Hi!
I have a Linux box, with a ipv6 tunnel with hurricane tunnel broker.
The tunnel works fine and all the clients of my LAN surf ip6.google.com
(I have configured radvd).
The problem is that the connections from internet, stops at the pfsense.
If I listen in the WAN interface I can look pr
Mikel,
You have two options:
1. configure your cron on linux box to ping6 some IPv6 address out there
to keep tunnel up.
2. Bang the bell very hard to wake up PfSense developers, so they
finally deploy IPv6 mechanisms at last.
I liked PfSense a lot, but I moved to Mikrotik devices. They have
:(
Ok, I have the tunnel alive, but it is impossible access from outside no?
So... no solution for access from outside?
Thanks
El 11/02/10 22:54, Jan Zorz escribió:
Mikel,
You have two options:
1. configure your cron on linux box to ping6 some IPv6 address out
there to keep tunnel up.
2. Ba
- "Jan Zorz" wrote:
> Mikel,
>
> You have two options:
>
> 1. configure your cron on linux box to ping6 some IPv6 address out
> there
> to keep tunnel up.
> 2. Bang the bell very hard to wake up PfSense developers, so they
> finally deploy IPv6 mechanisms at last.
If you're unhappy with
Uohh!!
There is an option in System/Advanced/ "Nat encapsultaed IpV6 PAckets (
IP protocol 41) and thre put the Linux box ipv4 address.
For example 10.10.0.5
and it works!! I ping from outside, the tunnel endpoint and my LAN clients
El 11/02/10 22:54, Jan Zorz escribió:
Mikel,
You have
On 2/11/2010 4:54 PM, Jan Zorz wrote:
> 2. Bang the bell very hard to wake up PfSense developers, so they
> finally deploy IPv6 mechanisms at last.
>
> I liked PfSense a lot, but I moved to Mikrotik devices. They have IPv6
> (and a lot of v6 mechanisms, like ospf-v3 and others) fully deployed.
Ma
> If you're unhappy with pfSense, simply request a refund.
>
I disagree with the assumption of this statement: that you have to pay for
something to have a valid criticism of it.
I'd argue that it is the role of the user to advocate for desired features,
regardless of what price was paid for
IPv6 is likely to be the first thing added after 2.0, and there won't
be much added for the 2.1 release. To date It's just not in enough
demand to justify the effort vs. other things we've been working on.
For those of you it's important to, the great thing about open source
is you can do it yourse
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
> I'd argue that it is the role of the user to advocate for desired features,
> regardless of what price was paid for the software. The fact that IPv6
> support doesn't seem to be finished yet is an issue that gains significance
> every
I'll just toss in a reason why I would like to see IPV6.
I've got a network with about 24 subnets,,, a combination of physical
and vlans. We have been rolling out Windows 7, and slowly been
upgrading our servers to 2008 R2. My tech team is very small and we
support a large number of clients in the
10 matches
Mail list logo
