On 12/11/10 13:43, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> - IPv6 support, native or tunnel to tunnelbroker.net type thing.
...
> The point is: We've been asking for "IPv6" for too long. That's just
> one bit in a packet header. We need to start asking for the features we
> expect, which is a lot more than that bi
> The work Seth is doing will be in 2.1 sometime next year. He has made a lot
> of progress in a very short amount of time.
And please don't misunderstand - I am absolutely thrilled about it. But it
probably does not meet the OP's needs quite yet.
Nathan
-
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
[snip]
> But still - no IPv6 support (though a 3rd-party patch is now available to
> beat it in, it's not up to par yet, and it's not in 'stable'). :(
The work Seth is doing will be in 2.1 sometime next year. He has made
a lot of progres
> I'm running the current stable pfSense (1.2.3 I think). Very happy with it.
> It's a
> fully featured distribution that is incredibly well put together.
But still - no IPv6 support (though a 3rd-party patch is now available to beat
it in, it's not up to par yet, and it's not in 'stable'). :(
