Hi,
I was alerted to a practical deployment problem. As a result Linux
glibc has started prefering IPv4 by default... so, I believe we need
to find a better solution.
1) v6 site-local address selection problems
A site has deployed IPv6 site-local addresses (alongside with NATed
v4). They
Le Mardi 9 Mai 2006 17:27, Pekka Savola a écrit :
1) v6 site-local address selection problems
I assume you refer to the deprecated but Linux kernel-supported
site-local fec0::/12 address space (not sure if it is /12 - but
anyway).
A site has deployed IPv6 site-local addresses (alongside with
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 17:27 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Likewise, requiring that routers will always send back an ICMP error
and the host gets it and honors it seems unfeasible in general.)
That's the ideal case, of course -- but there is unfortunately still
software out there (and, more to the
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 17:49 +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
Where is DNS in this picture? How did you get the v6 address that
didn't work?
Public DNS for hosts which have both and A records. www.kame.net,
for example.
From an internal network as described (RFC1918 IPv4 addresses with
global
Eliot makes a good point about DNS. This sounds like a perfect case for
split DNS, to maintain isolation of both the (private) inside of the NAT
point and the site local addresses from the public Internet. What
people see on DNS inside should be reachable from the inside, but what
they see on
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Walt Lazear wrote:
It sounds like the site in question has a single DNS and it's
telling outsiders about private stuff that should not be allowed to
escape.
Exactly the opposite. To solve this problem using split DNS, the DNS
resolvers at the site would need to BLOCK any
