on public IP on port 464
https://forums.opensuse.org/t/access-denied-between-windows-member-samba-adc-mit-krb5/144742
listening on IPv6 localhost [::1]:464 only
sudo ss -tupln | grep 464
udp UNCONN 0 0[::1]:464 [::]:*
users:(("kdc[maste
On 2023-01-08 08:14, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
and see the difference in behavior. When using "all", the second
round (IPv4) says that bind returns 1 unexpectedly, and the port is
also unexpected. When using "localhost", both IPv6 and IPv4 succeed
and listen to the same
On 08/01/2023 16:14, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
On 07/01/2023 01.38, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2023-01-06 06:17, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
I have a program that is supposed to listen to the same port on both
IPv4 and IPv6 sockets. In the past, what it did, was basically:
create new socket for
On 07/01/2023 01.38, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2023-01-06 06:17, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
I have a program that is supposed to listen to the same port on both
IPv4 and IPv6 sockets. In the past, what it did, was basically:
create new socket for IPv6, set option IPV6_V6ONLY to off, bind,
listen
On 2023-01-06 06:17, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
I have a program that is supposed to listen to the same port on both
IPv4 and IPv6 sockets. In the past, what it did, was basically:
create new socket for IPv6, set option IPV6_V6ONLY to off, bind,
listen; then create a new socket for IPv4, and
On 06/01/2023 18.59, Barry wrote:
On 6 Jan 2023, at 14:18, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
I have a program that is supposed to listen to the same port on both IPv4 and
IPv6 sockets. In the past, what it did, was basically: create new socket for
IPv6, set option IPV6_V6ONLY to off, bind
> On 6 Jan 2023, at 14:18, Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
>
> I have a program that is supposed to listen to the same port on both IPv4
> and IPv6 sockets. In the past, what it did, was basically: create new socket
> for IPv6, set option IPV6_V6ONLY to off, bind, listen; th
I have a program that is supposed to listen to the same port on both
IPv4 and IPv6 sockets. In the past, what it did, was basically: create
new socket for IPv6, set option IPV6_V6ONLY to off, bind, listen; then
create a new socket for IPv4, and also bind and listen. The first bind
is either
On 26/06/2021 21:13, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
@RobertPC ~]# mount -v -t nfs -o vers=3,proto=udp6
[2600:1702:4860:9dd0::2d]:/mnt/HD/HD_a2/mcstuffy /mnt/mcstuffy
mount.nfs: timeout set for Sat Jun 26 09:10:45 2021
mount.nfs: trying text-based options
'vers=3,proto=udp6,addr=2600:1702:4860:
On 6/25/21 8:41 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 25/06/2021 11:51, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
mount.nfs: requested NFS version or transport protocol is not supported
Is this your server?
https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_gb/assets/public/wd/product/nas/my_cloud/ex2
On 6/25/21 4:02 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 24/06/2021 01:58, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 6/22/21 11:54 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
[root@meimei ~]# nmap -sS -6 -p 2049 2001:b030:112f:2::53
Starting Nmap 7.80 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2021-06-23 14:47 CST
Nmap scan report for 2001:b030:112f:2::53
Host is up
s not
open, or that the firewall is blocking access with a REJECT action.
OK, good to know, thanks. I don't think I've encountered that which may
explain my ignorance.
And nmap isn't necessary to establish this, since the logs already provided included a
"connection ref
On 25/06/2021 11:51, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
mount.nfs: requested NFS version or transport protocol is not supported
Is this your server?
https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_gb/assets/public/wd/product/nas/my_cloud/ex2_ultra/user-manual-my-cloud-expert-seri
tstat command showed that port 111 has a listen. That is
the first contact your client makes with
the server. The server then tells your client what ports to contact to
complete the request.
You can see this when I connect to NFS server via IPv6 after the mount process
tells me to use
mount.nf
: timeout set for Mon Jun 21 06:42:25 2021
mount.nfs: trying text-based options
'vers=4.2,addr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1,clientaddr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look
for a listening port
.168.1.239 prog 13 vers 3 prot TCP port 2049
mount.nfs: prog 15, trying vers=3, prot=17
mount.nfs: trying 192.168.1.239 prog 15 vers 3 prot UDP port 37811
Is there a way to tell ipv6 mount to use prot UDP port 37811?
You can try
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ sudo mount -t nfs -o vers=3
1.239 prog 13 vers 3 prot TCP port 2049
mount.nfs: prog 15, trying vers=3, prot=17
mount.nfs: trying 192.168.1.239 prog 15 vers 3 prot UDP port 37811
Is there a way to tell ipv6 mount to use prot UDP port 37811?
You can try
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ sudo mount -t nfs -o vers=3
[2001
: timeout set for Mon Jun 21 06:42:25 2021
mount.nfs: trying text-based options
'vers=4.2,addr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1,clientaddr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look
for a listening port
cking
access with a REJECT action.
And nmap isn't necessary to establish this, since the logs already
provided included a "connection refused" response to the IPv6 mount attempt.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
And you may also want to run nmap, as root, from your fedora system
nmap -sS -6 The-IPV6-address-here
and just to be sure of IPv4
nmap -sS The-IPV4-address-here
FWIW,
[root@meimei ~]# nmap -sS -6 -p 2049 2001:b030:112f:2::53
Starting Nmap 7.80 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2021-06-23 14:51
mount.nfs: trying text-based options
'vers=4.2,addr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1,clientaddr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look
for a listening port with an IPv6 address, like:
tcp
mount.nfs: trying text-based options
'vers=4.2,addr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1,clientaddr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look for a
listening port with an IPv6 address, like:
tcp
,addr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1,clientaddr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look
for a listening port with an IPv6 address, like:
tcp LISTEN 0 64 [::]:2049 [::]:*
2: Does your fire
,addr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1,clientaddr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look for a
listening port with an IPv6 address, like:
tcp LISTEN 0 64 [::]:2049 [::]:*
Oh, and BTW,
,addr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1,clientaddr=fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look for a
listening port with an IPv6 address, like:
tcp LISTEN 0 64 [::]:2049 [::]:*
2: Does your fire
:f005::ec1'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Connection refused
1: Is the nfs port open on ipv6? Use "ss -ln | grep :2049" and look for
a listening port with an IPv6 address, like:
tcp LISTEN 0 64 [::]:2049 [::]:*
2: Does your firewall allow access to port 2049 on IPv6?
On 22/06/2021 07:34, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:25:23 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
Could you define a bit more what you mean by "name resolution"? Or are you
thinking about
the Stateless IP assignment I mention in a different reply?
I have no idea :-). Maybe what I read about had s
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:25:23 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Could you define a bit more what you mean by "name resolution"? Or are you
> thinking about
> the Stateless IP assignment I mention in a different reply?
I have no idea :-). Maybe what I read about had something to do with mdns
providing sy
On 22/06/2021 00:48, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:37:56 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention that your IPv6 addresses appear to be Dynamically
assigned IP
addresses. Meaning they are not "fixed" and may change. Not the best for uses
in a
client/server e
On 22/06/2021 02:36, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
On 6/21/21 12:37 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 22/06/2021 00:35, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 21/06/2021 22:47, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Web interface. It shows
IPv6 IP Address
fe80::200:1eb5:75df:b84:98d1 , 2600:1702:4860:9dd0:21d:60ff:fe35
On 6/21/21 12:37 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 22/06/2021 00:35, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 21/06/2021 22:47, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Web interface. It shows
IPv6 IP Address
fe80::200:1eb5:75df:b84:98d1 ,
2600:1702:4860:9dd0:21d:60ff:fe35:b813/64
exports configuration is "*"
The
On 6/21/21 8:17 AM, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Trying to connect to NAS with nfs using the ipv6 addressing.
@RobertPC ~]#ping fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1
PING fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1(fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.120 ms
64 bytes from
> On 21 Jun 2021, at 17:48, Tom Horsley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:37:56 +0800
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> Oh, I forgot to mention that your IPv6 addresses appear to be Dynamically
>> assigned IP
>> addresses. Meaning they are not "fixed" and
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:37:56 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Oh, I forgot to mention that your IPv6 addresses appear to be Dynamically
> assigned IP
> addresses. Meaning they are not "fixed" and may change. Not the best for
> uses in a
> client/server environment.
On 22/06/2021 00:35, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 21/06/2021 22:47, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Web interface. It shows
IPv6 IP Address
fe80::200:1eb5:75df:b84:98d1 , 2600:1702:4860:9dd0:21d:60ff:fe35:b813/64
exports configuration is "*"
Then the IPv6 address you want to use is 2600
On 21/06/2021 22:47, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Web interface. It shows
IPv6 IP Address
fe80::200:1eb5:75df:b84:98d1 , 2600:1702:4860:9dd0:21d:60ff:fe35:b813/64
exports configuration is "*"
Then the IPv6 address you want to use is 2600:1702:4860:9dd0:21d:60ff:fe35:b813
--
Re
On 6/21/21 10:16 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 21/06/2021 22:06, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
On 6/21/21 9:49 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 21/06/2021 21:17, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Trying to connect to NAS with nfs using the ipv6 addressing.
@RobertPC ~]#ping fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1
PING
On 21/06/2021 22:06, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
On 6/21/21 9:49 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 21/06/2021 21:17, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Trying to connect to NAS with nfs using the ipv6 addressing.
@RobertPC ~]#ping fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1
PING fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1(fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1) 56
On 6/21/21 9:49 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 21/06/2021 21:17, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Trying to connect to NAS with nfs using the ipv6 addressing.
@RobertPC ~]#ping fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1
PING fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1(fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1: icmp_seq
On 21/06/2021 21:17, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
What is needed to get the ipv6 connection?
Oh, and of course, you'll need the appropriate entry in the server's exports
file.
--
Remind me to ignore comments which aren't german
On 21/06/2021 21:17, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Trying to connect to NAS with nfs using the ipv6 addressing.
@RobertPC ~]#ping fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1
PING fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1(fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.120 ms
64 bytes from
Trying to connect to NAS with nfs using the ipv6 addressing.
@RobertPC ~]#ping fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1
PING fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1(fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.120 ms
64 bytes from fd2e:cb3b:f005::ec1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.100 ms
64
How and where does NetworkManager track prefixes from Router Announcements?
I recently changed my router advertisement to remove a prefix which previously
had a 24 hour expiration on it. I thought I would be able to manually remove
the removed prefix before expiration from the appropriate conne
On 30.12.2020 05:58, Chris Adams wrote:
You cannot have NAT without the
exact same state tracking and ALGs of a stateful firewall.
guess why it is easier to break through NAT than through a stateful
firewall ...
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
That seems to me to
offer an additional layer of protection for devices on my network, they
don't have externally routeable addresses. I think that is not true if I
turn on v6. Is this correct?
There is no NAT for IPv6, but that's a feature.
indeed, there is no need for NAT, but you
On 29.12.2020 07:10, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 29/12/2020 12:44, Tim via users wrote:
The key issue is "need." I'm unaware of anything, so far, that
actually needed IPv6. As yet, I think everything is still accessible
through IPv4 (which is probably why my ISP is dragging their
Once upon a time, Tim via users said:
> On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 08:32 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > There is no NAT for IPv6, but that's a feature. NAT doesn't really
> > add any security; NAT is a combination of two things: a stateful
> > firewall (which gives y
On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 08:32 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> There is no NAT for IPv6, but that's a feature. NAT doesn't really
> add any security; NAT is a combination of two things: a stateful
> firewall (which gives you the protection) and a packet mangler (which
> causes no
On 30/12/2020 06:26, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 12/29/20 7:10 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 29/12/2020 12:44, Tim via users wrote:
The key issue is "need." I'm unaware of anything, so far, that
actually needed IPv6. As yet, I think everything is still accessible
through IPv4 (which
On 12/29/20 7:10 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 29/12/2020 12:44, Tim via users wrote:
The key issue is "need." I'm unaware of anything, so far, that
actually needed IPv6. As yet, I think everything is still accessible
through IPv4 (which is probably why my ISP is dragging their
(top-posted to match the original OP)
Unless you are explicitly configuring more-public addresses on your IPv6
connections, your upstream gateway machine, router or switch should be
providing link-local addresses to anything local. All switches are
required not to forward link-local
ffer an additional layer of protection for devices on my network, they
> don't have externally routeable addresses. I think that is not true if I
> turn on v6. Is this correct?
There is no NAT for IPv6, but that's a feature. NAT doesn't really add
any security; NAT is
* because it
> > expects a an ipv6 stack these days?
>
> The Fedora IP stack used to stall for several seconds in several
> previous releases. The normal workaround for that was to disable IPv6,
> causing pretty massive speedups. That problem went away at about Fedora
> 32 or 31.
On 2020-12-28 7:51 p.m., Jorge Fábregas wrote:
Is there a known application/service that might *misbehave* because it
expects a an ipv6 stack these days?
The Fedora IP stack used to stall for several seconds in several
previous releases. The normal workaround for that was to disable IPv6
On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 14:10 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> When I first configured the tunnel I didn't "need" it either. But
> since the tunnel was free I figured it was a good opportunity
> experiment with it and learn about IPv6.
Fair enough. I've been putting of
On 29/12/2020 12:44, Tim via users wrote:
The key issue is "need." I'm unaware of anything, so far, that
actually needed IPv6. As yet, I think everything is still accessible
through IPv4 (which is probably why my ISP is dragging their heels on
making IPv6 work).
When I first
Tim:
>> To use IPv6 web services I'd need an IPv4 - IPv6 tunnel that's
>> hosted outside of my ISP. I don't have a need for that, so I'm not
>> going to pay for one.
Ed Greshko:
> Hurricane Electric tunnels are free.
>
> https://www.tunnelbroker
On 29/12/2020 10:19, Tim via users wrote:
To use IPv6 web services I'd need an IPv4 - IPv6 tunnel that's hosted
outside of my ISP. I don't have a need for that, so I'm not going to
pay for one.
Hurricane Electric tunnels are free.
https://www.tunnelbroker.net/
And t
On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 20:51 -0400, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> For a while (for a more than 10 Fedora releases) I used to disable
> IPv6 because I don't use it. It's been a while since I don't but I'm
> about to disable it again on my new installation.
>
> Is the
On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 20:51:46 -0400
Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> Is there a known application/service that might *misbehave* because it
> expects a an ipv6 stack these days?
I always disable it because I'm convinced it confuses comcast :-).
The only thing I've ever noticed are occas
Hi,
For a while (for a more than 10 Fedora releases) I used to disable IPv6
because I don't use it. It's been a while since I don't but I'm about
to disable it again on my new installation.
Is there a known application/service that might *misbehave* because it
expects a an i
I intend to use systemd-nspawn for various services. Host is a Fedora 32 box.
So far everything works except for IPv6 accessibility from outside my subnet.
So I guess the configuration of the gateway is wrong.
What I did:
- on host in /etc/systemd/nspawn/test.nspawn:
[Network]
VirtualEthernet
After a successful "dnf systemd upgrade" F30->F31, I'm finding that a few of my
machines which use systemd-networkd instead of NetworkManager are no longer
autoconfiguring IPv6 addresses. I also noticed that even though NetworkManager
is disabled, it is initiated in early b
On 03/07/18 11:23, Ed Greshko wrote:
> And this is running
>
> /sbin/dhclient -d -q -6
Ah, Hah!
After a time that process exited. And this did show up in the journal.
Mar 07 11:20:37 f27gq.greshko.com NetworkManager[740]: [1520392837.1581]
dhcp6 (enp0s3): state changed unknown -> timeout
t /sbin/dhclient
> was ever
> started and it isn't running.
>
> So, if your router is configured for "stateful (dhcp)" it is possible it won't
> simultaneously support "stateless". Therefore I would try...
>
> IPV6_AUTOCONF=no
> DHCPV6C=yes
&
On 03/07/18 07:04, Chris Caudle wrote:
> Could be the case that AUTOCONF and DHCPv6 are mutually exclusive now.
> I have a CentOS 7.4 machine which seems to be running correctly with both
> IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes and DHCPV6C=yes, but that distribution has dhclient
> provided by dhclient-4.2.5-58.el7.c
On 03/07/18 07:04, Chris Caudle wrote:
> Could be the case that AUTOCONF and DHCPv6 are mutually exclusive now.
> I have a CentOS 7.4 machine which seems to be running correctly with both
> IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes and DHCPV6C=yes, but that distribution has dhclient
> provided by dhclient-4.2.5-58.el7.c
Could be the case that AUTOCONF and DHCPv6 are mutually exclusive now.
I have a CentOS 7.4 machine which seems to be running correctly with both
IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes and DHCPV6C=yes, but that distribution has dhclient provided
by dhclient-4.2.5-58.el7.centos.1 and Fedora 27 is using rhclient from
d
On 03/07/18 03:50, Chris Caudle wrote:
> I am looking for some help getting IPv6 configured properly on a Fedora 27
> system.
> I have one system which was installed fresh with Fedora 27, that system is
> working properly, it receives both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses assigned by my
>
I am looking for some help getting IPv6 configured properly on a Fedora 27
system.
I have one system which was installed fresh with Fedora 27, that system is
working properly, it receives both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses assigned by my
router (running latest LEDE release).
I have a second system which
Running current Fedora 25.
How should I supersede the nameserver when using IPV6 and dhclient?
If I enable IPV6, my dhclient.conf doesn't work as I'd expect, it works as
expected
if only IPV4 is enabled.
I have this:
# cat /etc/dhclient-enp6s0.conf
supersede domain-name-servers
Has anyone tried making an openvpn connection with the gateway specified as an
IPv6
address?
It makes no difference if I give the IPv6 address as it, enclose it with the
standard
[ ] characters, or with quotes, the connection will fail immediately. If I
give it a
DNS entry which contains only
On 6/26/17 11:47 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
* In this case the ISP "doesn't support" IPv6 meaning that it's not
there, rather than they simply won't give any help with it.
Stephen Morris:
Yeah, my ISP has told me I should disable any attempts to use IPv6 on
my system as th
Tim:
>> * In this case the ISP "doesn't support" IPv6 meaning that it's not
>> there, rather than they simply won't give any help with it.
Stephen Morris:
> Yeah, my ISP has told me I should disable any attempts to use IPv6 on
> my system as they do not
On 4/10/17 3:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 10 April 2017, Stephen Morris sent:
am I correct in understanding that you are saying that even
though I have IPv6 set to link-local, that IPv6 is still being
attempted across the internet gateway, and in my case because my ISP
doesn&#
On 4/10/17 9:01 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/10/17 06:39, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/10/17 05:33, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Rick, am I correct in understanding that you are saying that
even though I have IPv6 set to link-local, that IPv6 is still being
attempted across the internet gateway, and
That sounds like old-school:
Under traditional "Dual-stack" the intended procedure was indeed first to try
IPv6, and only when it fails, THAN to try legacy Ipv4.
It was thought that (network) administrators would take their responsibility
seriously ;-(
Last February, @FOSDEM-RTC-devr
Allegedly, on or about 10 April 2017, Stephen Morris sent:
> am I correct in understanding that you are saying that even
> though I have IPv6 set to link-local, that IPv6 is still being
> attempted across the internet gateway, and in my case because my ISP
> doesn't support IP
On 04/10/17 06:39, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 04/10/17 05:33, Stephen Morris wrote:
>> Thanks Rick, am I correct in understanding that you are saying that
>> even though I have IPv6 set to link-local, that IPv6 is still being
>> attempted across the internet gateway, and in m
On 04/10/17 05:27, Stephen Morris wrote:
> If I use your suggestion to disable IPv6, that was in the thread for
> the person that is having trouble accessing sites with Firefox, will
> that cause the IPv6 not ready messages to start appearing in the boot
> log again?
No. If you
On 04/10/17 05:33, Stephen Morris wrote:
> Thanks Rick, am I correct in understanding that you are saying that
> even though I have IPv6 set to link-local, that IPv6 is still being
> attempted across the internet gateway, and in my case because my ISP
> doesn't support IPv6, I
On 4/7/17 10:17 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 04/06/2017 02:45 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 4/6/17 9:20 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/06/17 06:57, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi Ed, just as a side issue to this, because my ISP (I don't know
about my VPN provider) IPv6 at all for anything, I was se
vider) IPv6 at all for anything, I was setting IPv6 to
'ignore' via Networkmanager in KDE (Gnome doesn't seem to have the
same options) but that was causing messages in the logs at boot time
about IPv6 not being ready. How do we stop the network from attempting
to activate IPv6 and
On 04/07/17 08:17, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 02:45 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
>> On 4/6/17 9:20 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> On 04/06/17 06:57, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>>> Hi Ed, just as a side issue to this, because my ISP (I don't know
>>>> abo
On 04/06/2017 02:45 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 4/6/17 9:20 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 04/06/17 06:57, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>> Hi Ed, just as a side issue to this, because my ISP (I don't know
>>> about my VPN provider) IPv6 at all for anything, I was
On 4/6/17 9:20 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/06/17 06:57, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi Ed, just as a side issue to this, because my ISP (I don't know
about my VPN provider) IPv6 at all for anything, I was setting IPv6 to
'ignore' via Networkmanager in KDE (Gnome doesn't seem to h
-Original Message-
From: Ed Greshko [mailto:ed.gres...@greshko.com]
Sent: donderdag 6 april 2017 11:47
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: Is there a way to stop ipv6 leakage without turning off ipv6?
On 04/06/17 15:53, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
> Remember that V6
;
> I was expecting that it would be countries like CN and CU where visitors
> would be confronted with an IPv6-only situation.
> However, last February I found out that our appliance didn't work, because of
> IPv6-only. Here, in Europe, just some miles away in Belgium, Brussels.
&
See below
-Original Message-
From: Ed Greshko [mailto:ed.gres...@greshko.com]
Sent: donderdag 6 april 2017 1:20
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: Is there a way to stop ipv6 leakage without turning off ipv6?
On 04/06/17 06:57, Stephen Morris wrote:
> Hi Ed, just a
On 04/06/17 06:57, Stephen Morris wrote:
> Hi Ed, just as a side issue to this, because my ISP (I don't know
> about my VPN provider) IPv6 at all for anything, I was setting IPv6 to
> 'ignore' via Networkmanager in KDE (Gnome doesn't seem to have the
> same option
On 4/2/17 8:22 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/01/17 21:42, William Oliver wrote:
I'm using Fedora 25 on an HP laptop with KDE. I commonly use a VPN
service, but it leaks ipv6 addresses. This seems to be a common
problem with VPN and ipv6, from what I've read on the internet.
So, I
On 04/03/17 08:29, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> You really need to configure your VPN to also tunnel IPv6. Get into
> the habit. IPv6 is actually being effectively deployed. The more you
> delay, the more issues you will have.
I guess this comment was meant for me. Well, I would con
On 04/01/2017 06:22 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/01/17 21:42, William Oliver wrote:
I'm using Fedora 25 on an HP laptop with KDE. I commonly use a VPN
service, but it leaks ipv6 addresses. This seems to be a common
problem with VPN and ipv6, from what I've read on the internet.
Yes, use your firewall to drop all
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
> Op 2 apr. 2017 om 00:25 heeft Ed Greshko het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 04/01/17 21:42, William Oliver wrote:
>> I'm using Fedora 25 on an HP laptop with KDE. I commonly use a VPN
>> serv
On 04/01/17 21:42, William Oliver wrote:
> I'm using Fedora 25 on an HP laptop with KDE. I commonly use a VPN
> service, but it leaks ipv6 addresses. This seems to be a common
> problem with VPN and ipv6, from what I've read on the internet.
>
> So, I've turned off
I'm using Fedora 25 on an HP laptop with KDE. I commonly use a VPN
service, but it leaks ipv6 addresses. This seems to be a common
problem with VPN and ipv6, from what I've read on the internet.
So, I've turned off ipv6 for my wireless interface, and that seems to
solve the pr
I think I figured out the dual address bit. The address with the 64 bit
mask is SLAAC and the address with the 128 bit mask is DHCPv6-assigned.
Then the question is, are there any gotchas with DHCPv6? Should I
change my setup or leave it as is?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject
On 04/25/2016 11:43 PM, Tim wrote:
My ethernet port has a LAN 192.168.. address, and two IPv6
addresses, one appears to be the same kind of role as 192.168 kind of
IPv4 addresses, assigned by my router
I should have been more clear. I'm not referring to the link-local
fe80:: address whi
;s my take on it, anyway. Based upon what I see when I look my
addresses. My ethernet port has a LAN 192.168.. address, and two IPv6
addresses, one appears to be the same kind of role as 192.168 kind of
IPv4 addresses, assigned by my router, the other appears to be related
to my ISP, with a "glo
On most of the networks where I have hosts, the Ethernet interface has
an inet6 address with a 64 bit netmask and flags "scope global
noprefixroute dynamic."
On a Comcast Business network, though, my hosts have one inet6 address
with a 64 bit netmask and the same flags, plus another inet6 add
1 - 100 of 471 matches
Mail list logo
