Mark Tinka [2016-05-27 23:57 +0200] :
> On 27/May/16 21:02, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > This is fine, but why not use link-local for the VPN links? That's
> > the primary reason for them.
>
> That's really not good advice.
>
> I'd caution against using link-local addresses for any type of
> serv
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209758
Giuliano changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |Closed
Resolution|---
On 27/May/16 21:02, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> This is fine, but why not use link-local for the VPN links? That's the
> primary reason for them.
That's really not good advice.
I'd caution against using link-local addresses for any type of service.
Link-local addresses are used for host-to-host co
On 27/May/16 21:30, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> Is it? I didn't know that I can use link-local addresses for the VPN
> too. How do I decide between link-local or unique-local addresses for
> the VPN? What do I make the decision dependent on?
Don't do it!
For any service, use GUA's. A
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209758
--- Comment #13 from Giuliano ---
(In reply to Giuliano from comment #12)
SOLVED.
What I did:
- I follow the steps showed in the link below (until the Step 3).
https://github.com/freenas/freenas-build/wiki/FreeNAS-9.10---10-%E2%80%94-Setti
Kevin Oberman [2016-05-27 12:02 -0700] :
> This is fine, but why not use link-local for the VPN links? That's the
> primary reason for them. (N.B. I am not aware of your architectural
> details, and ULAs for the VPNs might be appropriate.)
Is it? I didn't know that I can use link-local addresses
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff <
nikl...@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu> wrote:
> Kevin Oberman [2016-05-26 21:11 -0700] :
>
> > The most valid use is when you can only get a /64 from your provider.
>
> I got a /112 for each of my virtual servers... So, I decided to go for
>
Okay, so ya, I'm stupid. The MTU won't change w/ ifconfig on the
command line because of the lagg/bridge. The real issue seems to be
ifconfig ordering, eg:
ifconfig_cxgbe0="mtu 9000 toe4 toe6 up"
Works
ifconfig_cxgbe0="toe4 toe6 mtu 9000 up"
Does NOT. So that's what was biting me in the butt
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204735
ykir...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ykir...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209758
--- Comment #12 from Giuliano ---
(In reply to Stephen Hurd from comment #11)
Dear Stephen,
single-quote makes fetch command works. But the patch command ask for 'File to
patch:' and I have no idea what to type. Is it possible to have a ne
> > I don't see any problem using ULA with for instance /124 netmask:
> [...]
> > 96 bit works too:
> [...]
>
> FreeBSD version? Mine is 10.3-RELEASE-p3.
lab1 is 10.3-PRERELEASE r297313M
lab2 is 10.2-STABLE r288601M
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
sth...@nethelp.no [2016-05-27 08:53 +0200] :
> I don't see any problem using ULA with for instance /124 netmask:
[...]
> 96 bit works too:
[...]
FreeBSD version? Mine is 10.3-RELEASE-p3.
Dunno. Could be that I made some mistake but I also tried the setup with
/96 and adding the route to the tap0
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209758
--- Comment #11 from Stephen Hurd ---
(In reply to Giuliano from comment #9)
Add single-quotes around the URL or escape the question mark:
cd /usr/src
fetch -o - 'https://bz-attachments.freebsd.org/attachment.cgi?id=170681' |
patch -p1
-
On Friday, May 27, 2016, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:23:02AM -0700, K. Macy wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2016, Navdeep Parhar > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:57:34AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > > > In article <
> > > cajpshy4vf5ky6guausloorogiquyd2cc
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:23:02AM -0700, K. Macy wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2016, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:57:34AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > > In article <
> > cajpshy4vf5ky6guausloorogiquyd2ccrmvxu8x3carqrzx...@mail.gmail.com
> > > you write:
> > >
> > >
On Thursday, May 26, 2016, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:57:34AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <
> cajpshy4vf5ky6guausloorogiquyd2ccrmvxu8x3carqrzx...@mail.gmail.com
> > you write:
> >
> > ># ifconfig -m cxgbe0
> > >cxgbe0: flags=8943
> >
> > ># ifconfig cxgbe0
Kevin Oberman [2016-05-26 21:11 -0700] :
> There are a lot of excellent reasons to avoid ULAs. There are a very
> few good, or even so-so reasons to use them. The most commonly cited
> reason is security which is almost always wrong. In almost 20 years of
> working with IPv6 I have yet to see any
> > Here lies the first problem. It seems that it's not legitimate to assign
> > /96 subnets when using unique local addresses (ULAs). I was right
> > getting some /48 subnet for my local IPv6 network; some easy way to get
> > one generated randomly is http://unique-local-ipv6.com/ . But instead of
18 matches
Mail list logo
