similar to: SAMBA with IPv4/IPv6 dual stack

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 23:32:30 +0100 William Edwards via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi Joachim, > > > Op 15 feb 2024 om 23:09 heeft Joachim Lindenberg via samba > > <samba at lists.samba.org> het volgende geschreven: > > > > ?Hi Rowland, > > No, I don?t have so many devices yet. > > Rowland believes that one should not use IPv6

Dear list, I'm trying to get Asterisk to work dual-stack on Linux and I'm left with a question. Imagine that a user (on the road) connects to Asterisk from various places. Many of them probably don't have IPv6 support yet. However, his house and office do have IPv6 connectivity. I would like to make sure that whenever IPv6 is available, the connection will be made over IPv6, but

Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm), I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to IPV6? Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with it? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog:

On 2024-02-16 at 09:53 +0000 Rowland Penny via samba sent off: > > Rowland believes that one should not use IPv6 internally. Many > > disagree. > > That isn't strictly true, It isn't that I believe that you shouldn't > use IPv6 internally, I just don't see the point in it, unless you have > over 16 million network clients and who has that many ? on a very

Hi, I have a process which is running as a linux service and assigns IP addresses using netlink to configued interface in linux. For IPv4 addresses i do not see any issue with this assignment. When i try to assign an IPv6 address, the address gets assigned successfully to the interface, but the Neighbour Solication request received for that address is not responded with and hence ping6 from a

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:02:20 +0100 "Pluess, Tobias" <tpluess at ieee.org> wrote: > Hallo again, > > I would like to ask if there exists any possibility to have a Samba > mount point with multiuser and with a credentials file or something > similar. Yes, mount them from fstab with the machine ticket. After your last post, I set up a share on one of my DCs, then

Tobias, Appreciate your insight, it is just nice to have, but I hate when things don?t go as expected. I?m going to fight this a little, just to see If I am doing anything wrong - but not that it?s critical to me Thanks, On Jan 17, 2024 at 09:48 +0100, Pluess, Tobias <tpluess at ieee.org>, wrote: > > Hi Luis > > I noticed exactly the same behaviour. > I wonder if the PTR

Hallo again, I would like to ask if there exists any possibility to have a Samba mount point with multiuser and with a credentials file or something similar. After a couple weeks testing I just find that my shares get disconnected after one week, which is not acceptable: I have stored some large project files on the Samba share which is opened in some calculation software, and simulations take up

Hi there, I use Samba 4.9 since its releaseday and also had some troubles first due to the lack of informations in the wiki. Anyways... after some try & error i got it working and since i run the Cluster (non-production environment) had no errors except CTDBs monitoring of the Samba process did'nt work as i would expect it (RPC-Server was dead but CTDB did'nt complain and "ctdb

Hello, I already consulted related lists @freebsd.org [1,2] but I have remained unsuccessful to solve the following issue: VPN works for an internal IPv4 subnet, but I doesn't for an internal IPv6 subnet with ULAs. To be honest, I don't have any experience setting up a local IPv6; so I guess that I'm doing something wrong here. For those that know FreeBSD: The main aim is to connect

Hi Rowland, I tried that. As follows: [root at machinename mnt]# kinit -k MACHINENAME$ [root at machinename mnt]# klist Ticket cache: FILE:/tmp/krb5cc_0 Default principal: MACHINENAME$@CAMPUS Valid starting Expires Service principal 02/28/2024 11:50:55 02/28/2024 21:50:55 krbtgt/CAMPUS at CAMPUS renew until 02/29/2024 11:50:55 [root at machinename mnt]# mount -t cifs

Hey guys! To make the adoption of IPv6 networks with Samba4 more smooth / robust, I think that it is vital to give to Samba4, the ability for it, to join a IPv4-Only Secondary DC, into a Dual-Stacked Primary DC. This doesn't work today. Otherwise, these days to enable IPv6 within a "Samba4 AC DC" network, it is a requirement to enable it, simultaneously, on each and every network

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 systems that has separate IPv4/v6 socket layer (i.e. IPv4 packet does not get routed to AF_INET6 socket) rsync --daemon would accept IPv6 sessions only. open_socket_in() tries to deal with the situation, but it was not enough. here's the patch. (it is required on all *BSDs to accept both IPv4 and IPv6 connections with --daemon mode) itojun --- ? configure.lineno ? lib/dummy

Hello all, I just found a bug a nice bug that can be turned into a real feature on systems (usually Linux) that are built with --with-ipv4-default. If you enable IPv6 in kernel, and enable both listenaddress 0.0.0.0 and ::, sshd will error out 'address family not supported'. However, you can work around this error by starting sshd with 'sshd -4 -6'. As far as man page is

Hello! I am having a strange issue with CentOS 5.4 that I cannot seem to solve. Every DNS lookup results in AAAA records being requested first before A records. As a result, this causes a large amount of unnecessary DNS traffic on the network. IPv6 has been completely disabled on these servers: /etc/modprobe.conf, ipv6 off and net-pf-10 off /etc/sysconfig/network, NETWORKING_IPV6=no lsmod |

On Fri, Jan 24, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > However I don't understand why disabling IPv6 should be necessary. If > sites resolve to AAAA+A records, then presumably it's going to choose > the A (IPv4) route since no IPv6 route exists. If a site resolves to > only an AAAA record, then it's not reachable whatever we do. For me the code tries to reach the ipv6 address,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I have a CentOS 6 box with a single IPv6 and a /64 IPv6 I would like to have on the same box a name-based virtual host of Apache with IPv4 and an IP-based virtual host with IPv6. The only solution I have found so far is to run two instances of Apache, one on IPv4 and the other on IPv6. In your opinion, are there other solutions to this problem?

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

Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de> --- Untested in this environment. appliance/init | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/appliance/init b/appliance/init index b25ea26..cc8c978 100755 --- a/appliance/init +++ b/appliance/init @@ -71,6 +71,10 @@ for f in /sys/block/{h,s,ub,v}d*/queue/scheduler; do echo noop > $f; done # Update the system clock. hwclock -u -s