I searched and the last question\answers about this was 2 years ago. Any updates? Is the current GSA compatible with IPv6 proxies?
Thanks in advance.
Google has an IPv6 measurement page that reports that their numbers report on the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6.
According to the report by Jan 2020 0.3% of users in China used IPv6 to access Google
However, looking at this metric in dynamic we see the substantial drop starting from June 2019.
I failed to find any solid news that may cause such behavior. I have two hypotheses in mind.
- Also as it is a percentage metric, they can adjust their calculation on the total internet penetration rate in China.
- Previously open discussions between netizens took place on Google Plus groups. In April 2019, Google shut down Google Plus. Technical discussions continue on Chinese-language blogs, forums, and groups. For obvious reasons, discussions must be hosted outside China, and posters must register under pseudonyms. So probably that caused the shift from Google services but I hardly believe that it may cause such plummet.
At home I have a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 broadband connection, and I also have a wireless access point. The access point currently bridges all traffic into my LAN, which is not segmented in any way, so all visitors that use my wireless network have the full run of my LAN.
While I certainly do not doubt my friends’ good intentions I do see the possibility of their smartphones being compromised, and I’d rather not have compromised devices in my private LAN if I can help it. This, and also the fact that being in my private LAN does not gain my friends any benefits, makes me want to set up a separate wireless guest network, which I would then also use with my own smartphone.
I am currently considering opening all ports for incoming IPv6 TCP and UDP traffic for the devices in this separate guest network.
My reason for doing so is vastly improved service reliability. As a practical example, I use the Conversations XMPP chat app that does support sharing e.g. pictures, but this doesn’t work very well while both me and the other person are in our respective home LANs, presumably because neither of us has any ports open (IPv6) or forwarded (IPv4) for our smartphones.
Just to verify this hypothesis I opened all IPv6 ports for my smartphone only. And voilá, sharing pictures has been working flawlessly ever since.
The general implications of opening a router’s IPv6 firewall has been extensively discussed here, however I think my situation with the guest network for smartphones and other mobile devices is not quite comparable, because
- Smartphones are designed for being directly connected to the internet any odd way, and therefore should not have problems with open IPv6 ports
- It would only pertain to the totally separated guest network, any device in which would, from the view of a device in my LAN, just be any other device out there in the public internet
Is this sound reasoning, or is there something important I am not seeing?
What resources are there for the following:
- Checking for IPv6 connectivity from the outside
- Checking for vulnerabilities in the IPv6 connectivity? (some background is here)
- How do you pentest IPv6 connectivity?
Since I configured my smartphone Access Point Name (APN) of the type APN protocol from including the value
IPv4 to including the value
IPv4/IPv6, generally all different addresses I got after restarting my smartphone about 10 times, started with:
44c8 seems to me to stand for “Bangkok, Thailand”.
Although the question might seem absurd;
Is there is any way, besides surfing through a proxy IP address, for hiding rough whereabouts of a machine with IPv6?
About a week ago I configured my smartphone Access Point Name (APN) of the type APN protocol from including the value
IPv4 to including the value
IPv4/IPv6, all IP addresses I recognized for my smartphone were IPv6 addresses.
I didn’t change the value for the APN type APN roaming protocol → its value is still
I understand I can now have both IPv4 addresses and IPv6 addresses but the purpose of the following question is to understand the tendency I personally recognize for IPv6 (only?) addresses for my smartphone.
Why since I configured my smartphone APN protocol to IPv4/IPv6 I (might) only have IPv6 addresses? Is it a coincidence or the cause of some global standard cellular operators are now following?
For this PostgreSQL configuration example:
local replication repmgr trust host replication repmgr 127.0.0.1/32 trust host replication repmgr 192.168.1.0/24 trust local repmgr repmgr trust host repmgr repmgr 127.0.0.1/32 trust host repmgr repmgr 192.168.1.0/24 trust
I have two questions.
This is IPv4 type:
How to do with an IPv6 IP like:
If use jdbc to connect a PostgreSQL server can make string as
192.168.1.11:5432. How to do with IPv6? Is it like
Is there an IPv6 analogue of DNSLeakTest.com?
I’m trying to implement a network for a project where i need a server, a virtual machine running Ubuntu 19.04, with two static ipv4 and ipv6 addresses (one on each interface on the machine) to connect 2 subnet, but editing my
/etc/network/interfaces file doesn’t seem to work.
At the moment my configuration is this:
auto enp0s8 iface enp0s8 inet static address 192.168.20.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.20.0 broadcast 192.168.20.255 gateway 192.168.20.1 iface enp0s8 inet6 static address fc00::2:0:0:0:a netmask 64 auto enp0s9 iface enp0s9 inet static address 192.168.30.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.30.0 broadcast 192.168.30.255 gateway 192.168.30.1 iface enp0s9 inet6 static address fc00::3:0:0:0:a netmask 64
Using the command
ip addr show ipv4 works fine but i can only see one of the 2 static ipv6 addresses (every interface also has its fe80: link-local address). How can i fix this?
I am attempting to assign an IPv6 automatially to a virtual machine based off it’s MAC address. I already have this working for IPv4 but I a… | Read the rest of https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1780121&goto=newpost