Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
|
2
|
General IPv6 Topics / IPv6 on Routing Platforms / Re: RADVD through OpenWRT or DDWRT WDS bridge?
|
on: July 21, 2012, 01:34:28 pm
|
|
I don't know the specifics of either OpenWRT or DDWRT running in WDS mode and what packets it passes, but I've run across many devices that claim to be bridges, yet do quirky little things like only passing IPv4 or only passing traffic thats on the same logical/IP subnet as the device, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the *WRT firmware acts similar, but I'm not saying it does.
You might also ask on one of the *WRT mailing lists and see if anyone else is using a similar setup.
The only way to know for sure is to start dumping packets and see if you see the RA's, etc.
I'm assuming IPv4 is working fine on the setup?
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Tunnelbroker.net Specific Topics / Questions & Answers / Re: tserv1.zrh1.he.net is dead
|
on: July 21, 2012, 10:02:18 am
|
|
ping -c2 tserv1.zrh1.he.net PING tserv1.zrh1.he.net (216.66.80.98) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from tserv1.zrh1.he.net (216.66.80.98): icmp_req=1 ttl=49 time=151 ms 64 bytes from tserv1.zrh1.he.net (216.66.80.98): icmp_req=2 ttl=49 time=154 ms
--- tserv1.zrh1.he.net ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 151.309/153.036/154.763/1.727 ms
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
General IPv6 Topics / IPv6 on Linux & BSD & Mac / Re: Tunnel creation with putty client
|
on: July 16, 2012, 11:24:40 pm
|
|
Putty is just an ssh client. While ssh has some ways of tunneling, these tend to be on the crude side for quick and dirty tunnels, or individual port access, not full clean tunnels.
Any tunnel over a TCP protocol (such as those supported by ssh) are going to be troublesome, just research tunnel over tcp and you'll see why.
6in4 tunnels tend to be more reliable, similar to straight GRE if you're familiar with that.
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
General IPv6 Topics / IPv6 on Routing Platforms / Re: Can true routing occur with the typical /64 assigned by the tunnel broker?
|
on: June 29, 2012, 06:48:07 pm
|
|
There's a second /64 that CAN be routed and is routed over that point to point tunnel.
There's a lot of debate about how "big" if a network should be used for a point to point, in this case (and a lot of providers are doing this) HE is using a /64.
There are some things that break if you try to PTP with just a /128, some people use a /126 but this isn't very popular.
But yes, your tunnel actually has two /64 ranges, one is used to build the point to point, the other is routed over that and used how ever you want.
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
Tunnelbroker.net Specific Topics / Questions & Answers / Re: A few v6 capable sites suddenly unreachable.
|
on: June 23, 2012, 01:02:54 pm
|
bdavenport@CAG:~$ traceroute6 2a03:2880:10:8f01:face:b00c:0:25
8 2620:0:1cff:dead:beee::13f (2620:0:1cff:dead:beee::13f) 134.872 ms 135.752 ms 135.211 ms 9 * * *
etwork. Any ideas as to what the issue is and possible fix?
That IP is a FB IP, right? It appears that is the final hop right after 2620:0:1cff:dead:beee::13f. So this to me appears to be a firewall issue or something along those lines at the far end (FB). I can MTR to it just fine: mtr -r -c 5 -n 2a03:2880:10:8f01:face:b00c:0:25 HOST: lnxjerry Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::1 0.0% 5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.1 2.|-- 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::1 0.0% 5 32.3 32.0 31.1 32.7 0.7 3.|-- 2001:470:0:6e::1 0.0% 5 28.6 29.4 27.9 30.6 1.1 4.|-- 2001:504:0:4:0:3:2934:1 0.0% 5 61.5 54.5 51.7 61.5 4.0 5.|-- 2620:0:1cff:dead:beef::23 0.0% 5 77.4 72.0 64.7 86.6 9.8 6.|-- 2620:0:1cff:dead:beee::10 0.0% 5 87.6 85.7 83.6 87.6 1.5 7.|-- 2620:0:1cff:dead:beef::e6 0.0% 5 99.2 102.1 99.2 105.0 2.1 8.|-- 2620:0:1cff:dead:beef::b 0.0% 5 104.1 104.6 103.4 106.1 1.3 9.|-- 2620:0:1cff:dead:beee::13 0.0% 5 109.0 104.2 102.3 109.0 2.8 10.|-- 2a03:2880:10:8f01:face:b0 20.0% 5 100.6 102.1 100.6 103.9 1.6
|
|
|
|
|