On Dec 31, 2019 02:09pm, Tony Langdon wrote to Terry Roati:

Hi Tony,

 TL> None, though allowing inbound traffic on the port being used wouldn't
 TL> hurt if using UDP.  However, I suspect that's unnecessary.  The router
 TL> plays no part in setting up the tunnel (I suspect you're making an
 TL> assumption that it does).

I was expecting that you would have setup IPv6 in the router and it would have
handled the IPv4 stuff as well.

 TL> Again, state your assumptions.

If running windows, did you have tochange the hosts file?

 TL> Given that they have owned Internode, who have been offering IPv6
 TL> officially (i.e. not a trial) since 2011, and had it on a trial for
 TL> some time before then.

That's the mystery, however I get the impression that not all of IInet
supports IPv6 also based on what I have read in Whirlpool.

 TL> Anyway, my network setup is fairly complex with several networks
 TL> running on the same wire.  The main router only handles the single
 TL> static IPv4 and the /56 from Internode.  There are a couple of other
 TL> networks in play.

Your setup does seem fairly complex but I am sure you have a reason for this.

 TL> The IPv4 for the BBSs is handled by an Alix 3d3 running CentOS and
 TL> OpenVPN. The switch to IPv6 for carrying the data actually simplified
 TL> things, because I don't need to do any special IPv4 routing - bringing
 TL> up the VPN crates the default route.  No policy routing or host route
 TL> to the other end of the tunnel is needed, because the carrier network
 TL> is IPv6.

 TL> There's also another router (a R-Pi) for my net44 IP block, and
 TL> finally, I do have some ZeroTier virtual LANs running.

I just want to run a simple network of 3 PC's, NVR and a NAS. IPv6 will allow
me to run more domains which is about it.



Terry

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0