Penned by Stephan A. Rickauer on 20081219 16:44.47, we have:
| On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 08:13 -0600, t...@fries.net wrote:
| > | > Wrong. Try this instead:
| > | >
| > | > rdr pass inet6 proto tcp from lan:network -> lan port 8081
| > |
| > | > You cannot redirect to `::', a wildcard address. Yo
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 08:13 -0600, t...@fries.net wrote:
> | > Wrong. Try this instead:
> | >
> | > rdr pass inet6 proto tcp from lan:network -> lan port 8081
> |
> | > You cannot redirect to `::', a wildcard address. You must redirect to
> | > a specific address.
> |
> | Oh, yes. This is wr
Penned by Stephan A. Rickauer on 20081219 11:01.16, we have:
| Thanks a lot for your help, Todd.
|
| On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 13:01 -0600, Todd T. Fries wrote:
| > | The ipv6 only client gets its ipv6 address via the rtadvd running on the
| > | gatway's internal interface. The gateway's external inte
Thanks a lot for your help, Todd.
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 13:01 -0600, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> | The ipv6 only client gets its ipv6 address via the rtadvd running on the
> | gatway's internal interface. The gateway's external interface is ipv4
> | only.
>
> So however you've managed it you have an I
Penned by Stephan A. Rickauer on 20081216 16:14.32, we have:
| I started playing with ipv6. It feels like back in the early 90's, when
| I had to learn how 'the Internet' works ;)
Yes, I recall sitting in a basement with friends around that time, deciding
with enough parts and computers we would l
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 06:54 -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > Stephan A. Rickauer wrote:
> >>
> >> If you knew something about the political structures of
> >> SWITCH and of UZH you wouldn't recommend "kicking the network
> >> administrator".
> >
> > If
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Stephan A. Rickauer wrote:
If you knew something about the political structures of
SWITCH and of UZH you wouldn't recommend "kicking the network
administrator".
If you would have read the rest of the message you might have noticed
that I said you hav
Stephan A. Rickauer wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> You are trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong hammer.
>
> "I need to go the bus station. Do you know the way?"
> "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here."
>
> Sorry, but relayd is _exactly_ what ca
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> You are trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong hammer.
"I need to go the bus station. Do you know the way?"
"If I were you, I wouldn't start from here."
Sorry, but relayd is _exactly_ what can fix this issue, without being a
hamm
Stephan A. Rickauer wrote:
[..]
> Bingo! Our institute ran out of ipv4 addresses and we were assigned a
> couple of ipv6 address ranges by University. However, University who
> operates the network (gateways, routers etc.) don't route/care
> about/support ipv6 yet officially. Well, it's a Universit
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 00:59 -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Jeroen Massar
> wrote:
> > I guess there is a practical use here, that is, if your tools all
> > understand IPv6, because then you only have an IPv6 "NAT" to IPv4
> and
> > you skip the IPv4 NAT to IPv4 i
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> I guess there is a practical use here, that is, if your tools all
>> understand IPv6, because then you only have an IPv6 "NAT" to IPv4 and
>> you skip the IPv4 NAT to IPv4 in case you don't have any IPv4 addresses
>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> I guess there is a practical use here, that is, if your tools all
> understand IPv6, because then you only have an IPv6 "NAT" to IPv4 and
> you skip the IPv4 NAT to IPv4 in case you don't have any IPv4 addresses
> for your local network.
It
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Stephan A. Rickauer
> wrote:
>> An ipv6 only host with a non-link-local address should be able to use
>> the ipv4 world.
>
> Is this just for fun/practice, or is there a reason you can't just
> configure the host with both an IPv4 and an IP
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Stephan A. Rickauer
wrote:
> An ipv6 only host with a non-link-local address should be able to use
> the ipv4 world.
Is this just for fun/practice, or is there a reason you can't just
configure the host with both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address?
> I don't want to dea
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 16:32 +0100, Dirk Mast wrote:
> Hi, have you already seen this great post on undeadly?
Yes, I have. Without it, I wouldn't have come so far ;)
Stephan A. Rickauer wrote:
> I started playing with ipv6. It feels like back in the early 90's, when
> I had to learn how 'the Internet' works ;)
>
> Here's the setup:
>
> An ipv6 only host with a non-link-local address should be able to use
> the ipv4 world. I don't want to deal with a tunnel b
I started playing with ipv6. It feels like back in the early 90's, when
I had to learn how 'the Internet' works ;)
Here's the setup:
An ipv6 only host with a non-link-local address should be able to use
the ipv4 world. I don't want to deal with a tunnel broker, nor do I have
native ipv6 access to
18 matches
Mail list logo
