Hello,
Rick Thomas a écrit :
It eliminates the need for masquerading and port translation, but it
does not eliminate the need for a proper firewall.
Unfortunately the plenty of public IPv6 space does not totally eliminate
the need for NAT in some situations. Otherwise there would not be
Thanks!
Can you provide some specific model numbers? I'll need a box that can
do IPv6 tunneling over IPv4, since none of the ISP's I have access to
have native IPv6 or any plans for it in the foreseeable future. Of
course, it will also need to be able to do basic stateful fire-wall
On 29/12/11 19:21, Rick Thomas wrote:
Please don't top-post.
I'm lazy and likely to ignore emails that require effort to read.
Thanks!
Sorry for the delay in answering - for some reason this had been flagged
as spam.
Can you provide some specific model numbers?
No - sorry, not for those
On Ma, 27 dec 11, 01:20:27, Rick Thomas wrote:
(Sigh!) ;-\ Now if somebody would just manufacture and sell an
inexpensive IPv6-capable SOHO router... /-; (sigh!)
Get the cheapest router that supports alternate firmware[1]. As far as I
know most of the alternatives already support IPv6.
[1]
OK I'm a novice, but it seems from my perspective that having adequate
addresses is only the tech part of the issue. Verizon and other large
ISP's don't want home owners to create servers accessible from outside
their homes. If they find out you are doing so they will insist on
charging you the
On 27/12/11 22:24, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Ma, 27 dec 11, 01:20:27, Rick Thomas wrote:
(Sigh!) ;-\ Now if somebody would just manufacture and sell an
inexpensive IPv6-capable SOHO router... /-; (sigh!)
Most of the manufacturers already do (or don't you consider sub-$100AU
cheap?)
Apple,
On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Lu, 26 dec 11, 21:39:27, Victor Nitu wrote:
On 12/26/2011 08:00 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
This is one reason I welcome the switch to IPv6.
Just out of curiosity: can you be more specific on this issue?
(please
excuse me for being a
7 matches
Mail list logo
