Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:37:55 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Eugene <eugene3@web.de> Subject: Re: ipv6 only host - problems (5.2-current) Message-ID: <20031218193755.DECA25D04@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Message from David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> <20031218191102.GA97360@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:11:02 +0000 > From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:12:14PM +0100, Eugene wrote: > > i dont want an ip dual-stack, i want an ipv6-only ip stack... > > The KAME stack, as it exists in FreeBSD, requires INET support for > INET6 to work. I don't know if there has been work in KAME to change > this. > > It is certainly possible to have FreeBSD runnign without IPv4 being > configured. For example, I have a router where IPv4 is only configured > on the loopback interface. I noticed that things like ntpd can still > recieve IPv4 multicast/broadcast packets even if you don't have > IPv4 explicitly configured on an interface. I use ipfw to stop any > broadcast/multicast traffic from getting in. > > David. > > # ipfw show > 00100 0 0 allow ip from any to any via lo0 > 00200 0 0 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 > 00300 0 0 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any > 00400 170247 28972437 deny ip from any to any > 65535 0 0 allow ip from any to any As far as I recall, the RFC for IPv6 mandates support for (though not use of) IPv4. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031218193755.DECA25D04>