[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sks-devel] IPv4 vs. IPv6? -- Reconciliation attempt from unauthoriz
From: |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
Subject: |
Re: [Sks-devel] IPv4 vs. IPv6? -- Reconciliation attempt from unauthorized host, but host is authorized |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:18:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 12/03/2013 06:08 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 12/03/2013 11:41 AM, Kim Minh Kaplan wrote:
>> But this *is* the approach that SKS uses, except that it does not
>> have to set IPV6_V6ONLY. Like I wrote in a previous answer, SKS
>> requires the administrator to list all addresses, IPv4 and IPv6.
>> As an alternative you can use the hostname. But I do not
>> recommend this as you then have to be sure that all your DNS
>> system is working fine at SKS startup time.
>
> ah, i'm finally understanding your suggestion, Kim. thanks for
> persisting.
>
..
> Could we update the wiki to include that suggestion? attached is
> a patch for Peering.wiki.
Thanks, I've pushed a slightly modified version of the patch
explicitly mentioning the IPv4-IPv6 mapping wrt using catchall ::
- --
- ----------------------------
Kristian Fiskerstrand
Blog: http://blog.sumptuouscapital.com
Twitter: @krifisk
- ----------------------------
Public PGP key 0xE3EDFAE3 at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
- ----------------------------
Credo quia absurdum
I believe it because it is absurd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=kVFR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: [Sks-devel] IPv4 vs. IPv6? -- Reconciliation attempt from unauthorized host, but host is authorized, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, 2013/12/02
- Re: [Sks-devel] IPv4 vs. IPv6? -- Reconciliation attempt from unauthorized host, but host is authorized, Karl Schmitz, 2013/12/03
- Re: [Sks-devel] IPv4 vs. IPv6? -- Reconciliation attempt from unauthorized host, but host is authorized, Kim Minh Kaplan, 2013/12/03
- Re: [Sks-devel] IPv4 vs. IPv6? -- Reconciliation attempt from unauthorized host, but host is authorized, Phil Pennock, 2013/12/03
- Re: [Sks-devel] IPv4 vs. IPv6? -- Reconciliation attempt from unauthorized host, but host is authorized, John Clizbe, 2013/12/03