IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 26 December 2010 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F0F28C0DD for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:08:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4sLLYYolSyV6 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923FD28C0CE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4E6789C; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:10:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C04B9A; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:10:06 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:10:06 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012252345490.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012260809270.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012231149340.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4D139F39.8070702@gmail.com> <AANLkTinxn2NSiP1dsfJxACp=2aFioCE=Nhnik8Do3OvL@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012232117350.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se> <AANLkTimjzid5SWRo46C-6Ry14AqaESingSyFwswV6txw@mail.gmail.com> <5E5572D7-D8BD-4258-83AE-DB8E2DB4E503@free.fr> <AANLkTimmW4Y7JBAgDQs+O5mf2oidWdiZ08BMRY9C4gWo@mail.gmail.com> <453F49D7-3E28-4DB7-ABE6-F843B2DE8F40@free.fr> <AANLkTin44gbk3HE2VSB-id2yznggiCqAcgRRFP7KKq6s@mail.gmail.com> <EFF0E67E-025E-472C-A21A-703E59554CB2@free.fr> <20101225221617.GC3695@Space.Net> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012252345490.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: v6ops v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:08:03 -0000

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> Well, actually we have gotten IPv6 to "work" on a huawei stick, but we 
> had to manually configure the IPv6 address in linux (logged into the 
> GGSN to find out what address it was supposed to be), as IPV6CP didn't 
> seem to work on the PPP layer from the usb stick.

Correction, this wasn't a dongle, it was a symbian phone attached to a 
computer running linux.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status