On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:36:06PM +0200, alwin wrote:
> the faithd daemon als looks quit cool, although it maps the other way
> around, it will be usefull when you have an ipv6 only network.
"When faithd receives TCPv6 traffic, faithd will relay the TCPv6 traffic
to TCPv4."
Hmm, sounds
alwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> anyway, thanks for the good suggestions, i will have a look at apache2
> (since i'm running svn too, this might be a good idea), or else i will
> simply drop ipv6 for the http
Alternatively, use a different server program. bozohttpd, lighttpd,
and thttpd are in
Olivier Mehani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you can find interesting having a look at faithd(8) which,
> however, relies on an optional feature which is not compiled* in GENERIC
> kernels (pseudo-device faith 1 in sys/config/GENERIC).
Another trick you can play is spawning nc(1) from inetd(
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 01:32:20PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 12:48:06PM +0200, alwin wrote:
> > i have a webserver and i'm using ipv6 and ipv4 addresses. the apache
>
> Brian.
hmm yes, the ipv6 address wont fit in the ipv4 space, the other way
around would work but it w
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 12:48:06PM +0200, alwin wrote:
> i have a webserver and i'm using ipv6 and ipv4 addresses. the apache
> server in openbsd does not support ipv6 so i tought i will use pf to nat
> the ipv6 address to the ipv4 address for port 80. but pf for some reason
> does not supp
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 12:48:06PM +0200, alwin wrote:
> i have a webserver and i'm using ipv6 and ipv4 addresses. the apache
> server in openbsd does not support ipv6 so i tought i will use pf to nat
> the ipv6 address to the ipv4 address for port 80. but pf for some reason
> does not support this
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And as mentioned, you can always apply the 1.3 patches if you don't like
>> going that route. (I still actually don't understand why those patches
>> are not integrated yet in the default 1.3 tree, probably has something
>
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And as mentioned, you can always apply the 1.3 patches if you don't like
> going that route. (I still actually don't understand why those patches
> are not integrated yet in the default 1.3 tree, probably has something
> to do with 'no new features' or j
Lars NoodC)n wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> Stop exactly there.
>> Upgrade to either Apache 2.x or patch your Apache 1.3 with IPv6 patches.
>
> Is there a conveniently chrooted version (port or package) of
> Apache2.x? Or is chrooting the new version entirely up to whoever
> installs it? It's
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Stop exactly there.
> Upgrade to either Apache 2.x or patch your Apache 1.3 with IPv6 patches.
Is there a conveniently chrooted version (port or package) of
Apache2.x? Or is chrooting the new version entirely up to whoever
installs it? It's not difficult, it's just more
alwin wrote:
> hi misc mailinglist users,
>
> i have a webserver and i'm using ipv6 and ipv4 addresses. the apache
> server in openbsd does not support ipv6
Stop exactly there.
Upgrade to either Apache 2.x or patch your Apache 1.3 with IPv6 patches.
Don't even THINK further of going where you th
hi misc mailinglist users,
i have a webserver and i'm using ipv6 and ipv4 addresses. the apache
server in openbsd does not support ipv6 so i tought i will use pf to nat
the ipv6 address to the ipv4 address for port 80. but pf for some reason
does not support this.
i added the following rule to /e
12 matches
Mail list logo
