Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-12 Thread David V
Vadtec wrote: > Yes, I know about IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES. My goal was to provision an entire > range > automatically. I will handle the issue with a PHP CLI script run from rc.local > to provision the IPs as needed. > > Thanks for all the help. > > Vadtec > vad...@vadtec.net Hey I think I found

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-12 Thread Vadtec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David V wrote: > Filipe Brandenburger wrote: > >> Shouldn't it be something like this? >> IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES="2001:0470:0103:001A::3/64 >> 2001:0470:0103:001A::4/64 2001:0470:0103:001A::5/64 >> 2001:0470:0103:001A::6/64 2001:0470:0103:001A::7/64 >>

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-12 Thread David V
Filipe Brandenburger wrote: > Shouldn't it be something like this? > IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES="2001:0470:0103:001A::3/64 > 2001:0470:0103:001A::4/64 2001:0470:0103:001A::5/64 > 2001:0470:0103:001A::6/64 2001:0470:0103:001A::7/64 > 2001:0470:0103:001A::8/64" > > HTH, > Filipe Thanks Felipe and Shawn

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-12 Thread Shawn O'Shea
Filipe Brandenburger wrote: > I really doubt that this will work with this exact syntax, as these > are Bourne shell variable assignments and each of them will overwrite > the previous one... > > Shouldn't it be something like this? > IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES="2001:0470:0103:001A::3/64 > 2001:0470:010

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-12 Thread Filipe Brandenburger
Hi, On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 09:07, David V wrote: > Hey I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but even if a range is not > allowed you can still have as many IPV6_SECONDARIES lines as you want, i.e. > IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES="2001:0470:0103:001A::3/64" > IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES="2001:0470:0103:001A::

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-12 Thread David V
Vadtec wrote: > Indeed it doesn't. Guess I'm just out of luck for the time being. Maybe the > support will be added soon enough. > > Thanks for your help. > Hey I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but even if a range is not allowed you can still have as many IPV6_SECONDARIES lines as you w

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-11 Thread Vadtec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Louis Lagendijk wrote: > the file /usr/share/doc/initscripts-8.45.25/sysconfig.txt does NOT > mention the - for ranges either, so I guess you are out of luck. > Louis > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-11 Thread Filipe Brandenburger
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:49, Vadtec wrote: > So can anyone offer any insight into this? See my reply at the bottom of the > message. I never used IPv6, so I don't know if that applies to IPv6 too or to IPv4 only. In IPv4 it is possible to assign a whole range to a specific machine by addin

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-11 Thread Louis Lagendijk
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 14:46 -0500, Vadtec wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ok, firstly, I have dropped using the alias notation and am now working solely > on eth0. > > Secondly, yes, I am talking about provisioning more than *one* IP at a time as > being a "range". >

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-11 Thread Vadtec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ok, firstly, I have dropped using the alias notation and am now working solely on eth0. Secondly, yes, I am talking about provisioning more than *one* IP at a time as being a "range". As for IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES, when I use the following config: /etc

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-11 Thread Louis Lagendijk
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:49 -0500, Vadtec wrote: > >>> > >>> A few months back, I tried to use the network scripts to provision an > >>> IPv6 range > >>> like can be done with IPv4. I was using CentOS 5.2 at the time and was > >>> informed > >>> that 5.2 was broken in this regard. I have upgraded

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-11 Thread Vadtec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So can anyone offer any insight into this? See my reply at the bottom of the message. Vadtec vad...@vadtec.net Vadtec wrote: > Louis Lagendijk wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:08 -0500, Vadtec wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash:

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-10 Thread Vadtec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Louis Lagendijk wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:08 -0500, Vadtec wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> A few months back, I tried to use the network scripts to provision an IPv6 >> range >> like can be done with IPv4. I wa

Re: [CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-10 Thread Louis Lagendijk
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:08 -0500, Vadtec wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > A few months back, I tried to use the network scripts to provision an IPv6 > range > like can be done with IPv4. I was using CentOS 5.2 at the time and was > informed > that 5.2 was broken in t

[CentOS] IPv6 range provisioning question

2009-06-10 Thread Vadtec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A few months back, I tried to use the network scripts to provision an IPv6 range like can be done with IPv4. I was using CentOS 5.2 at the time and was informed that 5.2 was broken in this regard. I have upgraded to CentOS 5.3 now and I am trying to ge