--- g...@space.net wrote:
From: Gert Doering
To: Scott Weeks
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 02:53:41PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> I was not around for those discussions (and not being a computer
> science person, nor wanting to go on this for too long as
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 02:53:41PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> I was not around for those discussions (and not being a computer
> science person, nor wanting to go on this for too long as has been
> endlessly done on other lists), but it seems TLV would have allowed
> 4 to be a subset of
--- g...@space.net wrote:
From: Gert Doering
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:57:54PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly,
> barely 15 years after people were told to move towards IPv6.
> ---
>
>
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:57:54PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly,
> barely 15 years after people were told to move towards IPv6.
> ---
>
>
> Especially after IETF made it backwards compatible and
--- g...@space.net wrote:
From: Gert Doering
Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly,
barely 15 years after people were told to move towards IPv6.
---
Especially after IETF made it backwards compatible and made
it so
>> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly, barely 15
years
>> after people were told to move towards IPv6.
sad but true
2017-10-29 10:33 GMT+01:00 Gert Doering :
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:32:03AM +0100, WolfSec-Support wrote:
> > The vpn needs
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:32:03AM +0100, WolfSec-Support wrote:
> The vpn needs to run on v4
> Its not site 2 site in this case.
>
> As all know it is still rare to get v6 access everywhere
>
> But in general it would be better if an ISP informs the customer BEFORE
> such a change.
>
> To
The vpn needs to run on v4
Its not site 2 site in this case.
As all know it is still rare to get v6 access everywhere
But in general it would be better if an ISP informs the customer BEFORE
such a change.
To implement CGN without making sure the customer gets a notice was simply
the root of the
Roger
Well you are wrong. No ipsec.
With CGN outbound for sure no prob.
But inbound due to CG NAT impossible.
Br
Stephan
Am 28.10.2017 17:32 schrieb "Roger Schmid" :
Well i only suspecting your try to use ipsec, wich is a crazy vpn solution.
I would sugest to evaluate ssl
Well i only suspecting your try to use ipsec, wich is a crazy vpn solution.
I would sugest to evaluate ssl based vpn in the future which naturally do not
run into nat problems.
Just my five cents
Em 27 de outubro de 2017 03:00:18 AMT, WolfSec-Support
escreveu:
>Hello,
>
>
SOLVED:
many thanks to all @ swisscom who helped me
issue solved.
for propperness:
it was CG NAT, not ds-lite
(I had a week ago an issue with UPC and ds-lite; so was my fault)
now back to dual stack and all works :)
have a nice weekend,
cheers
stephan
2017-10-27 9:00 GMT+02:00
Hello,
could be someone from swisscom so kind and contact me offlist via email
please.
our customer has a swisscom dsl connection and last week they changed these
to v6.
he already tried 3 times via swisscom helpdesk without success.
the first level seems to have no idea about ds lite and v6...
12 matches
Mail list logo