On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 03:11:00PM -0500, Aaron Angel wrote:
In addition to RPC over IPv6 support...
Excactly that was the reason for the TI-RPC import.
TI = transport independend.
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: António Amaral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 11:41:26AM +0100, António Amaral wrote:
Hello All,
Have you been work on NFS IPv6?
Do you know which FreeBSD RELEASE supports NFS IPv6 and where can I found an NFS
IPv6 HowTo?
TI-RPC including nfs went into -current march last year.
It's not MFC'ed to 4.x.
There
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 07:40:51PM -0700, Mike Ray wrote:
Well a careful examination of the client has gotten it to this
point, which doesn't make a lot of sense for me: it only seems
to resolve ipv6 addresses if the ipv4 networking is working.
There is not much you can currently do
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:25:38PM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
you should know I'm very Linux related and really *BSD newbie ;-)
for an update of an overview of my IPv6 course I ran into a
knowlegde hole of myself, but some looking
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 04:57:44PM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
Hi,
don't know whether this is a bug or a missing feature, but
/etc/hosts:
fe80::280:c8ff:fe01:2345%eth0 host6
isn't valid recognized - should it?
# ssh host6
ssh: host6: Name or service not known
Works here:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:04:04AM -0500, Daniel Delaney wrote:
I am currently using route6d. My external interface is working properly. The
internal interface and hosts connected to that interface are not getting routes (I
think). When I try and traceroute, ping, or do anything from one of
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 11:05:59PM +0100, NDSoftware wrote:
Hello,
I have a problem on a machine (with Linux Debian Woody).
I can't ping (or trace) the next router or 6bone from it.
Trace 6bone from Woody:
traceroute to 6bone.net (3ffe:b00:c18:1::10) from 3ffe:8271:2101:1::1,
30
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 04:08:49AM -0600, Hal Snyder wrote:
Thanks to both writers of this thread for an interesting debate on
site-local addressing. For me, it has provided some background for the
Kame assessment in section 1.3 of
http://orange.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/IMPLEMENTATION
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 05:59:04PM +, Ben Clifford wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Bernd Walter wrote:
Can anybody explain why you don't have scoping on site local addresses -
if I configure eth0 and eth1 to have the same prefix, on the basis that
they are different sites, how do I
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 06:43:22PM +, Ben Clifford wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Bernd Walter wrote:
Site local addresses are local to a site.
If you want to leave a site you can't use them.
As I understood it, each *interface* is in one site. Interface A may or
may
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 08:20:28PM +, Ben Clifford wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Bernd Walter wrote:
If you are connecting networks with unco-ordinated addresses you are
calling for troubles.
But this is what happens with link-local addresses.
Link local address are automaticaly co
11 matches
Mail list logo
