :
> > 
> > sudo apt remove avahi*
> 
> This may raise some dependency issues. Here :
> 
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   adwaita-icon-theme avahi-daemon bochs bochs-term bochs-x
>   ca-certificates-java colord default-jre default-jre-headless epdfview
>   firefox-esr firefox-esr-l10n-fr galculator gksu gnome-icon-theme
[...]

Are you sure you used 'avahi*' and not '*avahi*' ?

wooledg:~$ dpkg -l 'firefox*' 'avahi*'
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name           Version      Architecture Description
+++-==============-============-============-===================================
un  avahi-autoipd  <none>       <none>       (no description available)
ii  avahi-daemon   0.7-4+b1     amd64        Avahi mDNS/DNS-SD daemon
un  firefox        <none>       <none>       (no description available)
ii  firefox-esr    60.7.0esr-1  amd64        Mozilla Firefox web browser - Exten

wooledg:~$ aptitude why avahi-daemon
i   cups Recommends avahi-daemon

wooledg:~$ sudo apt remove 'avahi*'
[sudo] password for wooledg: 
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting 'avahi-ui-utils' for glob 'avahi*'
Note, selecting 'avahi-daemon' for glob 'avahi*'
Note, selecting 'avahi-dnsconfd' for glob 'avahi*'
Note, selecting 'avahi-autoipd' for glob 'avahi*'
Note, selecting 'avahi-utils' for glob 'avahi*'
Note, selecting 'avahi-discover' for glob 'avahi*'
Package 'avahi-autoipd' is not installed, so not removed
Package 'avahi-discover' is not installed, so not removed
Package 'avahi-dnsconfd' is not installed, so not removed
Package 'avahi-ui-utils' is not installed, so not removed
Package 'avahi-utils' is not installed, so not removed
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  avahi-daemon libnss-mdns
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
After this operation, 407 kB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] 

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

#210040

Le 18/06/2019 à 14:46, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:39:53PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> Le 17/06/2019 à 19:00, Dan Ritter a écrit :
>>>
>>> sudo apt remove avahi*
>>
>> This may raise some dependency issues. Here :
>>
>> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>>    adwaita-icon-theme avahi-daemon bochs bochs-term bochs-x
>>    ca-certificates-java colord default-jre default-jre-headless epdfview
>>    firefox-esr firefox-esr-l10n-fr galculator gksu gnome-icon-theme
> [...]
> 
> Are you sure you used 'avahi*' and not '*avahi*' ?

Yes, but it seems that Jessie's apt does not make any difference. I had 
to write "^avahi.*" to get a result similar to yours.

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

#210442

Gene Heskett wrote on 6/17/19 11:49 AM:
> On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
[big snip!] And short of commenting every
> line in /e/i.d/avahi-* out, I don't know how to stop that PITA from
[/big snip]
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
> 

Gene;

No need for such butchery!
Just insert a statement that contains just

	exit 0

right after "SCRIPTNAME=...".

If you look around you can quickly figure out how to produce 
some suitably profane messages before the exit instruction!

Cheers to you too!
Dennis

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

#210444

On Thursday 27 June 2019 16:37:20 Dennis Wicks wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote on 6/17/19 11:49 AM:
> > On Monday 17 June 2019 10:54:19 am Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> [big snip!] And short of commenting every
>
> > line in /e/i.d/avahi-* out, I don't know how to stop that PITA from
>
> [/big snip]
>
> > Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> Gene;
>
> No need for such butchery!
> Just insert a statement that contains just
>
> 	exit 0
>
> right after "SCRIPTNAME=...".
>
> If you look around you can quickly figure out how to produce
> some suitably profane messages before the exit instruction!
>
I'm afraid I do enough of that without help. ;-)

> Cheers to you too!
> Dennis


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web