Am 16.07.2013 09:12, schrieb Michael Hennebry:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Am 15.07.2013 23:19, schrieb Michael Hennebry:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
the problem is that *three* sorts of evangelists hijacked
the original thread and changed mul
Am 15.07.2013 23:19, schrieb Michael Hennebry:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> the problem is that *three* sorts of evangelists hijacked
>> the original thread and changed multiple times the topic
>
> If they changed the subject line accordingly, what is the problem?
*tree vie
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.07.2013 23:19, schrieb Michael Hennebry:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
the problem is that *three* sorts of evangelists hijacked
the original thread and changed multiple times the topic
If they changed the subject line accordingly,
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
the problem is that *three* sorts of evangelists hijacked
the original thread and changed multiple times the topic
If they changed the subject line accordingly, what is the problem?
Do you have a mail-reader that does not show subject lines?
I've had
Hi,
> > i disagree also that it should be default disabled
> > *but* it should be disabled if you are on a network
> > with only a DHCP4 server and no DHCP6 or if you
> > have a static configuration without ipv6
> >
> > currently you get a link-local address
> >
>
> This is by design. And with ipv
Am 14.07.2013 08:53, schrieb James Hogarth:
>> It might be a good idea, then, to configure ip6tables to deny everything and
>> enable it just to be sure.
>
> And this is one of the reasons that firewalld has come about... The same rule
> (unless it specifies a family or has
> addressees in the
Am 13.07.2013 02:34, schrieb David Beveridge:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and the answer comes back to exactly this port
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching
> "On some routers where port randomizat
Am 14.07.2013 01:15, schrieb Richard Sewill:
> keep in mind that there are environemnts far outside the
> single workstation and security is *always* the big picture
> of the complete environment and the weakest piece defines
> your overall security
>
> If an administrator or a no
Am 14.07.2013 00:33, schrieb David Beveridge:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> coming up with a "link-local" address inside a network
>> which is *pure ipv4* on a server means *any* random
>> device which does the same may bypass all your firewall
>> rule since iptables
>
> i disagree also that it should be default disabled
> *but* it should be disabled if you are on a network
> with only a DHCP4 server and no DHCP6 or if you
> have a static configuration without ipv6
>
> currently you get a link-local address
>
This is by design. And with ipv6 incoming (big in A
>
>
> It might be a good idea, then, to configure ip6tables to deny everything
and enable it just to be sure.
>
And this is one of the reasons that firewalld has come about... The same
rule (unless it specifies a family or has addressees in the rule of that
family) gets applied to both protocols.
On 07/12/2013 09:36 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
coming up with a "link-local" address inside a network
which is*pure ipv4* on a server means *any* random
device which does the same may bypass all your firewall
rule ssince iptables and ip6tables are two different
services
It might be a good idea,
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.07.2013 13:07, schrieb David Beveridge:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Fernando Lozano
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If people on the users list don't agree with me, there's no point
> >> submiting to developers.
> >>
> > Well I for one
The question, should IPv6, be disabled by default, is asked of people of
the user list.
At the moment, I am on the fence.
Is there a compromise where, during the Fedora install, when the person is
asked for some network information and asked for time zone and root
password, can the question be po
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> this is childish
>
> there is a difference between well aware ipv4 and
> all sorts of firewalls and proctections configured
> or startup in a network with ipv6 enabled without
> knowing it or not configured at all
>
> coming up with a "link-l
Am 13.07.2013 13:07, schrieb David Beveridge:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Fernando Lozano
> wrote:
>>
>> If people on the users list don't agree with me, there's no point
>> submiting to developers.
>>
> Well I for one certainly don't agree with you.
> If you disable it everywhere it's t
Am 13.07.2013 01:18, schrieb poma:
>> Unfortunately those module options are currently not being honored (bug
>> already opened). Changing those defaults (specifically, disabled=1 being
>> the new default) would be a way to implement what I propose. But I guess
>> it would not be easy for Network
Am 13.07.2013 00:45, schrieb David Beveridge:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>
>> Can you give a practical example, please. I've no reason to disbelieve you,
>> but I've also never run across such a case and would like to see one.
>>
> This kind of depends on what iptables o
Am 13.07.2013 02:34, schrieb David Beveridge:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and the answer comes back to exactly this port
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching
> "On some routers where port randomizati
Am 13.07.2013 00:01, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 07/12/2013 02:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> so please read this and if possible please tell me the
>> magic where NM writes whatever in a unknown config file
>> to get rid of the ipv6-link-local address
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id
Am 12.07.2013 22:17, schrieb d...@davenjudy.org:
>>
>>
>> Am 12.07.2013 20:24, schrieb David G.Miller:
>>> Fernando Lozano lozano.eti.br> writes:
> [As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the
>>> kernel. Just the network interfaces configs
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps Fedora
Am 12.07.2013 23:33, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 07/12/2013 02:17 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>> 1. Users should be able to disable IPv6. Today they can't and this is a
>> bug that hopefully will be solved soon. I think no one ever intended
>> IPv6 to be mandatory. ;-)
>
> Actually, they can, but they
Am 12.07.2013 20:24, schrieb David G.Miller:
> Fernando Lozano lozano.eti.br> writes:
>>> [As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the
> kernel. Just the network interfaces configs
>
>
> Perhaps Fedora is the wrong distribution for you.
>
> The whole idea behind Fedor
Am 12.07.2013 19:41, schrieb Fernando Lozano:
>> hence it would be enough if "ifup" would respect the configuration
>> i can not see "just having IPv6 enabled means there is an IPv6 address"
>> below - where is there ipv6 enabled? there is even a "IPV6INIT=no"
> I have overlooked that. I'm not a
Am 12.07.2013 18:44, schrieb Fernando Lozano:
>> [As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the kernel.
>> Just the network interfaces configs
>> that should come with IPv6 disabled by default, if the user wants it should
>> be easy to enable]
>> exactly *that* is my point
Am 12.07.2013 17:49, schrieb Fernando Lozano:
> [As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the kernel.
> Just the network interfaces configs
> that should come with IPv6 disabled by default, if the user wants it should
> be easy to enable]
exactly *that* is my point
it is
ndo Lozano
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 5:50 PM
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Proposal: Fedora should install with NETWORK [was IPv6] disabled by
> default [was: Re: Disabling ipv6]
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> [As I changed the subject, let me clear: NETWORK [was:
Am 12.07.2013 16:04, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Tim said:
>> How is your firewall set up? When you allow something for IPv4, does it
>> make a corresponding rule for IPv6, at the same time. Likewise, for if
>> you block something. And I mean that in two ways, dealing with ports,
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 08:54 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> The best practices have largely been agreed to (as much as any best
> practices ever are). IPv6 is as mature as it can get until a billion
> end-users get on it. Large ISPs around the world have rolled it out
> in production. Major OSes sup
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>
> If people on the users list don't agree with me, there's no point
> submiting to developers.
>
>
Well I for one certainly don't agree with you.
If you disable it everywhere it's too much of a pain to turn it all
back on when you need it.
Hi,
>> Unfortunately those module options are currently not being honored (bug
>> already opened).
> What is written in the 'ipv6.txt' certainly works.
Have you tried?
Because there are other people on the list claiming it isn't working.
>> About binaries requiring ipv6, that's like expecting a p
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and the answer comes back to exactly this port
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching
"On some routers where port randomization is performed on a
per-outbound host basis, the ports
On 12.07.2013 23:53, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> Hi,
>> On 12.07.2013 18:44, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>> …
>>> So, ifconfig or ip or whatever would have to disable IPv6 for any
>>> interface that does not having an explicit IPv6 address. I'd think it
>>> would be easier to have the default eth*-cfg file
> This kind of depends on what iptables or firewall rules you have,
> but for a moment lets assume that you allow "related" connections on your
input.
>
> What this means is to allow anything you connect outbound to to be
> trusted to make a reverse connection back to you.
>
> So you are therefore
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>
> Can you give a practical example, please. I've no reason to disbelieve you,
> but I've also never run across such a case and would like to see one.
>
This kind of depends on what iptables or firewall rules you have,
but for a moment lets assume
Hi,
> On 12.07.2013 18:44, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> …
>> So, ifconfig or ip or whatever would have to disable IPv6 for any
>> interface that does not having an explicit IPv6 address. I'd think it
>> would be easier to have the default eth*-cfg files and Network Manager
>> disable IPv6 unless the us
On 07/12/2013 02:38 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
IMHO "have to look" should not be required by most users. IPv6 today
serves networing people. Fedora is not only for networking people, and I
from my experience most Fedora users are not networking people. Do we
have data about Fedora user demographi
Hi joe,
> On 07/12/2013 02:17 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>> 1. Users should be able to disable IPv6. Today they can't and this is a
>> bug that hopefully will be solved soon. I think no one ever intended
>> IPv6 to be mandatory. ;-)
>
> Actually, they can, but they have to take the time to configur
On 07/12/2013 02:17 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
1. Users should be able to disable IPv6. Today they can't and this is a
bug that hopefully will be solved soon. I think no one ever intended
IPv6 to be mandatory. ;-)
Actually, they can, but they have to take the time to configure the
connection i
Hi,
>> Have you checked https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982740?
> yes i have "NETWORKING_IPV6=no" since virtually forever
> in "/etc/sysconfig/network" as well as "IPV6INIT=false"
> in the interface configurations
>
> this was most time ignored
I wasn't aware this bug was so serious. P
Hi,
>> Perhaps Fedora is the wrong distribution for you.
>>
>> The whole idea behind Fedora is for it to be an "engineering proving
>> ground" where new technologies (like IPv6) are rolled out for real world
>> use.
Not all Fedora users work in the networking fields. Many are developers
who doesn't
>
>
> Am 12.07.2013 20:24, schrieb David G.Miller:
>> Fernando Lozano lozano.eti.br> writes:
[As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the
>> kernel. Just the network interfaces configs
>>
>>
>> Perhaps Fedora is the wrong distribution for you.
>>
>> The whole idea behi
On 12.07.2013 18:44, Fernando Lozano wrote:
…
> So, ifconfig or ip or whatever would have to disable IPv6 for any
> interface that does not having an explicit IPv6 address. I'd think it
> would be easier to have the default eth*-cfg files and Network Manager
> disable IPv6 unless the user tells the
Fernando Lozano lozano.eti.br> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> > [As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the
kernel. Just the network interfaces configs
Perhaps Fedora is the wrong distribution for you.
The whole idea behind Fedora is for it to be an "engineering proving
groun
Hi,
hence it would be enough if "ifup" would respect the configuration
i can not see "just having IPv6 enabled means there is an IPv6 address"
below - where is there ipv6 enabled? there is even a "IPV6INIT=no"
I have overlooked that. I'm not a Fedora developer, have to check if
IPV6INIT means wh
Hi,
[As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the kernel.
Just the network interfaces configs
that should come with IPv6 disabled by default, if the user wants it should be
easy to enable]
exactly *that* is my point
it is ridiculous that i bave a clearly static ipv4 conf
Hi,
If you got scared, why not keep the entire network down?
If you want it, sure you can enable it ;-)
By your reasoning, Fedora doesn't need to provide secure installation
defaults. Anyone could craft their own iptables rules and selinux
policies if they feed a need for better security. And
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
If you got scared, why not keep the entire network down?
If you want it, sure you can enable it ;-)
That is what I do.
If I'm using my computer and need internet access,
I just click on the start-listening icon.
Said icon then becomes a stop-lis
5:50 PM
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Proposal: Fedora should install with NETWORK [was IPv6] disabled by
default [was: Re: Disabling ipv6]
Hi Chris,
[As I changed the subject, let me clear: NETWORK [was: IPv6] still compiled in
the
kernel. Just the network interfaces configs that
Hi,
I took me time to recover this one, another more techinical content
about IPv6 security:
http://w3.antd.nist.gov/iip_pubs/Montgomery-ipv6-security-findings.doc
[]s, Fernando Lozano
Hi,
You keep talking about IPv6 security risks (over IPv4), but haven't
cited any.
While I don't know o
Hi Chris,
[As I changed the subject, let me clear: IPv6 still compiled in the
kernel. Just the network interfaces configs that should come with IPv6
disabled by default, if the user wants it should be easy to enable]
Once upon a time, Fernando Lozano said:
IPv6 has alot of "under the carpe
Hi,
NAT is a fact today, has been for years, and people have been using
Bittorrent and Skype regardless.
And sometimes they (and other applications) don't work, because of
things like layered NAT.
Fix NAT issues instead of ditch it altogether.
For home users and SMBs, NAT is something that w
Hi,
Tim:
If manufacturers and software programmers don't pull their fingers
out, we'll be faced with even more ISPs subjecting their clients to
NAT.
Fernando Lozano:
Would this be so bad? Most people at work have been working using NAT
for years. NAT increases security. Most internet users do
Once upon a time, Fernando Lozano said:
> IPv6 has alot of "under the carpet" issues because vendors fear too
> much discussion about this will delay large-scale use even more.
Again: citation needed. Without any actual issues sited, you are just
spreading FUD.
> I propose we let the billion do
Hi Chris,
The best practices have largely been agreed to (as much as any best
practices ever are). IPv6 is as mature as it can get until a billion
end-users get on it. Large ISPs around the world have rolled it out in
production. Major OSes support it out-of-the-box. If you don't even
try to
Hi,
You keep talking about IPv6 security risks (over IPv4), but haven't
cited any.
While I don't know of security risks of IPv6, itself, there is this:
If you follow IPv6 on the net you should have found lots of articles
about this, and how it affects specially home users and SMBs. Here are
so
Once upon a time, Tim said:
> How is your firewall set up? When you allow something for IPv4, does it
> make a corresponding rule for IPv6, at the same time. Likewise, for if
> you block something. And I mean that in two ways, dealing with ports,
> and addresses. I may decide to block all port
Once upon a time, Fernando Lozano said:
> I don't know there, but here ISPs are not well known for investing
> in human resources. :-( I'd guess some big corporations will really
> adopt IPv6 before most ISPs. I just don't think it's time for SMBs
> to work (fight) with IPv6, they should wait for
Hi Tim,
Many ISPs will, also, have to buy new equipment. For some of them, at
great expense. They're not going to do that unless they have to. Some
have been avoiding it just because the technicalities of it are a new
nightmare that they don't want to have to deal with (new security
issues, n
Allegedly, on or about 11 July 2013, Chris Adams sent:
> You keep talking about IPv6 security risks (over IPv4), but haven't
> cited any.
While I don't know of security risks of IPv6, itself, there is this:
How is your firewall set up? When you allow something for IPv4, does it
make a correspond
Tim:
>> If manufacturers and software programmers don't pull their fingers
>> out, we'll be faced with even more ISPs subjecting their clients to
>> NAT.
Fernando Lozano:
> Would this be so bad? Most people at work have been working using NAT
> for years. NAT increases security. Most internet use
On 07/11/2013 12:45 PM, staticsafe wrote:
Some ISPs deploy something known as CGN (Carrier-Grade NAT) due the the
IPv4 shortage, in which case if your "gateway" device at home is also
doing NAT, you have double NAT.
Gotcha. However, as my modem does NAT, I'm behind a double NAT. Maybe
I'm ju
On 07/11/2013 02:47 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> No, when both are available, IPv6 takes precedence (in general for
> modern applications that don't override the precedence); this is spelled
> out in several RFCs (can't recall the numbers). I think there is a
> global way to override this (maybe /etc/
Once upon a time, Richard Sewill said:
> I tried ping and ping6 anyway. This is NOT on an idle network.
Since ICMP and ICMPv6 are low-priority, the data is not very useful.
Also, since latency is only one component of throughput (and most
communications are not particularly sensitive to latency
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:36:10PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 12:12 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> >I've seen people with double-NAT issues before, where "special"
> >protocols like FTP or game console can't traverse the double-NAT.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you referri
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 02:20:37PM -0500, Richard Sewill wrote:
> I turned on IPv6 in my router.
>
> I am still getting 6to4 Tunnel from my ISP.
>
> Netflix is currently streaming so my network is not idle.
>
> I tried ping and ping6 anyway. This is NOT on an idle network.
>
> There remains a
On 07/11/2013 12:12 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
I've seen people with double-NAT issues before, where "special"
protocols like FTP or game console can't traverse the double-NAT.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you referring to having one
router "behind" another, with both using NAT? I
I turned on IPv6 in my router.
I am still getting 6to4 Tunnel from my ISP.
Netflix is currently streaming so my network is not idle.
I tried ping and ping6 anyway. This is NOT on an idle network.
rsewill@localhost:~ <3:3> $ ping www.google.com
PING www.google.com (74.125.227.146) 56(84) bytes
Once upon a time, Joe Zeff said:
> On 07/11/2013 11:12 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> >Use the firewall, ditch the NAT. NAT does not increase security over a
> >firewall. In some cases, NAT prevents a user from accessing the
> >Internet, rather than the other way around.
>
> Can you give a practical
On 07/11/2013 11:12 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Use the firewall, ditch the NAT. NAT does not increase security over a
firewall. In some cases, NAT prevents a user from accessing the
Internet, rather than the other way around.
Can you give a practical example, please. I've no reason to disbelieve
Once upon a time, Fernando Lozano said:
> If NAT prevents anyone from the internet to try to connect to my
> computer, this is increased security. After all, don't we configure
> firewalls exactly to prevent unwanted connections?
Use the firewall, ditch the NAT. NAT does not increase security ov
Hi,
Would this be so bad? Most people at work have been working using
NAT for years. NAT increases security. Most internet users don't
need to run servers.
NAT does NOT increase security. NAT is a combination of a stateful
firewall with a packet mangler; the security comes from the firewall,
no
Once upon a time, Fernando Lozano said:
> Would this be so bad? Most people at work have been working using
> NAT for years. NAT increases security. Most internet users don't
> need to run servers.
NAT does NOT increase security. NAT is a combination of a stateful
firewall with a packet mangler;
Hi,
On 07/10/2013 09:14 PM, ferna...@lozano.eti.br wrote:
And while we work out IPv6 and improve it, all users should be
vulnerable to current IPv6 problems? Are they supposed to be guinea pigs
for ipv6 development?
No, of course not. I never said that everybody should have IPv6
active. Wh
Hi Tim,
Many ISPs will, also, have to buy new equipment. For some of them, at
great expense. They're not going to do that unless they have to. Some
have been avoiding it just because the technicalities of it are a new
nightmare that they don't want to have to deal with (new security
issues, n
ted to HE, and their service is totally free.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Timothy Murphy [mailto:gayle...@alice.it]
Verzonden: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 07:07 PM W. Europe Standard Time
Aan: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Onderwerp: Re: Disabling ipv6
Fernando Lozano wrote:
> Given IP
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 20:30 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> It seems IPv6 sites are rather rare.
> I tried about a dozen sites in Ireland,
> including most universities,
> but only two came up positive: my own maths.tcd.ie
> and heanet.ie , which sort of runs the internet in Ireland.
Spare IPv4 add
On 07/10/2013 09:14 PM, ferna...@lozano.eti.br wrote:
And while we work out IPv6 and improve it, all users should be
vulnerable to current IPv6 problems? Are they supposed to be guinea pigs
for ipv6 development?
No, of course not. I never said that everybody should have IPv6 active.
What I d
Hi,
On 07/10/2013 06:38 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
Bottom line: you won't use IPv6 because it's better. We may find out
in
the future it's actually much worse, but we will only know when it's
as
widely use as IPv4. We all know IPv6 is inevitable given the
expansion
of the Internet, but IPv6
On 07/10/2013 06:38 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
Bottom line: you won't use IPv6 because it's better. We may find out in
the future it's actually much worse, but we will only know when it's as
widely use as IPv4. We all know IPv6 is inevitable given the expansion
of the Internet, but IPv6 is not ne
Hi,
> The last time I did this, I found IPv6 had a little more latency than
> IPv4.
> After deciding the ISP and router were still "not there", I disabled IPv6.
> I haven't tried this recently, but this thread makes me want to try again.
> Hopefully the router has better firmware and the ISP IPv6
Bill Oliver wrote:
> Would test-ipv6.com or http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php give you the
> information you want? Or are you talking about a network you are not
> connected to...
Thanks very much, very useful.
The second URL seemed to give an answer for any site I tried.
It seems IPv6 sites are
Would test-ipv6.com or http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php give you the
information you want? Or are you
talking about a network you are not connected to...
billo
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Fernando Lozano wrote:
Given IPv6 current state, where many vulnerabilities are relat
I also would like to try using IPv6 periodically.
It's only recently, my local router had a firmware upgrade to support IPv6.
The default setting for IPv6 within the router is still "Disabled".
When I change this setting to "Auto Detect",
the router gets an IPv6 address from the ISP.
The router in
Once upon a time, Timothy Murphy said:
> As a matter of interest, how can one tell if an ISP supports IPv6?
> This is slightly OT, but I often think I'd like to try using ipv6,
> but when I ask I'm given a purely theoretical reply,
> which I don't understand, usually involving SixXS.
> Are there s
Fernando Lozano wrote:
> Given IPv6 current state, where many vulnerabilities are related to
> autoconfiguration for home and small networks, and given the fact many
> ISPs still doesn't support IPv6 at all, IMHO the default setting should
> be IPv6 disabled. Any end user or sysadmin should take a
Hi,
> > > disabling IPv6 everywhere is the *right* thing to do for
> > > many companies. if you don't have the need, don't have the
> knowledge and
> > > your hardware/software doesn't support it well, IPv6 is not only
> > > overhead with no added value but also may present a significant
> securit
On Jul 9, 2013 1:59 PM, "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr."
wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2013 02:27 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 10:58 +0200, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
> >>> Once in a while I see people suggesting the disabling of IPv6 to cope
> >>> with some issue.
> >>>
> >>> M
-Original Message-
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Lozano
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 8:28 PM
To: Community support for Fedora users
Cc: Tim
Subject: Re: Disabling ipv6
Hi,
> On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 10
On 07/09/2013 02:27 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 10:58 +0200, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
>>> Once in a while I see people suggesting the disabling of IPv6 to cope
>>> with some issue.
>>>
>>> My I _kindly_ ask not to do that anymore?
>>> Even though such trick migh
Hi,
> On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 10:58 +0200, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
>> Once in a while I see people suggesting the disabling of IPv6 to cope
>> with some issue.
>>
>> My I _kindly_ ask not to do that anymore?
>> Even though such trick might take away the symptoms for you and me, it
>> is a tech
Am 09.07.2013 10:58, schrieb j.witvl...@mindef.nl:
> Hi all,
>
> Once in a while I see people suggesting the disabling of IPv6 to cope with
> some issue.
>
> My I _kindly_ ask not to do that anymore?
> Even though such trick might take away the symptoms for you and me, it is a
> technical ove
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 10:58 +0200, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
> Once in a while I see people suggesting the disabling of IPv6 to cope
> with some issue.
>
> My I _kindly_ ask not to do that anymore?
> Even though such trick might take away the symptoms for you and me, it
> is a technical overkil
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:58:59 +0200
j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
> My I _kindly_ ask not to do that anymore?
> Even though such trick might take away the symptoms for you and me, it is a
> technical overkill and only tackles the symptoms.
My main symptom is the single longest delay during the
mostl
94 matches
Mail list logo
