I am using the NFS defaults which means, according to the man page at
least, that it should go over TCP. Regardless, I think I have a fair
idea of what is what happening now. Or at least better than I had
before. I will try to tweak things around a bit until I find the right
balance between
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Michael Sideris urg...@gmail.com wrote:
I am using the NFS defaults which means, according to the man page at
least, that it should go over TCP.
Hmm, I don't believe that to be the case. What man page text are you
seeing says the default is TCP?
Philip
Actually, scratch that. I was looking at nfs(5) from an old SL 5.7 box
I have here which explicitly states:
tcpMount the NFS filesystem using the TCP protocol. This
is the default protocol.
This is not the case anymore though, thanks for bringing that to my attention.
On Wed, Oct
hello folks,
I have a problem with geo/josm keyboard shortcuts under cwm(1). fvwm(1)
does not show this problem. other apps (e.g. graphics/qiv) do not show
the problem under cwm(1). Therefore it appears to me it's a combination
of java X gui apps and cwm(1) that eats the keyboard shortcuts.
On 2012-10-24, Michael Sideris urg...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, OpenBSD 5.2 is around the corner and you never know what that might
bring.
There's a commit from just after 5.2 which is relevant to some
packet forwarding setups, which might be of interest..
On 2012-10-22, ch...@bennettconstruction.us ch...@bennettconstruction.us
wrote:
I did an update to my remote server using the ssh method, since I did
not have Java built
But it failed to reboot
Note that this method is likely to have problems going from 5.1 to 5.2
on i386 due to ld.so
Sollte der Inhalt dieser E-Mail nicht korrekt dargestellt werden, klicke bitte
hier:
http://newsletter.ctek.ch/browser.php?key=7275-5A-01-8625D75DAC7E2D82973F121B
54E19E58-DA84F230DDA30F1E556rid=01_03_04_51
Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
As far as removing the package, since it's just trying to checksum the file
before removing it, pkg_delete -c will take care of that...
That's pkg_delete -q
--
Christian naddy Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2221
Well, they are lying to everyone.
Their open source is nothing but a layer of code which calls into a
closed source back-end.
No, it was not open sourced. All they did was release some userland
wrappers around their api.
No, this does not make it closer to OpenBSD being ported to this device.
Nothing has changed.
On 2012 Oct 24 (Wed) at 08:56:29 -0700 (-0700), Gene wrote:
:http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2221
:
Hi,
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I am
really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in their
right mind would actually want to use this?
NAT always makes connectivity less efficient anyway and was really
designed to alleviated the lack
Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net writes:
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I
am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in
their right mind would actually want to use this?
The main reason why NAT64 was developed is that in some
One use case: ISP who wants to provide IPv4+IPv6 to customers, but does
not have enough IPv4 addresses for everyone, so has to NAT anyway, and
wants to simplify the operation of its edge network by running only one
protocol.
Quite popular with 3GPP folks since they have zillions of customers
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Anyone have any possible explication that would actually justify the use
of NAT64 that I obviously overlooked?
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your
Hello,
Le 24/10/2012 18:43, Daniel Ouellet a écrit :
Hi,
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I am
really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in their
right mind would actually want to use this?
What is your proposal to allow a v6-only
Anyone have any possible explication that would actually justify the use
of NAT64 that I obviously overlooked?
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has
Le 2012-10-24 14:25, Kurt Mosiejczuk a écrit :
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has to be renumbered.
I read about it in the following article earlier this
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-10-24 14:25, Kurt Mosiejczuk a écrit :
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has to be
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-10-24 14:25, Kurt Mosiejczuk a écrit :
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has to
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:43:12PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Hi,
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I
am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in
their right mind would actually want to use this?
To reach v4 only hosts, d'oh?
IN
Le 2012-10-24 14:54, Claudio Jeker a écrit :
But less PI space. Since some evangelists belive in the superiority of
IPv6 and try everything to make it impossible to get routable PI space.
At the moment IPv6 is a step backwards in all regards.
Wait wait wait... what RIR doesn't take multihoming
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have two internet connections plugged directly into my desktop box
at home,
Si no puede visualizar correctamente las imagenes de este correo, le pedimos
que lo arrastre a su Bandeja de Entrada
Apreciable Ejecutivo:
TIEM de México
Empresa Líder en Capacitación y Actualización de Capital Humano
Debido al gran éxito obtenido, ponemos nuevamente a su disposición este
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have two internet connections plugged directly into my desktop box
at
You have IPv4 only applications, that need to talk with the IPv6 internet.
On 2012 Oct 24 (Wed) at 12:43:12 -0400 (-0400), Daniel Ouellet wrote:
:Hi,
:
:Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I
:am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in
End hosts need to get smarter, instead of the network adapting to their
stupidity. But I'm not holding my breath.
No, what you are really saying is that non-transient network traffic
(long lived TCP sessions) need to have the applications talking them
-- and obviously the protocols also --
Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a
valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try
and fix that before trying to put a hack over the top of it. In theory you
could do it with routing tables but I could be retarded also so.
On Wed,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:25:07PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
I read about it in the following article earlier this year.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/31/ipv6_sucks_for_smes/
Everybody except a few zealots have accepted the fact that NAT will
exist in ipv6 just like v4. The
Le 2012-10-24 15:29, Barbier, Jason a écrit :
Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a
valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try
and fix that before trying to put a hack over the top of it.
I'm going to wait a long time for a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:21:33PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
What happens if one of your links goes down for a day?
Do all your ssh sessions to everywhere in the world stay up?
The internet has non-transient traffic, too.
No, I will have to re-start some of them. This is something that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Simon Perreault
sperrea...@openbsd.orgwrote:
Le 2012-10-24 15:29, Barbier, Jason a écrit :
Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a
valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try
and fix that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:38PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Basically to make IPv6 pseudo-multihoming work like IPv4
multihoming, ssh and sshd need to be modified that they can handle a
network break, and re-connect using another address.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with
Le 2012-10-24 15:38, Barbier, Jason a écrit :
I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my
IPv4-only printer speak IPv6.
Well man there are several stable implementations of 4 to 6 and 6 to 4
bridges.
I don't know what kind of bridges you're talking about, but I'll
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:21:33PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
What happens if one of your links goes down for a day?
Do all your ssh sessions to everywhere in the world stay up?
The internet has non-transient traffic, too.
No, I will have to re-start some of them. This is
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:38PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Basically to make IPv6 pseudo-multihoming work like IPv4
multihoming, ssh and sshd need to be modified that they can handle a
network break, and re-connect using another address.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:43:01PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Luckily that is not a problem in ipv4.
I can get IPv6 PI and multihome with v6 as it is just like I used to be
able with v4; now there is no more v4 PI at RIPE. But what does this
have to do with the on-wire protocol again?
Do
As someone working for a 'Carrier' vendor - I can tell you straight
up that LSN(Large Scale) or CGN(Carrier Grad) NAT are big sell points
(i.e customers are asking for them).
Personally out of the various RFC's and schemes i've had the
displeasure of perusing for V6 to V4 access NAT64 to me
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:42:52PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
| Le 2012-10-24 15:38, Barbier, Jason a ?crit :
| I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my
| IPv4-only printer speak IPv6.
Even if it did, would you trust that stack on the global (v6)
internet ?
| Well man
Le 2012-10-24 15:59, Paul de Weerd a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:42:52PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
| Le 2012-10-24 15:38, Barbier, Jason a ?crit :
| I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my
| IPv4-only printer speak IPv6.
Even if it did, would you trust that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:10:29PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-10-24 14:54, Claudio Jeker a écrit :
But less PI space. Since some evangelists belive in the superiority of
IPv6 and try everything to make it impossible to get routable PI space.
At the moment IPv6 is a step backwards in
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:12:33PM +0300, Jussi Peltola wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have
Le 2012-10-24 16:30, Claudio Jeker a écrit :
With IPv6 multihoming should work trivially: plug two access lines into
a switch, get RAs from both, get addresses from both on your end-host,
and your end-host needs to select the proper route for each source
address. Again, no NAT or BGP.
Le 2012-10-24 15:12, Jussi Peltola a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have two internet connections
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:30:21PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:12:33PM +0300, Jussi Peltola wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only
On 23 October 2012 12:53, Joel Sing j...@sing.id.au wrote:
Unfortunately we have no idea what firewall rules you have configured, however
I'm going to take random guess and say that you're using a scrub rule
with 'reassemble tcp' - if this is the case you'll probably find that some
TCP
On 2012-10-24, Simon Perreault sperrea...@openbsd.org wrote:
One use case: ISP who wants to provide IPv4+IPv6 to customers, but does
not have enough IPv4 addresses for everyone, so has to NAT anyway, and
wants to simplify the operation of its edge network by running only one
protocol.
On 2012-10-24, Kurt Mosiejczuk kurt-openbsd-m...@se.rit.edu wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Anyone have any possible explication that would actually justify the use
of NAT64 that I obviously overlooked?
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP.
re-reading this original mail... you're saying NAT64 (which is a form
of protocol translation used in conjunction with special DNS servers,
so v6-only hosts can reach v4 hosts if they are accessed by name)...
but I'm not sure if this matches what the rest of the mail is talking
about, which seems
Dear Purchasing Manager,
Good day!
Esunlink is professional Manufacturer which specialize in KVM Switch
Accessories with high quality and reasonable price,OEM/ODM Services
also can be offered upon your special request . We get a lot
Daniel,
I think you're confused between NAT66 and NAT64. [0]
T-Mobile USA optionally supports IPv6 connectivity in some limited
number of new phones (Galaxy Nexus etc) [1], and when the IPv6 option
is manually activated by the user^w beta-tester on their phone, then
no IPv4 support is provided,
50 matches
Mail list logo
