Op 23-4-2012 11:02, Eugen Leitl schreef:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:54:51PM -0400, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Drew Lehmandleh...@digitatech.com wrote:
Apparently the Git option is not longer valid to upgrade 2.0.1 to 2.1 since
so much has changed. Does anyone
Thanks for the list of stuff that works.
Out of curiosity - how are folks planning on doing multi-WAN load
balancing in the v6 world?
With NATed v4 it was simple: get public IP from each ISP, use that on
the WAN, then use RFC1918 addresses on the LAN, translating to each
ISP's public IP as
Are there any plans to incorporate something like NAT64 (or another
4-to-6 translation method) to allow v6-only networks?
Kind regards,
Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
On 4/23/2012 8:25 AM, Chris Bagnall wrote:
Thanks for the list of stuff that works.
Out of curiosity - how are folks planning on doing multi-WAN load
balancing in the v6 world?
With NATed v4 it was simple: get public IP from each ISP, use that on
the WAN, then use RFC1918 addresses on the
On 23/4/12 1:40 pm, Jim Pingle wrote:
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN_for_IPv6
Already have that covered... (and it works for me at my house).
Excellent! Thanks for the link.
I shall give it a try over the weekend (it's the one thing that's been
holding me back from a fully v6'd
Op 23-4-2012 14:30, Chris Bagnall schreef:
Are there any plans to incorporate something like NAT64 (or another
4-to-6 translation method) to allow v6-only networks?
Yes, for 2.2 at it's earliest. There is a patch for pf in OpenBSD in
circulation but that's not useful right now.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Seth Mos seth@dds.nl wrote:
Is it realistic to expect 2.1 with full IPv6 support by 6th June?
Define Full.
Yeah full IPv6 support is hard to quantify. You could add things to
a full IPv6 support list and create something where no product in
the world has
