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
On 03/07/18 11:16, Ed Greshko wrote:
> 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 dhcli
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
> router (running la
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 which is
On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 21:20 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I'm a little confused about the details here. Why are my hosts
> getting multiple addresses with different prefixes?
Multiple addresses assigned to the same host, some world-applicable,
others LAN addressing.
That's my take on it, anyway
On 03/27/2014 07:28 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 03/27/2014 03:40 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 03/27/2014 09:50 AM, Robert Moskowitz issued this missive:
This is from a Fedora 20 client testing to a Centos 6.5 server.
I can do a ping6 with no problems, but I cannot 'ssh
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 03/27/2014 03:40 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 03/27/2014 09:50 AM, Robert Moskowitz issued this missive:
This is from a Fedora 20 client testing to a Centos 6.5 server.
I can do a ping6 with no problems, but I cannot 'ssh -6' to the server
(ssh -4 works). I have reas
Just 'forgot' which vlan this server was on internally, so I set the
rules on the wrong vlan.
Well back to your regularly programmed...
On 03/27/2014 03:55 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 03/27/2014 03:40 PM, poma wrote:
On 27.03.2014 20:35, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 03/27/2014 12:50 PM, Ro
On 03/27/2014 03:40 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 03/27/2014 09:50 AM, Robert Moskowitz issued this missive:
This is from a Fedora 20 client testing to a Centos 6.5 server.
I can do a ping6 with no problems, but I cannot 'ssh -6' to the server
(ssh -4 works). I have reason to suspect the challen
On 03/27/2014 03:40 PM, poma wrote:
On 27.03.2014 20:35, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 03/27/2014 12:50 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
This is from a Fedora 20 client testing to a Centos 6.5 server.
I can do a ping6 with no problems, but I cannot 'ssh -6' to the server
(ssh -4 works). I have reaso
On 27.03.2014 20:35, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> On 03/27/2014 12:50 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> This is from a Fedora 20 client testing to a Centos 6.5 server.
>>
>> I can do a ping6 with no problems, but I cannot 'ssh -6' to the server
>> (ssh -4 works). I have reason to suspect the challen
On 03/27/2014 09:50 AM, Robert Moskowitz issued this missive:
This is from a Fedora 20 client testing to a Centos 6.5 server.
I can do a ping6 with no problems, but I cannot 'ssh -6' to the server
(ssh -4 works). I have reason to suspect the challenge is in my PPPoE
link with a restricted MTU s
On 03/27/2014 12:50 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
This is from a Fedora 20 client testing to a Centos 6.5 server.
I can do a ping6 with no problems, but I cannot 'ssh -6' to the server
(ssh -4 works). I have reason to suspect the challenge is in my PPPoE
link with a restricted MTU size that v6
I have had some success in identifying the root cause of this. Today, IPv6
broke again, and I had some spare time to debug it.
It seems as though NetworkManager is setting up an IPv6 default route via
em1, even though I had em1 disabled.
Earlier, I had two default routes. One via em1, another via
On 01/28/14 21:25, Ed Greshko wrote:
> I don't know how to determine the origin of "Invalid address for specified
> address family" and/or why a "(IPv6 Commit) scheduled" is happening about
> every 10 seconds.
Never mind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048046
I blame the "late
Hi Wolfgang,
I'm not using dhclient6, or dhcpv6 at all on the subnets I connect to.
Checking my system I don't see dhclient6 running. Sounds like a similar
problem though.
I might try the updated policy package mentioned in your bz - but only if
the changelog seems like it might help.
Thanks
O
Dan Irwin writes:
> Seeing significant issues with IPv6. After some time, IPv6 completely
> seems to stop working. IPv4 is unaffected.
I'm seeing an IPv6 breakage in NetworkManager/dhclient6 too. At first
it looked like an Selinux problem (there was an avc), but fixing that
didn't stop the prob
Allegedly, on or about 22 January 2014, Dan Irwin sent:
> Seeing significant issues with IPv6. After some time, IPv6 completely
> seems to stop working. IPv4 is unaffected.
Check the mailing list archives, I seem to recall a similar situation
being described not that long ago.
--
[tim@localhost
I have no problems with latest NetworkManager and IPv6 (configured as
static address)
2014/1/22 Dan Irwin :
> Hi all,
>
> Seeing significant issues with IPv6. After some time, IPv6 completely seems
> to stop working. IPv4 is unaffected.
>
> Re-connecting to wifi seems to restore IPv6 connectivity.
Ever checked MTU? I had to go down to 1450 on the workstation On the
IPv6 router it is 1480.
suomi
On 2014-01-22 03:14, Dan Irwin wrote:
Hi all,
Seeing significant issues with IPv6. After some time, IPv6 completely
seems to stop working. IPv4 is unaffected.
Re-connecting to wifi seems to re
Mike Wright wrote:
Hi all,
Anybody need a good laugh at somebody else's expense?
I screwed up a dns address and pointed it to China (1.something) instead of
unrouteable (10.something). A very *short* time later I was suddenly some sort
of server for whomever in the world was looking for .CN, m
El mar, 03-01-2012 a las 15:13 +0800, Hiisi escribió:
> Dumb question: do you have networking service enabled?
> Sorry for top-posting, I'm using cellphone to post to the list.
You are right, I thought the old network service should start the
interfaces not controlled by NetworkManager, but I see
- Original Message -
From: Hiisi
Sent: 01/03/12 09:13 AM
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: IPv6 tunnel doesn't start on boot
Dumb question: do you have networking service enabled? Sorry for top-posting,
I'm using cellphone to post to the list. On 03/01/
Dumb question: do you have networking service enabled?
Sorry for top-posting, I'm using cellphone to post to the list.
On 03/01/2012, Juan wrote:
> Hello, I have configured a IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel with tunnelbroker.net as
> seen here:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_setup_tunnel_broker_via_H
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 17:29 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 19:00 +, nu...@gmx.com wrote:
> > replying from my phone BB OS 5 doesn't let you interleave or bottom
> > post
>
> I don't believe you. Are you seriously expecting us to believe that you
> have no way to reposition the curs
Community support for Fedora users
Onderwerp: Re: ipv6
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 19:00 +, nu...@gmx.com wrote:
> replying from my phone BB OS 5 doesn't let you interleave or bottom
> post
I don't believe you. Are you seriously expecting us to believe that you
have no wa
On 12/22/2011 02:59 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 19:00 +, nu...@gmx.com wrote:
>> replying from my phone BB OS 5 doesn't let you interleave or bottom
>> post
> I don't believe you. Are you seriously expecting us to believe that you
> have no way to reposition the cursor?
>
Well, I d
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 18:40 +, nu...@gmx.com wrote:
> Loads of options in IPv6 tunnelling: tunnelbroker.net (hurricane
> electric), sixxs.net, ...
> You get your own ::/64 global subnet (or ::/48 if you prefer).
> Basically anyone can get a global v6 address. Even with a dynamic IPv4
> address.
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 19:00 +, nu...@gmx.com wrote:
> replying from my phone BB OS 5 doesn't let you interleave or bottom
> post
I don't believe you. Are you seriously expecting us to believe that you
have no way to reposition the cursor?
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9
adresses for easier access and voila!
-Original Message-
From: Reindl Harald
Sender: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:44:38
To:
Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: ipv6
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
:
> Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
> Subject: Re: ipv6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
basically only have to
maintain one firewall (ip6tables).
-Original Message-
From: Reindl Harald
Sender: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:30:39
To:
Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: ipv6
--
users mailing list
users
lto:nu...@gmx.com]
> Verzonden: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 05:30 PM
> Aan: Community support for Fedora users
> Onderwerp: Re: ipv6
>
> In /etc/sysconfig/network
> Add the line:
> IPV6_NETWORKING=no
>
> Don't know why you'd disable it though, IPv6 is such a beaut
On 21.12.2011 17:27, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /etc/modprobe.d/disable-ipv6.conf
>> options ipv6 disable=1
>> options net-pf-10 disable=1
>
> The ipv6 module is now built-in to the kernel. This won't work.
this DOES work because it did never p
+1
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: nu...@gmx.com [mailto:nu...@gmx.com]
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 05:30 PM
Aan: Community support for Fedora users
Onderwerp: Re: ipv6
In /etc/sysconfig/network
Add the line:
IPV6_NETWORKING=no
Don't know why you'd disable it th
Rich Boyce wrote:
This takes affect after a reboot. There's another command you can use to
make this work immediately, but it escapes me right now.
# sysctl -p
However, I would say it is best to put the disable lines in the network
scripts.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Reindl Harald wrote:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /etc/modprobe.d/disable-ipv6.conf
options ipv6 disable=1
options net-pf-10 disable=1
The ipv6 module is now built-in to the kernel. This won't work.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
h
On 21.12.2011 15:58, Andrea Bencini wrote:
> I installed Fedorara 16 without GUI (command line). I would like disable ipv6.
> Can you help me?
> Andrea
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /etc/modprobe.d/disable-ipv6.conf
options ipv6 disable=1
options net-pf-10 disable=1
signature.asc
Description: Ope
On 21/12/11 16:00, Steven Stern wrote:
> On 12/21/2011 09:58 AM, Andrea Bencini wrote:
>> I installed Fedorara 16 without GUI (command line). I would like disable
>> ipv6.
>> Can you help me?
>> Andrea
>
> system-config-network or just edit
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-yournetworkadapte
You also might want to disable IPv6INIT in your adapters (ie, = no),
In /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*
--Original Message--
From: Andrea Bencini
Sender: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
ReplyTo: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: ipv6
In /etc/sysconfig/network
Add the line:
IPV6_NETWORKING=no
Don't know why you'd disable it though, IPv6 is such a beautiful thing... ;)
Sorry for top-posting, replied from my BB phone
--Original Message--
From: Andrea Bencini
Sender: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To: us
On 12/21/2011 09:58 AM, Andrea Bencini wrote:
> I installed Fedorara 16 without GUI (command line). I would like disable ipv6.
> Can you help me?
> Andrea
system-config-network or just edit
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-yournetworkadapter
--
-- Steve
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fed
On 10/28/2011 08:37 PM, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
> According to most recent RFCs IPv6 addresses starting with 0xFD are
> considered unique local addresses. This is more or less equivalent
> to the IPv4 private addresses.
>
> I have the following IPv6 address configured on eth0
>
> fd00:::41/32
>
On Sunday, January 02, 2011 05:40:00 pm Genes MailLists wrote:
>How does one manage your internal ip6 network so that an ISP change
> (which under NAT/ipv4 is irrelevant) - is straightforward/clean to manage ?
Somehow I missed this message that started the whole thread... Shame on me.
There a
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 11:27 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> On 1/8/11 11:16 AM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
- snip -
> > Oh lord WHY can we NOT make this myth go away?!?! The IPv6 spec does
> > NOT mandate the USE of IPsec. It only mandates the SUPPORT of IPsec.
> > To be IPv6 compliant you must
On 01/08/2011 01:16 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
. Best practices in IPv4 are not
> (necessarily) best practices in IPv6 and vice versa.
>
I'd love to see a best practices writeup on ipv6 ...
since you point out ignorance is one of the problems (self confessed
participant in that but am
On 1/8/11 11:16 AM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 10:57 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
>> On 1/3/11 6:44 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>>> On 01/03/2011 06:31 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
There is a wide spread myth that NAT and the fact that you are on
different addresse
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 10:57 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> On 1/3/11 6:44 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
> > On 01/03/2011 06:31 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> >> There is a wide spread myth that NAT and the fact that you are on
> >> different addresses some how bestows upon you some measure of secur
On 1/3/11 6:44 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 06:31 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>> There is a wide spread myth that NAT and the fact that you are on
>> different addresses some how bestows upon you some measure of security.
>> As a leading security researcher, let me impress upon you
On Thursday, January 06, 2011 06:22:06 pm Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> You're just talking nameology here with this. Call it what you want,
> there is still a state engine at the heart of the NAT driving the NAT
> mappings.
Sent a reply off-list, as this type of discussion is really off-topic f
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 13:30 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 07:51:19 pm Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:26 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > I refer in particular to Cisco IOS NAT, IOS 12.4(23) mainline on a
> > > 7206/NPE-G1, using NAT pools and ove
On Thursday, January 06, 2011 01:30:45 pm Lamar Owen wrote:
> That is, given the NAT translation table snippet:
>
> tcp 10.10.10.10:52650 192.168.1.118:52650 74.125.67.99:8074.125.67.99:80
> tcp 10.10.10.10:1769 192.168.1.166:1769 74.125.67.99:8074.125.67.99:80
>
> And assuming no other t
On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 07:51:19 pm Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:26 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > I refer in particular to Cisco IOS NAT, IOS 12.4(23) mainline on a
> > 7206/NPE-G1, using NAT pools and overloading. Incoming packets
> > addressed to the outside interf
--- Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 17:40 -0500, Genes MailLists
> wrote:
> >How does one manage your internal ip6 network
> so that an ISP change
> > (which under NAT/ipv4 is irrelevant) - is
> straightforward/clean to
> > manage ?
>
> The simple answer is *DNS*.
>
> Only the [Kerber
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:26 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:52:42 pm Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > You have the exact same situation if you use IPv4 and NAT. The outside
> > system
> > has the IPv4 of your router, and can use that IP to scan for any open port
> > on
> >
On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:52:42 pm Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> You have the exact same situation if you use IPv4 and NAT. The outside system
> has the IPv4 of your router, and can use that IP to scan for any open port on
> your inside machine. Namely, once your NAT-ed machine initiates the
>
On 01/04/2011 11:52 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 January 2011 01:44:36 Robert Nichols wrote:
>> On 01/03/2011 06:31 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>> The problem that I see is that any system to which I have ever made a
>> connection now has a nice, routable IPv6 address back to the m
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 19:44 -0600, Robert Nichols wrote:
> The problem that I see is that any system to which I have ever made a
> connection now has a nice, routable IPv6 address back to the machine
> that made the connection and can start probing that machine to see if
> any vulnerable services m
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 21:46 -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 07:31:37PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > The IPv6 firewalls on Linux are just as good as the IPv4 firewalls. I
> > didn't start participating in IPv6 until I had decent firewalls. But
> > that was 10 years ago
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 07:31:37PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> The IPv6 firewalls on Linux are just as good as the IPv4 firewalls. I
> didn't start participating in IPv6 until I had decent firewalls. But
> that was 10 years ago now at this point. That's old old news.
That's not my conce
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 19:44 -0600, Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 06:31 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > There is a wide spread myth that NAT and the fact that you are on
> > different addresses some how bestows upon you some measure of security.
> > As a leading security researcher, let
On 01/03/2011 06:31 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> There is a wide spread myth that NAT and the fact that you are on
> different addresses some how bestows upon you some measure of security.
> As a leading security researcher, let me impress upon you that nothing
> could be further from the truth
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 18:09 -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:14:58PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > NAT is a vile and evil abomination which was created in a half assed
> > effort to extend the life of IPv4.
> Are you really proposing that all IPv6 addresses for LANs b
On 01/03/2011 06:09 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:14:58PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>> NAT is a vile and evil abomination which was created in a half assed
>> effort to extend the life of IPv4.
>
> Are you really proposing that all IPv6 addresses for LANs be exposed to
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:14:58PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> NAT is a vile and evil abomination which was created in a half assed
> effort to extend the life of IPv4.
Are you really proposing that all IPv6 addresses for LANs be exposed to
the Internet? That's what I think I'm reading.
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 11:00 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 01:55 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On 01/02/2011 04:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >> How does one manage your internal ip6 network so that an ISP change
> >> (which under NAT/ipv4 is irrelevant) - is straightforw
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 21:01 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 08:54 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the simplest approach is to use a router appliance that groks
> >> IPv6 for the WAN, and IPv4 for the LAN. On a Linux system, if you want
> >> it to be your firewall--and a
On 01/03/2011 01:55 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 04:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> How does one manage your internal ip6 network so that an ISP change
>> (which under NAT/ipv4 is irrelevant) - is straightforward/clean to manage ?
>>
>
> At the moment I use radvd and update
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 12:55:03AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> I hate to spoil your fun, but I have my internal network receiving IPv6
> addresses. I wouldn't have it any other way. :)
*Shrug*. Strokes. As long as you're not flooding the Internet with
your internal IP addresses, good on
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 17:40 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>How does one manage your internal ip6 network so that an ISP change
> (which under NAT/ipv4 is irrelevant) - is straightforward/clean to
> manage ?
The simple answer is *DNS*.
I don't email or web browse to numerical IP addresses. No
On 01/02/2011 04:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> How does one manage your internal ip6 network so that an ISP change
> (which under NAT/ipv4 is irrelevant) - is straightforward/clean to manage ?
>
At the moment I use radvd and update my DNS entries in my local bind server.
--
users mailing
On 01/02/2011 05:33 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Frankly, I don't expect most, if any, internal LANs to cut over to IPv6.
> There's no reason or point, and a lot of headaches. Instead, it should
> become the standard*outside* your router/firewall, and you can stay
> with IPv4 inside.
I hate to spoil
On Sunday, January 02, 2011 04:40:00 pm Genes MailLists wrote:
> There was some earlier discussion (mainly about NAT being now
> irrelevant in the face of ipv6).
>
> Question for you experts:
>
>How does one manage your internal ip6 network so that an ISP change
> (which under NAT/ipv4 is
On 01/02/2011 08:54 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>> Probably the simplest approach is to use a router appliance that groks
>> IPv6 for the WAN, and IPv4 for the LAN. On a Linux system, if you want
>> it to be your firewall--and a lot of us are hard-headed enough to do
>> so--I'd put in two NICs an
On 01/02/2011 06:33 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 06:19:48PM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> This issue must have a simple solution surely noone would design a
>> spanking new world and then make it hard for a not uncommon situation
>> (new isp) ?
>
> Well, think again. There
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 06:19:48PM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> This issue must have a simple solution surely noone would design a
> spanking new world and then make it hard for a not uncommon situation
> (new isp) ?
Well, think again. There are reasons people are dragging their feet
going to
On 01/02/2011 06:11 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 06:08 PM, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>> There was some earlier discussion (mainly about NAT being now
>>> irrelevant in the face of ipv6).
>>>
>>> Question for you experts:
>
On 01/02/2011 06:08 PM, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> There was some earlier discussion (mainly about NAT being now
>> irrelevant in the face of ipv6).
>>
>> Question for you experts:
>>
>> How does one manage your internal ip6 network s
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> There was some earlier discussion (mainly about NAT being now
> irrelevant in the face of ipv6).
>
> Question for you experts:
>
> How does one manage your internal ip6 network so that an ISP change
> (which under NAT/ipv4 is irrelevant)
Andrea Bencini tin.it> writes:
>
> I installed F14 in text mode.
> I would like disable IPV6 from all interfaces
> How can I do?
> Thanks
> Andrea
# cat /etc/sysctl.conf
net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6=1
JB
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscr
At the end of your /etc/sysconfig/network write:
NETWORKING_IPV6=no
Save.
After that you can reload the network service.
I don't know how to disable it through NetworkManager, but I guess it will
be obvious :)
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Andrea Bencini wrote:
> I installed F14 in text mo
On 08/03/2010 08:28 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> What am I missing?
Missing the -6 switch. Delete my thread. I'm off to hang my head in shame.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo
On 08/03/2010 08:28 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> What am I missing?
1) Pardon the HTML.
2) I forgot to add that IPv4 UDP works fine.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
G
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 09:26 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I wanna play with IPv6 on my LAN, for self-education purposes. My upstream
> is IPv4 only, so, for now, I just one to play with IPv6 on my LAN.
>
> I figured out that, by default, each network interface gets automatically
> brought up w
88 matches
Mail list logo
