On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:38:31 +0000 (UTC) intrigeri <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Kill Your TV wrote (01 Aug 2014 00:31:44 GMT) : > > Would it make sense to have IPv6 disabled by default in the kernel, > > such as with `ipv6.disabled=1` at the syslinux prompt? Or disabling > > it with sysctl? > > The only downside I can see is that it makes it more complicated to > work on onioncat-based solutions and support of IPv6 Tor bridges (and > then, a tiny bit less likely that it happens). Granted, that's a weak > reason not to do it. Do we have strong reasons to do it? No, I don't think so. I'd actually prefer to see IPv6 supported, though I doubt there are any (or many) IPv6-only ISPs without any sort of IPv4-fallback out there. > > If nothing else it might fix those problems seen with mac address > > spoofing like one can see with VirtualBox and bridged adapters (not > > tested), such as > > Is this related, really? I'm curious to see test results :) It's not. As a test I removed all of the IPv6 related rules from ferm and disabled IPv6 at the boot prompt. I still couldn't get an IPv4 address assigned. With the ferm IPv6 rules removed and IPv6 enabled, I was able to get an IPv6 address from my local radvd server, but my hardware router doesn't get any requests from the bridged vbox. I just saw the blocked IPv6 addresses and wrongly assumed (without giving it much thought) that it could be related. It seemed strange that in all of my boots of Tails I've only noticed the blocked ICMPv6 requests when VirtualBox is set to bridged mode, but of course, correlation != causation. -- GPG ID: 0x5BF72F42D0952C5A Fingerprint: BD12 65FD 4954 C40A EBCB F5D7 5BF7 2F42 D095 2C5A
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
