Author: Kill Your TV Date: To: tails-dev Subject: Re: [Tails-dev] IPv6
On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:38:31 +0000 (UTC)
intrigeri <intrigeri@???> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kill Your TV wrote (01 Aug 2014 00:31:44 GMT) :
> > Would it make sense to have IPv6 disabled by default in the kernel,
> > such as with `ipv6.disabled=1` at the syslinux prompt? Or disabling
> > it with sysctl?
>
> The only downside I can see is that it makes it more complicated to
> work on onioncat-based solutions and support of IPv6 Tor bridges (and
> then, a tiny bit less likely that it happens). Granted, that's a weak
> reason not to do it. Do we have strong reasons to do it?
No, I don't think so. I'd actually prefer to see IPv6 supported, though
I doubt there are any (or many) IPv6-only ISPs without any sort of
IPv4-fallback out there.
> > If nothing else it might fix those problems seen with mac address
> > spoofing like one can see with VirtualBox and bridged adapters (not
> > tested), such as
>
> Is this related, really? I'm curious to see test results :)
It's not. As a test I removed all of the IPv6 related rules from ferm
and disabled IPv6 at the boot prompt. I still couldn't get an IPv4
address assigned. With the ferm IPv6 rules removed and IPv6 enabled, I
was able to get an IPv6 address from my local radvd server, but my
hardware router doesn't get any requests from the bridged vbox.
I just saw the blocked IPv6 addresses and wrongly assumed (without
giving it much thought) that it could be related. It seemed strange
that in all of my boots of Tails I've only noticed the blocked ICMPv6
requests when VirtualBox is set to bridged mode, but of course,
correlation != causation.
