From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80BF2138359 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:14:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C53CE0978; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:14:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB7EE069C for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:14:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id 06VGEUt5025207 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:14:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Local mail server To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <1831008.PYKUYFuaPT@peak> <5F212A7A.4020605@youngman.org.uk> <2550238.mvXUDI8C0e@peak> From: Grant Taylor Message-ID: <77d309a6-cf99-b826-c5d5-8742e59f7a4c@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:14:30 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b654e9d3-674b-4996-8e1f-62d1aae98c81 X-Archives-Hash: dfdae508529a166b3c468fd41ebf78cc On 7/29/20 1:28 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > I don't know what most ISPs are doing. I couldn't get IPv6 via > Comcast (or whatever they're called this week) working with OpenWRT > (probably my fault, and I didn't really need it). So I never figured > out if the IPv6 address I was getting was static or not. Ya.... That was probably a DHCPv6 for outside vs DHCPv6 Provider Delegation (PD) issue. I remember running into that with Comcast. I think for a while, they were mutually exclusive on Comcast. > There is DHPCv6 (I've implemented it), but I have no idea if anybody > actually uses it. Even if they are using DHCPv6, they can be using > it to hand out static addresses. I've seen DHCPv6 used many times. It can be stateless (in combination with SLAAC to manage the address) or stateful (where DHCPv6 manages the address). Either way, there is a LOT more information that can be specified with DHCPv6 that simple SLAAC doesn't provide. For a long time you couldn't dynamically determine DNS server IP addresses without DHCPv6 or static configuration. > The assumption always seemed to be that switching to IPv6 meant the > end of NAT That's what the IPv6 Zealots want you to think. > and the end of dynamic addresses. Nope, not at all. -- Grant. . . . unix || die