On 2024 Jun 04 (Tue) at 12:46:11 +0300 (+0300), Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
:
:On 04/06/2024 11:59, Stuart Henderson wrote:
:> On 2024-06-04, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
:>> On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
: When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's
just
:
On 04/06/2024 11:59, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2024-06-04, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
>> On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's
just
not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
Hi,
On 04/06/2024 09:50, jrmu wrote:
When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
request at least 1x/56.
Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and he gave me a larger subnet,
2602:fccf:4::/48, I've
On 2024-06-04, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
> On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
>>> When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
>>> not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
>>> request at least 1x/56.
>> Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and
On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
>> When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
>> not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
>> request at least 1x/56.
> Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and he gave me a larger subnet,
>
> 2602:fccf:4::/48,
> When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
> not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
> request at least 1x/56.
Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and he gave me a larger subnet,
2602:fccf:4::/48, I've been experimenting it by manually
On 2024/05/21 20:30, jrmu wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> > > I also don't control the entire /48.
> > >
> > > Here is the information I was given:
> > >
> > > My IPv6 Address Subnet: 2602:fccf:400:41::/64
> > > Hypervisor' IPv6 Gateway: 2602:fccf:400::1
> > >
> > > I was only given a /64.
> >
> > So
Greetings,
> > I also don't control the entire /48.
> >
> > Here is the information I was given:
> >
> > My IPv6 Address Subnet: 2602:fccf:400:41::/64
> > Hypervisor' IPv6 Gateway: 2602:fccf:400::1
> >
> > I was only given a /64.
>
> So you should use a /64 prefix length not the /48 which you
.
On 21/05/2024 22:04, jrmu wrote:
Greetings,
Here is my configuration:
Inside hypervisor:
hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
inet 104.167.241.211 0xffc0
inet6 2602:fccf:400:41:: 48
Why are you using 48 as mask here and not 64?
I don't have control over the hypervisor's gateway,
On 2024-05-21, jrmu wrote:
>
> --qhuug7BO2jqFJSbi
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Greetings,
>
>> > Here is my configuration:
>>=20
>> > Inside hypervisor:
>>=20
>> > hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
>>
Greetings,
> > Here is my configuration:
>
> > Inside hypervisor:
>
> > hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
> > inet 104.167.241.211 0xffc0
> > inet6 2602:fccf:400:41:: 48
>
> Why are you using 48 as mask here and not 64?
I don't have control over the hypervisor's gateway, that is provided
Hi
On 21/05/2024 04:01, jrmu wrote:
> Here is my configuration:
> Inside hypervisor:
> hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
> inet 104.167.241.211 0xffc0
> inet6 2602:fccf:400:41:: 48
Why are you using 48 as mask here and not 64?
Here is a suggestion in term of routing.
From your
Greetings,
I'm running into issues with IPv6 networking using vmm with an openbsd guest,
both running OpenBSD 7.5. Setup and diagnostic info here:
https://paste.ircnow.org/05ejwpmf4hi74xuz0h2n
I am setting up an openbsd virtual machine inside vmm using this
configuration:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:10 PM Irshad wrote:
> I have following setup at home ,I am sharing internet
> with neighbour , our ISP provides IPV6
> With 2001:16a2:cdd2:xx00::/56 prefix delegation , until now I was only using
> IPv4 NAT with following setup
>
>
Hi
I have following setup at home ,I am sharing internet
with neighbour , our ISP provides IPV6
With 2001:16a2:cdd2:xx00::/56 prefix delegation , until now I was only using
IPv4 NAT with following setup
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 05:21:53PM -0700, Max Parmer wrote:
> I've been having a good time running some VMD guests on 6.2 and assigning them
> external IPs which are binat'd to them by the VM host. Recently I learned my
> hosting provider delegates a /64 to it's dedicated boxes and thought this
>
I've been having a good time running some VMD guests on 6.2 and assigning them
external IPs which are binat'd to them by the VM host. Recently I learned my
hosting provider delegates a /64 to it's dedicated boxes and thought this might
be an interesting scenario to improve, and possibly simplify,
Em 25-07-2015 11:50, Stuart Henderson escreveu:
Actually that's fine, a point-to-point interface can be unnumbered,
or in the case of IPv6, it can just have a link-local address.
In my case I don't have a ppp interface, my CPE talks to my OpenBSD
firewall through normal LAN.
DHCPv6 PD would
On 2015-06-26, Christian Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de wrote:
On 2015-06-26, Giancarlo Razzolini grazzol...@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently changed my ISP and they have native IPv6. My customer
premises equipment, which is a GPON, supports both stateless as DHCPv6
on it's LAN interface.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 03:07:41PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
[...]
This would explain why you see neighbour solicitations on the outside
interface. The upstream router is not aware that the prefix should be
routed to you.
[...]
I've also seen something similar. A friend of mine suggested
Em 26-06-2015 10:43, Gregor Best escreveu:
I've also seen something similar. A friend of mine suggested [0], though
I haven't tried it. I circumvented my problem by using a routed /64 on a
Hurricane Electric tunnel.
I wouldn't like to use a tunnel, since my ISP is (kind of) providing
native
that the prefix should be
routed to you.
--
Patrik Lundin
- Original message -
From: Giancarlo Razzolini grazzol...@gmail.com
To: Openbsd-Misc misc@openbsd.org
Subject: IPV6 routing issue
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:06:51 -0300
HI all,
I've recently changed my ISP and they have native
Em 26-06-2015 10:43, Gregor Best escreveu:
https://github.com/DanielAdolfsson/ndppd
This doesn't compile on OpenBSD. I'm correcting it's includes and
headers, but it seems it's linux centric. I'll probably need to change
it's code.
I've found some other tools but it seems almost all of them
Em 26-06-2015 10:07, Patrik Lundin escreveu:
I have struggled with a similar problem a few years back. Can it be that
the upstream equipment does not create a route for the delegated prefix
pointing to your openbsd machine?
This would explain why you see neighbour solicitations on the outside
Em 26-06-2015 16:17, Christian Weisgerber escreveu:
So you have TWO networks. One between the CPE and your OpenBSD
firewall, and one containing the firewall and your internal machines.
Yes. Two interfaces, to be more exactly.
So you get ONE network address.
I get a prefix on the CPE. And
On 2015-06-26, Giancarlo Razzolini grazzol...@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently changed my ISP and they have native IPv6. My customer
premises equipment, which is a GPON, supports both stateless as DHCPv6
on it's LAN interface. I want to put a OpenBSD firewall between this CPE
and my
On 2015-06-26, Giancarlo Razzolini grazzol...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if OpenBSD does have any NDP proxying functionality,
besides the one in ndp(8). But it seems to me that, besides a bridge, a
NDP proxy is the only viable solution (besides my ISP allowing me to
change my router
Em 26-06-2015 16:44, Christian Weisgerber escreveu:
Well, you can add an IPv6 address for each internal host to the
external interface of your firewall, use private addresses on the
internal network, and then use pf's binat to map between the two.
This will preserve port numbers, although it may
HI all,
I've recently changed my ISP and they have native IPv6. My customer
premises equipment, which is a GPON, supports both stateless as DHCPv6
on it's LAN interface. I want to put a OpenBSD firewall between this CPE
and my internal network. I'm using OpenBSD 5.7 stable. My CPE receive
A bit late perhaps, but this is how I do it :
route add -inet6 -net $PREFIX:: -prefixlen 48 -interface ::1 -reject
Of course, you have to set PREFIX to the prefix you want to reject.
After this, all routes you add should be more specific (smaller
prefix) so should work anyway.
I add this line
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 09:41:35PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote:
BTW: Don't forget to route the prefix to lo at the last hop so that any
unassigned subnets don't cause the packet to be bounced back up to the
default route.
Could you explain how to do that on OpenBSD please ?
Perhaps my box is
BTW: Don't forget to route the prefix to lo at the last hop so that any
unassigned subnets don't cause the packet to be bounced back up to the
default route.
Could you explain how to do that on OpenBSD please ?
Perhaps my box is misconfigured... :p
TIA,
Denis
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 10:37:27AM +0100, Michael wrote:
Hi,
I've got trouble adding a IPv6 route to the routing table. Looked at the
man pages and searched the web but that didn't help.
I've got a setup like this
[ISP A]---
|---[router]
[ISP B]---
[ISP A] and [ISP B]
Michael wrote:
Hi,
I've got trouble adding a IPv6 route to the routing table. Looked at the
man pages and searched the web but that didn't help.
I've got a setup like this
[ISP A]---
|---[router]
[ISP B]---
[ISP A] and [ISP B] are ALIX boxes and [router] is another box I
Hi,
Claudio Jeker schrieb:
The man page does not mention that you can use CIDR notation for IPv6.
Use -prefixlen instead that will work:
route add -inet6 2a01:198:xxx:: -repfixlen 48 2a01:198:yyy::3
Thanks, that worked. :-)
# route add -inet6 2a01:198:xxx:: -prefixlen 48 2a01:198:yyy::3
add
Hi,
I've got trouble adding a IPv6 route to the routing table. Looked at the
man pages and searched the web but that didn't help.
I've got a setup like this
[ISP A]---
|---[router]
[ISP B]---
[ISP A] and [ISP B] are ALIX boxes and [router] is another box I where
want to add the
Hello list,
I'm playing with IPv6 in 3.8 and came up to this strange problem.
My IPv6 connectivity is given by a broker (xs26.net) and I have set up a gif
interface to use it (gif0):
/etc/hostname.gif0 contains:
tunnel SIS0IPv4 BROKERIPv4
inet6 IPv6PREFIX::1
!route add -inet6 default
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:57:05PM +0100, Olivier Mehani wrote:
Hello list,
I'm playing with IPv6 in 3.8 and came up to this strange problem.
My IPv6 connectivity is given by a broker (xs26.net) and I have set up a gif
interface to use it (gif0):
/etc/hostname.gif0 contains:
tunnel
38 matches
Mail list logo
