Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:18:42 +0200 From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tinc and IPv6 routing, or: how to set up a local IPv6 Message-ID: <259f3563-b943-b75f-5d4b-92d3d39aa0ca@seacom.mu> In-Reply-To: <20160520072052.GB59066@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu> References: <20160519124446.GB2444@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu> <04e2cb6c-f8c3-7d30-dd53-ca18870c4598@seacom.mu> <20160520065857.GA59066@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu> <545832b8-d7df-9858-82c4-dfe9cc4c7023@seacom.mu> <20160520072052.GB59066@box-fra-01.niklaas.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/May/16 09:20, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote: > Yes, they have. But that's not the one I want to use for the VPN. I would > like to use ULAs. So I went to http://unique-local-ipv6.com/ and generated > some randomly: fd16:dcc0:f4cc::/48 So, while both machines use the > assigned addresses to communicate with the public internet, the ULA space > I would like to use for the machines to communicate within the VPN. Does > that make sense? Well, that is what ULA's are for, but to be honest, I use GUA's for both my public and private networks. I know ULA's mimics RFC 1918, but I don't believe in NAT66, so I've never tried ULA's. I think your issue might somewhat be influenced by the use of ULA's. Mark.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?259f3563-b943-b75f-5d4b-92d3d39aa0ca>