Is DHCPv6 really in use? I thought everybody will use IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery.
This is also what I suspect since no module is available from CPAN but if
proxmox is to appear as a boundary router for private nets will IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery be sufficient from the clients to the interface
By the way, about ipv6, pveproxy don't work currently because of
IO::Socket::INET not compatible with ipv6
I see that a new IO::Socket::IP support both ipv4 and ipv6, do you known if
it's works fine ?
- Mail original -
De: Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com
À: Alexandre DERUMIER
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:45:24 +0200 (CEST)
Alexandre DERUMIER aderum...@odiso.com wrote:
By the way, about ipv6, pveproxy don't work currently because of
IO::Socket::INET not compatible with ipv6
I see that a new IO::Socket::IP support both ipv4 and ipv6, do you known if
it's works fine
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:01:42 +
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
AFAIK IPv6 Neighbor Discovery cannot even handle basic things like passing
DNS server.
So you need DHCPv6.
Yes, I know that but if the DHCPv6 part should only handle such things
it will greatly reduce the
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:46:38 +0200 (CEST)
Alexandre DERUMIER aderum...@odiso.com wrote:
Is DHCPv6 really in use? I thought everybody will use IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery.
I think dhcpv6 can assign hostname,dns servers to guest, but not neighbor
discovery ?
(I don't use ipv6 currently,
I see that a new IO::Socket::IP support both ipv4 and ipv6, do you known if
it's
works fine ?
In my dhcp server I use IO::Socket::IP. It works extremely well and is a
drop-in
replacement for IO::Socket::INET. No code needs any changes;-)
That sounds good (no changes needed) ;-)
Well, pveproxy, which is likely the same in complexity, sports 1372 lines off
code
so I don't consider 1181 lines of code frightening compared to that;-)
But this is ipv4 only?
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:34:40 +
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
That sounds good (no changes needed) ;-)
To have full support for socket helper IPv6 functions you need to use
Socket6 as well.
--
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen
Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael at rasmussen
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:35:59 +
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
Well, pveproxy, which is likely the same in complexity, sports 1372 lines
off code
so I don't consider 1181 lines of code frightening compared to that;-)
But this is ipv4 only?
Yes, but if we leave IP
Yes, but if we leave IP discovery to ND and SLAAC which is the intended way we
will only need to provide DNS et al. Gateway, broadcast and IP will be
handled by
ND and SLAAC.
Ok, sound reasonable.
___
pve-devel mailing list
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:13:00 +
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
Yes, but if we leave IP discovery to ND and SLAAC which is the intended way
we
will only need to provide DNS et al. Gateway, broadcast and IP will be
handled by
ND and SLAAC.
Ok, sound reasonable.
And I
My intended way of doing it as IPv6 stateless DHCPv6. Read more here:
http://blog.geoff.co.uk/2011/08/02/ipv6-automated-network-configuration/
When SLAAC with RDNSS is widely accepted this will be the way to go and
this will be easy provided we use IPv6 stateless DHCPv6. Stateful
DHCPv6 as we
That sounds good (no changes needed) ;-)
I have done some tests, it's working fine with ipv4, no regression.
I'll do more tests.
- Mail original -
De: Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com
À: Michael Rasmussen m...@datanom.net, pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
Envoyé: Samedi 26 Juillet 2014
My intended way of doing it as IPv6 stateless DHCPv6. Read more here:
http://blog.geoff.co.uk/2011/08/02/ipv6-automated-network-configuration/
Thanks for the link.
When SLAAC with RDNSS is widely accepted this will be the way to go and this
will be easy provided we use IPv6 stateless DHCPv6.
That sounds good (no changes needed) ;-)
I have done some tests, it's working fine with ipv4, no regression.
That listens on both addresses (ipv4 and ipv6)?
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
15 matches
Mail list logo
