Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:57:27 -0700 From: Mel Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> To: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> Subject: Re: IPv6-only network--is NAT64+DNS64 really this easy now? Message-ID: <a293d234-35e4-4388-def4-d75f07771809@bluerosetech.com> In-Reply-To: <44v9wtr8o9.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <5e24739b-bbd0-d94a-5b0e-53fdeba81245@bluerosetech.com> <CANJ8om6WmNQWibnSCMR2hf09he-wWBUnBmY5Mnn7%2BNtvUHhcBQ@mail.gmail.com> <19784363-6543-ccc1-b13f-5f1a67dc10d1@bluerosetech.com> <44v9wtr8o9.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2019-06-25 8:23, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Mel Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> writes: >> Yes, that is why I wrote "Waving a hand at bug-hunting and >> lamentations over the inertia of embedded systems designers". > > I'm an embedded system designer, and the system I develop works fine under > IPv6. We say we don't support it, because we don't specifically test it, > but a lot of the time the applications are1 actually running over IPv6 > without anybody noticing. The Windows GUI pieces can't configure IPv6 > addresses, but we really prefer running with link-local anyway. That's the problem, though. If the vendor doesn't support or test it, I can't rely on it in production. That's a big part of what I mean by lamenting embedded systems designers. Until we have IPv6 parity, all those printers and multifunction devices sit on their own IPv4-only VLAN, accessible only through print servers so that I don't have to worry about things like unsecured SNMP over IPv6 because the vendor didn't bother making their ACLs dual-stack or only added the "read-only" config bit for IPv4, leaving the IPv6 SNMP open to unauthorized writing (actual observed behaviour with a major printer manufacturer).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a293d234-35e4-4388-def4-d75f07771809>