-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Ipv6 for the content provider From: Simon Perreault <simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca> To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:48:34 AM > On 2011-01-31 12:38, Blake Hudson wrote: >> I was under the impression that the later versions of 5 (e.g. 5.5, 5.6) >> had backported stateful connection tracking. Has anyone tested recently? > The command > > # ip6tables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT > > works on CentOS 5.5. And there's no documentation for it in "man > ip6tables". So it fits the backport hypothesis... > > Simon I guess the next question is whether or not it actually works correctly....
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Antonio Querubin
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Jared Mauch
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Randy McAnally
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Dale W. Carder
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Charles N Wyble
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Randy McAnally
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Lamar Owen
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Blake Hudson
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Simon Perreault
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Blake Hudson
- Re: Ipv6 for the content prov... Randy McAnally
- Re: Ipv6 for the content prov... Lamar Owen
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Jack Bates
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Antonio Querubin
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Antonio Querubin
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Mark Andrews