Re: [Samba] Specifying an IPv6 wildcard in the interfaces directive?
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:39:23 +0200
- From: Manfred via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Samba] Specifying an IPv6 wildcard in the interfaces directive?
On 4/21/19 1:04 AM, Jeff Morris via samba wrote:
On 4/20/2019 1:08 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 3:32 PM Jeff Morris via samba
My network uses reserved IPv4 addresses (192.168.2.0/24) behind a NAT
firewall, but public IPv6 addresses behind a filtering firewall.
My ISP (Comcast) assigns both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses dynamically.
As a result, the IPv4 address of my internal Samba server is statically
assigned, but its IPv6 address is dynamically assigned.
Why can't your internal DHCP server assign reserved IP addresses,
suitable to a non-routable address space?
Well, of course it *can*, and indeed that's what I'm doing for IPv4.
However, best practices recommend not using NAT for IPv6. One of the
main driving factors toward the global migration to IPv6 is so we can
have a "flat" Internet again, with enough address space to allow all
devices to be individually addressable, like we did years ago with IPv4
(yes, I'm old enough to remember) :-), and get away from NAT,
port-forwarding, and all the other horrible kludges that have been
implemented over the years to try to compensate for the exhaustion of
the IPv4 address space.
In the ideal world where all is IPV6 without NAT, how would you
configure your server with its two addresses (which must expose
different services), while delegating all address assignments to your ISP?
To my understanding NAT is not only meant to "compensate for the
exhaustion of the IPv4 address space", but also (and possibly more
importantly) to separate the architecture of public and private networks.
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the