search for: rfc3484

Hello, Firstly THANK YOU for the IPv6 NAT support merged in 6.5. It has been almost impossible to get IPv6 into a VM on a laptop that switches between wifi and wired (dock) connections, because you can not add a wifi interface to a bridge. I know NAT is against the IPv6 end-to-end xen but it makes this "just work" for the vast majority of people like me who need to ssh/curl/talk to

...have a reference for this? > Is this the range expected to be used for ipv6 > NAT? If so, would a patch to drop some documentation breadcrumbs > about setting gai.conf or something be useful? The man page for gai.conf *implies* that glibc is following the preference rules suggested in RFC3484, which was written prior to RFC4193, so it seems strange that it would give any special treatment to addresses in that range. Does it behave in the same way if you use FD00::... instead of FC00::...? (probably, but worth checking) > Or are there better choices for the network? I've Cc&...

...option >>> or use SO_BINDTODEVICE on listening sockets, one of which is required for safe >>> operation on a publicly routable subnet (see CVE-2012-3411). You must either upgrade >>> dnsmasq, or use a private/local subnet range for this network (as described in RFC1918/RFC3484/RFC4193). Since no VM was running at this point (because of the missing networks), i decided to quickly update to a newer version of DNSMASQ (2.68) and installed this to "/usr/local/sbin" and linked it to "/usr/sbin/dnsmasq" after removing the distribution specific packages....

On Di, 2014-02-18 at 12:03 +0200, Laine Stump wrote: > You *really* should upgrade to a newer libvirt. I know that version 0.9.8 is very old. But to be honest i tried to avoid upgrading and compiling a newer version since i don't know if it has any effects on running VMs (but i haven't checked this yet). Its a production server and i did not want to interrupt any services running on

...> Is this the range expected to be used for ipv6 > > NAT? If so, would a patch to drop some documentation breadcrumbs > > about setting gai.conf or something be useful? > > The man page for gai.conf *implies* that glibc is following the > preference rules suggested in RFC3484, which was written prior to > RFC4193, so it seems strange that it would give any special treatment to > addresses in that range. Does it behave in the same way if you use > FD00::... instead of FC00::...? (probably, but worth checking) > > > Or are there better choices for t...