similar to: IPv6, ULAs and FreeBSD

Guus Sliepen [2016-05-24 11:26 +0200] : > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:17:07AM +0200, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote: [...] > > A $ cat /usr/local/etc/tinc/klaas/tinc-up > > ifconfig $INTERFACE inet6 fd16:dcc0:f4cc:0:0:1:0:1 prefixlen 80 > > route -6 add -host fd16:dcc0:f4cc:0:0:2:0:1 fd16:dcc0:f4cc:0:0:1:0:1 > > route -6 add -net

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:17:07AM +0200, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote: > I want to serve IPv4 subnets 10.1.0.0/16 (machine A) and 10.2.0.0/16 > (machine B), and IPv6 subnets fd16:dcc0:f4cc:0:0:1::/96 (machine A) and > fd16:dcc0:f4cc:0:0:2::/96 (machine B) respectively. The jails are > connected on lo1. [...] > A $ cat /usr/local/etc/tinc/klaas/tinc-up > ifconfig

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:08:38PM +0200, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote: > So, when I try to `ping6 fd16:dcc0:f4cc:0:0:2:1:1` `tinc -D -d5` gives > me the following output: > > Cannot route packet: neighbor solicitation request for unknown address fd16:dcc0:f4cc:0:0:2:1:1 This means that either tinc is not connected to B, or that B does not have the right Subnet statement

sthaug at nethelp.no [2016-05-27 08:53 +0200] : > I don't see any problem using ULA with for instance /124 netmask: [...] > 96 bit works too: [...] FreeBSD version? Mine is 10.3-RELEASE-p3. Dunno. Could be that I made some mistake but I also tried the setup with /96 and adding the route to the tap0 interface and it did not work. Niklaas -------------- next part -------------- A

Kevin Oberman [2016-05-27 12:02 -0700] : > This is fine, but why not use link-local for the VPN links? That's the > primary reason for them. (N.B. I am not aware of your architectural > details, and ULAs for the VPNs might be appropriate.) Is it? I didn't know that I can use link-local addresses for the VPN too. How do I decide between link-local or unique-local addresses for

Mark Tinka [2016-05-27 23:57 +0200] : > On 27/May/16 21:02, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > This is fine, but why not use link-local for the VPN links? That's > > the primary reason for them. > > That's really not good advice. > > I'd caution against using link-local addresses for any type of > service. > > Link-local addresses are used for

Mark Tinka [2016-05-28 14:11 +0200] : > Why don't you have GUA IPv6 address space? > > Your ISP should be able to assign you a /48 or /56 prefix for you to > use on your LAN. That's more than plenty of space. As I wrote, I only got a /112 form my ISP. This still exceeds the amount of addresses that I need but I decided to go for ULAs for flexibility. Anyway, it's

I have succeeded in getting two tinc1.0pre3 hosts to connect, but I can't ping one from the other. I can ping the local tap interfaces. tcpdump shows that icmp echo requests are received by the other host, but no replies are sent. The two hosts are North and South. It is the same pinging North to South and South to North. The hosts are configured as follows: South: Debian 2.2

Hello list, Please don''t shoot me. I know I''m doing something with bonding that bonding wasn''t made for. I just want to give it a try. I want a simple mechanism to have a failover on a 24Mbit line to a 2Mbit line in case the 24Mbit line goes down. Between A and B there are two lines: a 24Mbit and a 2Mbit. I use two OpenVPN tunnels with tap devices: +-- tap0 (A)---

Hello, I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a bug in the implementation. The affected function is ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit in LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp.

I am trying to (semi) calculate the confidence intervals for a loess smoother (function: loess()), but have been thus far unsuccessful. The CI for the loess predicted values, yhat, are apparently yhat +- t*s * sqrt(w^2), where s is the residual sum of squares and w is the weight function Correct me of I'm wrong, but R uses the tricubic function (1-abs(z)^3)^3, where z = (x-xi)/h, where h

Hi, Thank you for the great OpenSSH package. I obtained 1.2.2 and tried it on linux 2.2.14. I had reported earlier that I saw "Transport endpoint is not connected" warning messages were observed on the linux 2.2.14 kernel with earlier release of openssh. The same happens when I used the port-forwarded HTTP connection. But this time, after accessing such http connections, I noticed

* Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff <niklaas at kulturflatrate.net>: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:43:16 +0300 > Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > > > I've been once in a while over the years thinking about implementing > > CalDAV (and CardDAV) to Dovecot. It might be time to start that soon. > > Does anyone have any suggestions? So far my main goals would

Hi, I want to migrate from vmware to KVM. Therefore I have installed debian stable (lenny) and create two virtual machines (KVM). Both (XP as well as Vista) running fine. After upgrading to debian testing (sqeeze) both XP-guest as well as Vista-guest didn't start anymore. Both are failing during preparation, probably because of a network-problem. I will give XP as an example: cat

anova() on three or more objects behaves inconsistently in R. In R anovalist.lm does a sequential ANOVA using pairwise F tests, ignoring all the other objects, so the larger of the two models provides the denominator. In S anova.lmlist uses the denominator from the largest model (smallest residual df) in the set, as does anova.glmlist in both. I suggest that R's anovalist.lm is wrong (that

Hi Stephen, > Hi all, llvm newbie here. welcome! > I'm trying to branch based on a vector compare. I've found a slow way (below) > which goes through memory. Is there some idiom I'm missing so that it would use > for instance movmsk for SSE or vcmpgt & cr6 for altivec? I don't think you are missing anything: LLVM IR has no support for horizontal operations like

I've been once in a while over the years thinking about implementing CalDAV (and CardDAV) to Dovecot. It might be time to start that soon. Does anyone have any suggestions? So far my main goals would be: - scalable, of course - configurable storage (object storage, regular fs, maybe some key-value dbs, maybe storing as emails) - efficient indexes (potentially using key-value dbs? or maybe

Hello Shorewall list, I''m a happy Shorewall user since a few years now and everything works fine for me except one thing that I try to implement since a week, the multi-isp. I''ve downloaded the 2.4.0 Stable release yesterday and tried the RC2 since a week. My config is a Debian running a kernel 2.4.27 home made with the CONNMARK.diff patch applied I''m using 2 ISP,

Hi, I have some problems with my OpenVPN server in a Xen DomU. OpenVPN works fantastic but theres a problem connecting other DomUs on this server. I have the following iptable rule to forward the requests to the internet. iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j MASQUERADE This works fine. I can connect to other DomUs on the same server but they can''t answer the

Hello. I wonder how just correct couple of spdadd commands like spdadd 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 any -P out ipsec esp/tunnel/10.1.0.1-10.2.0.1/require; spdadd 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.1.0/24 any -P in ipsec esp/tunnel/10.2.0.1-10.1.0.1/require; makes _routing_ of packets from 192.168.1/24 into 192.168.2/24. If I understand correctly how it works on *BSD, these commands with make already