similar to: Differences between IPv4 and IPv6 authentication

Hi, I attached a mobile phone (its name I-MATE SMART PHONE) to a box running CentOS 5 by using a usb cable which came with that phone. Now, it shows /dev/ttyUSB0 Now I want to send a sms to my friends. I installed gammu. Pls see below for installed rpm. [root at mailgw ~]# rpm -qa |grep gammu gammu-1.11.0-1.el5.rf here's my /etc/gammurc file. [gammu] port = /dev/ttyUSB0 ;model = 6110

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401 ------- Additional Comments From yoshfuji at linux-ipv6.org 2003-01-06 12:20 ------- Created an attachment (id=194) --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=194&action=view) patch to run openssh-3.5p1 on linux-2.2 & glibc-2.2(or later) This is modified patch for openssh-3.5p1. Patch is simplified. ------- You are

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401 yoshfuji at linux-ipv6.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|misc. ipv4-mapped address |ipv4 mapped address (ipv4 in |support fix |ipv6) and ipv6 support fix ------- Additional

Hello, I use Samba AD in Version 4.8.3 and would like to run it on IPv4 und IPv6 in order to be able to have Samba acting as IPv6 DNS Server. However since I have problem with sysprep domain join as soon as Samba advertises its own Domain Controller Hostname as IPv4 and IPv6 address, I would like to tell Samba to run on both protocols but only resolve to an IPv4 address. So in short: When I

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:26:28 +0200 Thomas Glanzmann via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hello, > I use Samba AD in Version 4.8.3 and would like to run it on IPv4 und > IPv6 in order to be able to have Samba acting as IPv6 DNS Server. > However since I have problem with sysprep domain join as soon as Samba > advertises its own Domain Controller Hostname as IPv4 and

I have two installations of dovecot 2.18, apart from the necessary changes to allow them to replicate amongst themselves the configs are identical. Both are running Ubuntu 14.04 and are kept up to date. One is running 64bit and the other 32 bit (for historical reasons). Both have ipv4 and ipv6 addresses. The 64 bit installation allows access on port 143 and 993 on both ipv4 and ipv6. The 32

hello, i had two entry in the hosts file : ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain i wanted to remove the ::1 one as php mail() seems to have issue with it. I used: host{ ''localhost'': ip => ''::1'', alias =>

Hello, How do I find out what is happening to my packets thru my ipsec tunnel. They just seem to disappear on the remote side. I have successfully got the pings thru when everything has an ipv6 address, but am not successful when trying to connect two ipv4 lans across an ipv6 ipsec tunnel. All fw chains both 4 and 6 are set to ACCEPT. NAT is turned off. eth0 eth1

Hi All, I tried to play a little bit with IPv6 to test our VoIP quality software with IPv6 RTP streams. I add "bindaddr=::" to the general section of the sip.conf and netstat shows that Asterisk is listing also on IPv6. My Asterisk server is behind a IPv4 NAT and was working absolutely perfect. But after my bindaddr change I got a problem with external calls. I spend some time to

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #3 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-21

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-08 23:33:07 CEST --- As noted, #2 is solved already. Also, /128 will no longer print (commit 945353a2). But your #1 makes little sense to me: discovery.razor.cloudmark.com/22. How do you know that EVERY IP returned from a DNS lookup is always going to be a /22 mask?

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #5 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 03:45:06 CEST --- Re: Comment #4. One doesn't know what the addresses are until they are retrieved from the DNS. The point is that the routines which generate the rules are NOT checking the values AFTER the CIDR netmask is applied to eliminate POST-MASK duplicate answers. The

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #6 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09 03:50:27 CEST --- Yes, I fully understand what is happening in the one specific example you have provided. However you need to answer what happens if Cloudmark suddenly decides to add an IP _OUTSIDE_ of that /22 that is assigned to them. Let's say they open a new

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #7 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 09:35:30 CEST --- Re: Comment #6 - It is up to the author of the ruleset to determine policy. It is the duty of the software to properly execute that policy. Here, the software fails to do so because it produces duplicate redundant rules which are never used. Note that iptables-save

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #8 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09 15:56:45 CEST --- (In reply to comment #7) > It is the duty of the software to properly execute that policy. Here, the > software fails to do so because it produces duplicate redundant rules which are > never used. And where is it documented that the software

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #9 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 19:56:29 CEST --- RE: Comment #7: "It seems your best solution is to add a single rule with 208.83.136.0/22." Yet, it adds THREE rules, two of which will never fire, thus the problem and bug report. Extend your quota example: When the first rule reaches the quota, it will

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Phil Oester

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #11 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 21:48:05 CEST --- I fully disagree that the addition of duplicate rules that will never be reached is part of the design. As a waste of memory allocation, it is inefficient and therefore incorrect. The use of a hostname in place of an IP address literal should not have any effect in

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=919 Summary: ah: --reserver is not supported (ipv4 and ipv6) Product: nftables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: nft AssignedTo: pablo at netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1009 Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov (mva) <netfilter at mva.name> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at mva.name --- Comment #1 from Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov (mva) <netfilter at