ipv6 restriction lines

  • Follow


What is the format for the ntp.conf "restrict" lines for ipv6
addresses?  I couldn't find it in the http "man" pages and these two
guesses both got gripes syslog-ed.

    restrict 2001:05a8:0004:07d0::/48
    restrict 2001:05a8:0004:07d0:: mask fffff:fffff:fffff:ffff0:0000:0000:0000:0000

-wolfgang
0
Reply Wolfgang 4/4/2006 11:30:55 PM

>>> In article <87wte42a1c.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wolfgang+gnus20060404T162623@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com> writes:

Wolfgang> What is the format for the ntp.conf "restrict" lines for ipv6
Wolfgang> addresses?  I couldn't find it in the http "man" pages and these
Wolfgang> two guesses both got gripes syslog-ed.

What I have for you now is "Please see around line 1296 of ntp_config.c .

If you figure it out, please add something to:

 http://ntp.isc.org/bin/view/Support/AccessRestrictions

Fremont, eh?  I head over there a fair amount...

H
0
Reply Harlan 4/5/2006 12:33:08 AM


Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> What is the format for the ntp.conf "restrict" lines for ipv6
> addresses?  I couldn't find it in the http "man" pages and these two
> guesses both got gripes syslog-ed.
> 
>     restrict 2001:05a8:0004:07d0::/48
>     restrict 2001:05a8:0004:07d0:: mask fffff:fffff:fffff:ffff0:0000:0000:0000:0000
> 
> -wolfgang

Funnily enough I had been looking at this last week and concluded that
the IPv6 restrict code needs work. I just didn't expect anyone to ask so
soon! :)

I don't have a direct answer but I suspect that you can't use anything
but an IPv4 netmask. I'd also like to add a /nn option to the restrict
lines so we can use the now pretty standard prefix length for these
lines for both IPv4 and IPv6. I was about to put out this suggestion to
hackers so I'm copying that mailimh list as well.

Danny
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions

0
Reply mayer 4/5/2006 2:08:45 AM

2 Replies
217 Views

(page loaded in 0.046 seconds)

Similiar Articles:






7/17/2012 8:45:21 PM


Reply: