Re: INET6 in world
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:08:23PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote: That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks that way. The sense is to break this dependency loop by ecouraging everyone to use it and not to make it easier to completely disable the support. As I said: you -always- have an IPv6 connection to the outside world as long as you have a single official IPv4 address. Not using it because it doesn't fit in your current network is one point, but disabling it in a way to make a future step to IPv6 harder is another. The number of IPv4 only systems is already big enough - we don't need to build new ones. Machanism, not policy. I would also like to run with NO_INET6. IPv6 support has done nothing for me other than cause me problems. I still strongly disagree with our ordering of localhost in /etc/hosts. My system worked worlds better when I put the IPv4 localhost first. We don't want to kill IPv6 support in FreeBSD -- we both fully know there are areas of the world where is it a very useful if not mandatory thing. However that isn't the case for the USA yet, and I'm guessing Germany also. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
Craig Rodrigues wrote: On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:27:57AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks that way. The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't come enabled by default on Windows systems. Until it does, it's never going to get any traction. I wouldn't be surprised if the government has asked Microsoft to not deploy it, or to deploy it without encryption support, given world events. The government is pushing IPv6, but from a different direction: http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2003/0609/web-dodip-06-13-03.asp 13 Jun 2003: He added that either the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) or the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNET) might be one of the programs switched over to IPv6, and that the Navy Marine Corps Intranet also is being considered. Definitive choices will be made within 30 days. ...so... what was the decision, over 3 weeks ago? 8-) 8-). http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030613-0274.html ...major development activities, that are going to come online in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 time frame... So I think the actual push to move from IP 4 to IP 6 will not be driven by us. ...as I say, we're taking a target date of 2008, so it's not like we're thinking about it tomorrow. He also talks about Microsoft and IBM embodying it into products (which is what I said was the barrier). In the U.S., this will probably push many vendors to become IPv6-compatible. In 5 years. He's not planning on deploying until it's depoloyed commercially. He apparently doesn't understand that v6/v4 NATs and proxy servers would let him deploy today ...assuming that the Windows stack was there. He doesn't seem to be a very technical person, for being the chief information officer; he had to ask his assistant for the name of the IETF, for example. If you're looking for him to push the move to IPv6, you probably want to look to the other Washington (the one where Redmond is located). -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:01:30AM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: 1) Machines do not ship with it enabled by default; a Windows user has about as much probability of doing the necessary work to enable it as they do of making something other than Internet Explorer their default browser. 2) You have to go to a command line prompt and issue a cryptic command to enable it at all. Err, not at all. You go to install/remove additional windows components (I do not recall the exact phrasing) and select IPv6. 3) When you enable it, you get a huge scare warning about it being experimental. I didn't. :-) And the bastard stopped doing A queries. :-) That'll be because, according to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/default.asp there's no support in Windows XP's IPv6 stack for DNS. -- Bruce Cran ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
Terry Lambert wrote: 1) Machines do not ship with it enabled by default; a Windows user has about as much probability of doing the necessary work to enable it as they do of making something other than Internet Explorer their default browser. 2) You have to go to a command line prompt and issue a cryptic command to enable it at all. Err, not at all. You go to install/remove additional windows components (I do not recall the exact phrasing) and select IPv6. 3) When you enable it, you get a huge scare warning about it being experimental. I didn't. :-) And the bastard stopped doing A queries. :-) 4) 95% of the existing Windows machines in the world are not running XP, and the last time I saw the code for Windows 95/98 IPv6 support was the Summer of 2000; they took it down from their site after that. 5) AFAIK, it still doesn't support key exchange, so you have to manually configure the keys, which is a really difficult and tedious process, and won't work with any embedded device that depend on key exchange working (e.g. thing NAT gateways, etc.). 6) The last time I tried the experimental version, it did not correctly interoperate with AIX or FreeBSD, but worked fine Windows-to-Windows, so they've done *something* to it to embrace and extend it. In short: It's not ready for Prime Time. -- Terry -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) Gerencia de Operacoes Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados Coordenacao de Seguranca VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outros: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died. -- Erma Bombeck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:40:06AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: 6)The last time I tried the experimental version, it did not correctly interoperate with AIX or FreeBSD, but worked fine Windows-to-Windows, so they've done *something* to it to embrace and extend it. I find the AIX IPv6 stack special, but I've only used it under 4.3.3. The XP and 2003 IPv6 stacks have worked fine for me (though, as you say, they don't have an iked yet): they both autoconfigure from a FreeBSD router, do putty, dns, http and lpd over IPv6, and I've had samba talk to the 2003 box over IPv6. David. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
At 12:16 PM -0700 2003/08/05, Kevin Oberman wrote: I may have missed part of this tread as I am on travel. Why is simply not enabling ipv6 adequate? Note: I DO run IPv6 routinely when at work, so I normally do have it enabled. I'd like to get an understanding of what the issue might be. The point is clearly strongly heald be some reasonably knowledgeable people. I'm from the school where you don't run anything you don't absolutely need. Not even if the code is not being used, just loaded. I don't mind having the code on disk and accessible if/when I need it (even though that's also a risk), but I absolutely do not want the code loaded unless I'm actually going to be making use of it. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
Terry Lambert wrote: He apparently doesn't understand that v6/v4 NATs and proxy servers would let him deploy today ...assuming that the Windows stack was there. What do you mean the Windows stack was there? XP supports IPv6, as long as you install it, so I assume there's something missing *in* XP's IPv6 support. What is it? -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) Gerencia de Operacoes Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados Coordenacao de Seguranca VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outros: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would rather say that a desire to drive fast sports cars is what sets man apart from the animals. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: He apparently doesn't understand that v6/v4 NATs and proxy servers would let him deploy today ...assuming that the Windows stack was there. What do you mean the Windows stack was there? XP supports IPv6, as long as you install it, so I assume there's something missing *in* XP's IPv6 support. What is it? 1) Machines do not ship with it enabled by default; a Windows user has about as much probability of doing the necessary work to enable it as they do of making something other than Internet Explorer their default browser. 2) You have to go to a command line prompt and issue a cryptic command to enable it at all. 3) When you enable it, you get a huge scare warning about it being experimental. 4) 95% of the existing Windows machines in the world are not running XP, and the last time I saw the code for Windows 95/98 IPv6 support was the Summer of 2000; they took it down from their site after that. 5) AFAIK, it still doesn't support key exchange, so you have to manually configure the keys, which is a really difficult and tedious process, and won't work with any embedded device that depend on key exchange working (e.g. thing NAT gateways, etc.). 6) The last time I tried the experimental version, it did not correctly interoperate with AIX or FreeBSD, but worked fine Windows-to-Windows, so they've done *something* to it to embrace and extend it. In short: It's not ready for Prime Time. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:01:30AM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: 1) Machines do not ship with it enabled by default; a Windows user has about as much probability of doing the necessary work to enable it as they do of making something other than Internet Explorer their default browser. 2) You have to go to a command line prompt and issue a cryptic command to enable it at all. Err, not at all. You go to install/remove additional windows components (I do not recall the exact phrasing) and select IPv6. 3) When you enable it, you get a huge scare warning about it being experimental. I didn't. :-) And the bastard stopped doing A queries. :-) That'll be because, according to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/default.asp there's no support in Windows XP's IPv6 stack for DNS. I wonder about their definition of support. There *were* queries being made, but only . It never asked for A, even when IPv6 was disabled in (but added to) the interface. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) Gerencia de Operacoes Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados Coordenacao de Seguranca VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outros: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Westheimer's Discovery: A couple of months in the laboratory can frequently save a couple of hours in the library. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: Bernd Walter wrote: On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: What's the sense of enabling and using IPv6, if your infrastucture in the company doesn't support it (because of the overhead with routing (hardware vs. software routing)) and you don't have an IPv6 connection to the outside world. Well, you could ping localhost per IPv6... That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks that way. The sense is to break this dependency loop by ecouraging everyone to use it and not to make it easier to completely disable the support. As I said: you -always- have an IPv6 connection to the outside world as long as you have a single official IPv4 address. Not using it because it doesn't fit in your current network is one point, but disabling it in a way to make a future step to IPv6 harder is another. The number of IPv4 only systems is already big enough - we don't need to build new ones. This has been so over-argued, I don't think there's anything else to say on the matter except: Use the right tool for the right job. If you don't see yourself keeping your installation for a few years, then go ahead with your IPv4-only installation. More environments are starting to become mixed and this is a trend that will only accelerate as more sites embrace IPv6. The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't come enabled by default on Windows systems. Until it does, it's never going to get any traction. This is really OT, but Windows XP Professional does ship with an IPv6 stack. At the cmd prompt, type 'ipv6 install' and it'll load the Microsoft IPv6 Developer Edition protocol suite. Enjoy. I wouldn't be surprised if the government has asked Microsoft to not deploy it, or to deploy it without encryption support, given world events. Well, given that they've included IPSEC in their latest operating system releases, I can't really say that I agree with that statement. To get back to the original question, NO_IPV4 and NO_IPV6 world knobs would be nice and would keep everyone happy for years to come! :-) Regards, Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:52:50 +0200 From: Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 9:37 AM -0700 2003/08/05, David O'Brien wrote: Machanism, not policy. I would also like to run with NO_INET6. IPv6 support has done nothing for me other than cause me problems. I still strongly disagree with our ordering of localhost in /etc/hosts. My system worked worlds better when I put the IPv4 localhost first. There is no IPv6 in this house, nor is there likely to be any time soon. If I can't kill IPv6 from a configuration standpoint, I'll go ripping out the freakin' code, or I'll use an OS that gives me the option. I may have missed part of this tread as I am on travel. Why is simply not enabling ipv6 adequate? Note: I DO run IPv6 routinely when at work, so I normally do have it enabled. I'd like to get an understanding of what the issue might be. The point is clearly strongly heald be some reasonably knowledgeable people. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
At 9:37 AM -0700 2003/08/05, David O'Brien wrote: Machanism, not policy. I would also like to run with NO_INET6. IPv6 support has done nothing for me other than cause me problems. I still strongly disagree with our ordering of localhost in /etc/hosts. My system worked worlds better when I put the IPv4 localhost first. There is no IPv6 in this house, nor is there likely to be any time soon. If I can't kill IPv6 from a configuration standpoint, I'll go ripping out the freakin' code, or I'll use an OS that gives me the option. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote: BWOn Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: BW Hi David, BW BW I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are BW build with INET6. BW In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses BW but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel. BW BWYou don't know me? BWNot to speak that each IPv4 address owner automaticaly owns IPv6 BWspace via 6to4 - see stf(4). BWIt's already available for everyone - just enable and use it. What's the sense of enabling and using IPv6, if your infrastucture in the company doesn't support it (because of the overhead with routing (hardware vs. software routing)) and you don't have an IPv6 connection to the outside world. Well, you could ping localhost per IPv6... harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote: BWOn Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: BW Hi David, BW BW I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are BW build with INET6. BW In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses BW but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel. BW BWYou don't know me? BWNot to speak that each IPv4 address owner automaticaly owns IPv6 BWspace via 6to4 - see stf(4). BWIt's already available for everyone - just enable and use it. What's the sense of enabling and using IPv6, if your infrastucture in the company doesn't support it (because of the overhead with routing (hardware vs. software routing)) and you don't have an IPv6 connection to the outside world. Well, you could ping localhost per IPv6... That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks that way. The sense is to break this dependency loop by ecouraging everyone to use it and not to make it easier to completely disable the support. As I said: you -always- have an IPv6 connection to the outside world as long as you have a single official IPv4 address. Not using it because it doesn't fit in your current network is one point, but disabling it in a way to make a future step to IPv6 harder is another. The number of IPv4 only systems is already big enough - we don't need to build new ones. -- B.Walter BWCThttp://www.bwct.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
Bernd Walter wrote: On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: What's the sense of enabling and using IPv6, if your infrastucture in the company doesn't support it (because of the overhead with routing (hardware vs. software routing)) and you don't have an IPv6 connection to the outside world. Well, you could ping localhost per IPv6... That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks that way. The sense is to break this dependency loop by ecouraging everyone to use it and not to make it easier to completely disable the support. As I said: you -always- have an IPv6 connection to the outside world as long as you have a single official IPv4 address. Not using it because it doesn't fit in your current network is one point, but disabling it in a way to make a future step to IPv6 harder is another. The number of IPv4 only systems is already big enough - we don't need to build new ones. The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't come enabled by default on Windows systems. Until it does, it's never going to get any traction. I wouldn't be surprised if the government has asked Microsoft to not deploy it, or to deploy it without encryption support, given world events. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:27:57AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks that way. The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't come enabled by default on Windows systems. Until it does, it's never going to get any traction. I wouldn't be surprised if the government has asked Microsoft to not deploy it, or to deploy it without encryption support, given world events. The government is pushing IPv6, but from a different direction: http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2003/0609/web-dodip-06-13-03.asp http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030613-0274.html In the U.S., this will probably push many vendors to become IPv6-compatible. -- Craig Rodrigues http://crodrigues.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
INET6 in world
Hi David, I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are build with INET6. In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel. Now the daemons prints out a (IMHO useless) warning, that they cannot bind to the INET6 socket on each start. Especially on workstation, which might to be started each day, this confuses the employee (each one once, but me as admin each time). Now the question: Would a patch be welcome which enables INET6 only if /etc/make.conf not contains 'NO_INET6=true'? Best regards and nice weekend, Jens ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Hi David, I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are build with INET6. In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel. You don't know me? Not to speak that each IPv4 address owner automaticaly owns IPv6 space via 6to4 - see stf(4). It's already available for everyone - just enable and use it. Now the daemons prints out a (IMHO useless) warning, that they cannot bind to the INET6 socket on each start. Especially on workstation, which might to be started each day, this confuses the employee (each one once, but me as admin each time). No daemon explicitly binds to an inet6 socket unless configured to do so. Now the question: Would a patch be welcome which enables INET6 only if /etc/make.conf not contains 'NO_INET6=true'? I'm much more in favour of adding NO_INET, NO_INET4 support, which is what really is required some day. I find it very strange to setup new IPv4 only systems in these days. Don't lock out your future. -- B.Walter BWCThttp://www.bwct.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Hi David,
I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
build with INET6.
In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses
but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel.
...
No daemon explicitly binds to an inet6 socket unless configured
to do so.
During bootup, I see this too:
Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Starting rpcbind.
Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Jul 13 18:09:42 daemon.err hummer
rpcbind: cannot create socket for udp6
Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Jul 13 18:09:42 daemon.err hummer
rpcbind: cannot create socket for tcp6
--
:{ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Farkas
System Administrator
Speednet Communications
http://www.speednet.com.au/
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:20:02AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote: On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote: On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Hi David, I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are build with INET6. In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel. ... No daemon explicitly binds to an inet6 socket unless configured to do so. During bootup, I see this too: Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Starting rpcbind. Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Jul 13 18:09:42 daemon.err hummer rpcbind: cannot create socket for udp6 Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Jul 13 18:09:42 daemon.err hummer rpcbind: cannot create socket for tcp6 Just guessing: what's in your /etc/hosts for localhost? -- B.Walter BWCThttp://www.bwct.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 in world
On 03.08.2003 23:39, Bernd Walter wrote: On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:20:02AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote: On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote: On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Hi David, I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are build with INET6. In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel. ... No daemon explicitly binds to an inet6 socket unless configured to do so. During bootup, I see this too: Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Starting rpcbind. Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Jul 13 18:09:42 daemon.err hummer rpcbind: cannot create socket for udp6 Jul 13 18:09:42 console.info hummer kernel: Jul 13 18:09:42 daemon.err hummer rpcbind: cannot create socket for tcp6 Just guessing: what's in your /etc/hosts for localhost? That's not the problem, because of # cat STATLER grep INET options INET#InterNETworking #optionsINET6 #IPv6 communications protocols :-) So no INET6 is available - /etc/hosts doesn't matter in that case Jens ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
