On 28/May/16 20:40, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> As I wrote, I only got a /112 form my ISP. This still exceeds the amount
> of addresses that I need but I decided to go for ULAs for flexibility.
>
> Anyway, it's working. :-)
I'd suggest going back to your ISP and asking for at least a
Mark Tinka [2016-05-28 14:11 +0200] :
> Why don't you have GUA IPv6 address space?
>
> Your ISP should be able to assign you a /48 or /56 prefix for you to
> use on your LAN. That's more than plenty of space.
As I wrote, I only got a /112 form my ISP. This still exceeds the amount
of addresses t
On 28/May/16 08:38, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> Thanks for repeating that. That's how I understood it as a novice too.
> :-) And that's why I thought I should not go for them. Because I don't
> have many GUAs available, I thought I should go for ULAs then.
Why don't you have GUA IPv6
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
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
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
>
> > 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
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
On 27/May/16 06:11, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> 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
On 26/May/16 21:36, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> 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 randoml
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff <
st...@niklaas.eu> wrote:
> I was eventually able to solve this issue. I asked for help on several
> mailing lists. So, for reference, here are links to the relevant
> threads:
>
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions
I was eventually able to solve this issue. I asked for help on several
mailing lists. So, for reference, here are links to the relevant
threads:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2016-May/271810.html
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2016-May/045349.html
https://w
16 matches
Mail list logo
