On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:09:58PM -0500, Philippe Clérié wrote:
On 04/14/2016 08:38 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Philippe Clérié wrtes:
I thought it somewhat strange since I believe IPv6 essentially removes
the need for VPN.
How?
Well, it's just the way IPv6 works.
By now, I suspect most IPv4 n
2016-04-15 05:09 keltezéssel, Philippe Clérié írta:
> By now, I suspect most IPv4 networks use private addresses, i.e.
> 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/16, 192.168.0.0/24. So, it makes sense to have a
> VPN between two different networks with such addresses so that they can
> communicate.
>
> With IPv6, e
ld be directly accessible to each other, obviating the
need for VPN or NAT for that matter.
Plus IPv6 is already encrypted.
[*] There are reserved address blocks but not for private addressing.
So what might be a use case for VPN over IPv6?
The need for a Virtual Private Network. For exam
Philippe Clérié wrtes:
> I thought it somewhat strange since I believe IPv6 essentially removes
> the need for VPN.
How?
> So what might be a use case for VPN over IPv6?
The need for a Virtual Private Network. For example I might have cash
registers in multiple stores and want th
gt; case for VPN over IPv6?
I can't comment on the blog author's motivations as I haven't seen
the article you mention, but a VPN is useful any time you need to
join your network to another network in a secure and authenticated
manner. It doesn't really matter what protocols are
This morning, on my Planet Debian feed, I saw a post from someone using
OpenVPN on IPv6. I thought it somewhat strange since I believe IPv6
essentially removes the need for VPN. So what might be a use case for
VPN over IPv6?
--
Philippe
--
The trouble with common sense it that it is so
6 matches
Mail list logo