Am 19.07.2014 16:25, schrieb Tom Eastep:
> As I read that RFC, 2001:db8::/64 would be the subnet-router anycast
> address for the subnet. -Tom
Ah, ok. I found it. It is defined in RFC 4291 section 2.6.1. You are
right. I was wrong. Sorry for the noise.
Michael Roth
-
On 7/19/2014 6:23 AM, Michael Roth wrote:
> Am 19.07.2014 01:48, schrieb Tom Eastep:
>> Has RFC 2526 been rescinded? -Tom
>
> Ah, I overlooked this. I'm neither a RFC junkie nor an IPv6 expert. So
> the /121 is an anycast thing mainly used for mobile IPv6. Don't have
> experience with that, yet.
Am 19.07.2014 01:48, schrieb Tom Eastep:
> Has RFC 2526 been rescinded? -Tom
Ah, I overlooked this. I'm neither a RFC junkie nor an IPv6 expert. So
the /121 is an anycast thing mainly used for mobile IPv6. Don't have
experience with that, yet.
But regarding the "broadcast" 2001:db8::/64 rule. I
On 7/18/2014 4:10 PM, Michael Roth wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I came across a problem using shorewall6 version 4.5.21.6. I think it
> all boils down to "there are no broadcast addresses in IPv6".
>
> For demonstration purpose, network interface (dummy device, just for
> describing the problem) is con
Hello,
I came across a problem using shorewall6 version 4.5.21.6. I think it
all boils down to "there are no broadcast addresses in IPv6".
For demonstration purpose, network interface (dummy device, just for
describing the problem) is configured like:
eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state
--- On Tue, 11/27/12, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Though if you have something trying to contact lots of IP
> addresses,
> it will do more ARP lookups rather than directing the
> packets via the
> default gateway when they aren't on the same subnet.
Now that you mention it, in my simplified exampl
--- On Tue, 11/27/12, Simon Hobson wrote:
> if you have a lot of devices on a network then there will
> naturally
> be a lot more broadcast traffic than if you have only a few
> devices.
> This is independent of length of subnet mask - ie 2 devices
> will
> create the same broadcast traffic o
Vieri Di Paola wrote:
>However, a tech from the remote network has stated (without
>explaining why) that having a /16 netmask in 'loc' instead of a more
>narrow mask would generate too many broadcasts in his network (net2).
>I'd like to know:
>1) if this statement is correct given the above setu
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
Please let me rephrase my query (and simplify it) because it's not easy for me
to explain so I'll try to lay it out straight.
loc: my local LAN with just 2 hosts: 10.215.147.1 and 10.215.144.1 with default
gateway 10.215.144.91. Let's just suppose for a mome
Vieri Di Paola wrote:
>My network is 10.215.0.0/255.255.0.0.
>I set it up this way for convenience only. Actually, all my hosts
>are within 10.215.144-147.xxx and 10.215.246-248.xxx (shorewall zone
>'loc').
>
>I have a router linking me to another location (shorewall zone net2)
>where there are
Hi,
My network is 10.215.0.0/255.255.0.0.
I set it up this way for convenience only. Actually, all my hosts are within
10.215.144-147.xxx and 10.215.246-248.xxx (shorewall zone 'loc').
I have a router linking me to another location (shorewall zone net2) where
there are other hosts within, say,
11 matches
Mail list logo
