similar to: ipv6 with network-route

hi there, what are exactly the differences between auth_worker_max_count = 30 and auth default { count = 1 } ? first are threads (for threaded auth methods) and second the number of process ?

Hi all, I've updated Asterisk trunk LDAP schema [0] [1] to include queues and other attributes needed for a working LDAP backend (I'll open a bug to include these changes on svn). SIP users and dialplan are perfectly working, but when I call a queue the whole Asterisk (1.6.2.0) crashes: on extconfig: [settings] sipusers => ldap,"dc=nodomain",sip sippeers =>

I have been gradually moving more tinc servers over to ipv6 addresses on the tinc 1.1 branch. Tinc is inserting a default route for ipv6 for some reason... default via 2600:3c01:e030:f2::1 dev tinc6 proto static metric 950 pref medium In my case the default route supplied by ra is still the correct thing, but I don't see where in the code tinc is inserting this route from.... which, as

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:16:37PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: > I have been gradually moving more tinc servers over to ipv6 addresses > on the tinc 1.1 branch. > > Tinc is inserting a default route for ipv6 for some reason... > > default via 2600:3c01:e030:f2::1 dev tinc6 proto static metric 950 > pref medium > > In my case the default route supplied by ra is still

Package: xcp-xapi Version: 1.3.2-14 Severity: important I understand that XCP version 1.3 doesn't support IPv6 This blog talks about enabling it in v1.6: http://jeffloughridge.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/ipv6-in-xcp-1-6/ However, one observation that I have made is that the dom0 host, in a default wheezy installation, has kernel IPv6 enabled and appears to have a link-local address on every

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=751 Summary: IPv6 bridging bug Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Gentoo Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ip6tables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy: david at

Hello Maybe someone could direct us to right solution with the problem descibed below. We tried different trick bo no success stories. We have a development cluster based on Dell R815 servers (+-30) and a storage server - Netapp FAS 3240 runnig Data Ontap 8.1p2. We have some 100 virtual servers - we use Xen 4.1 for virtualisation. A basics OS is Debian Squeeze with some backports packages

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:43:44PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote: > - On Linux, add "echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/$INTERFACE/accept_ra" > to tinc-up before any ifconfig or ip commands. Ah, if it's only the default route you don't want, then it's: echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/$INTERFACE/accept_ra_defrtr -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,

On 8/10/20 11:23 PM, Ian Wienand wrote: > 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

Hi, I have three squeeze servers running: ii linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 2.6.32-38 Linux 2.6.32 for 64-bit PCs, Xen dom0 support ii xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64 4.0.1-4 The Xen Hypervisor on AMD64 All three servers have Intel gigabit NICs, but one server uses the e1000e driver and the other two use the igb driver. They've been in production for around 6 months now

Hi, I have three Debian squeeze servers running: ii linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 2.6.32-38 Linux 2.6.32 for 64-bit PCs, Xen dom0 support ii xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64 4.0.1-4 The Xen Hypervisor on AMD64 All three servers have Intel gigabit NICs, but one server uses the e1000e driver and the other two use the igb driver. They''ve been in production for around 6

Hi, I am currently using IPv4 with the following network configuration which has worked fine for some months now: <network> <name>net0</name> <uuid>fa0c1c69-da82-1bef-fcb2-4c336bbexxxx</uuid> <forward dev='eth0' mode='route'/> <bridge name='virbr0' stp='on' forwardDelay='0' /> <ip

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1221 Bug ID: 1221 Summary: "fib" produces strange results with an IPv6 default route Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5

Hi, Sorry for the delay. On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:52:46 -0400 Laine Stump <laine@redhat.com> wrote: > On 8/10/20 11:23 PM, Ian Wienand wrote: > > 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

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 01:32:06AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > The check comes from commit 00d28a78b5d1 ("network: check accept_ra > before enabling ipv6 forwarding"), and it's there because the accept_ra > flag works like this (from Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt): > > 0 Do not accept Router Advertisements. > 1 Accept Router Advertisements if

Once upon a time, Kenneth Porter <shiva at sewingwitch.com> said: > I just got 50 Mbps symmetric fiber from AT&T and it includes a /56 > of IPv6 addresses, replacing a much slower ADSL line. I never tried > to get IPv6 working on the old connection. I'm using CentOS 7 as a > gateway and it's worked great for several versions for IPv4. > > I'm not seeing any

Hi there, I've added support for HP T750 G2, find attached the patch. Please CC-me, as I'm not subscribed to this mailing list. Thanks for such a nice piece of software! -- Jorge Salamero Sanz - Systems Analyst jsalamero at zentyal.com The Linux small business server www.zentyal.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nut-hpt750g2.diff

Le 18/02/2019 ? 18:58, Tru Huynh a ?crit?: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 06:36:10PM +0100, Patrick B?gou wrote: > ... >> - PXE boot start and the desktop load the kernel and the inirtd file >> >> - the kernel is booted and at this time the led of the network switch >> goes down for the port used by the desktop. >> >> - then I have a message "no carrier

Situation peth0 = internet peth1 = local private network Dom0 is only configured to use peth1 and works fine as such I have a DomU setup as a NAT box for the local network to the internet and it is functioning as well. DomU is also running a caching DNS and DHCP for the local network The problem I have is DomO''s gateway is set to the local network IP of the DomU, as is

I need some help to configure a secure network on my Xen server. I have been looking online and it seems a I need a routed network. But I am having a terrible time implementing it. My setup: Xen 3.4.2 CentOS 5.5 Dom0 1 NIC (eth0) All guests will be HVM What I want to do is something similar to a firewall and port forwarding. e.g. DomU.1 has DHCP address of 10.0.0.50 (DHCP matches MAC to