| 9 May 2026 |
 raitobezarius | Newer Brocade have proper ARM but probably no upstream Linux support I'd argue, but it's not that hard to add it | 09:47:55 |
| 12 May 2026 |
|  @mrfoxpro:matrix.org left the room. | 17:45:43 |
 Eli Saado | should I trust the networking.nat.* options or should I use raw nftables instead? | 22:01:55 |
 Marcel | I use it on my gateway without issues. | 22:14:34 |
| Eli Saado | yay | 22:33:14 |
| 13 May 2026 |
|  @hxr404:tchncs.de left the room. | 09:33:18 |
| 14 May 2026 |
|  @pederbs:pvv.ntnu.no left the room. | 01:35:52 |
| 16 May 2026 |
 catbrained (she/her) | I just noticed a new interface show up when I do ip link:
ip6tnl0@NONE: <NOARP> mtu 1452 qdisc noop state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
link/tunnel6 :: brd :: permaddr caf7:96db:24d5::
I'm not sure what this is and I have no clue why it's there. Doesn't seem to serve any purpose since it's DOWN and my internet is still working just fine. 🤷♀️
Not sure how long it's been there either.
I tried deleting it with ip link delete ip6tnl0 but it's still there.
Can anyone point me towards how I can figure out where this thing is coming from (and perhaps how to get rid of it)?
| 20:58:00 |
 rntpts | Update: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/516539 | 21:01:16 |
| rntpts | (to get rid of it) | 21:01:50 |
| catbrained (she/her) | Thank you! 🙏 | 21:03:20 |
| 17 May 2026 |
 emily | so what's the state of the art for exposing IPv4 ports when using NAT64? | 16:01:12 |
| emily | does PCP have a notion for that? | 16:02:07 |
| emily | (relatedly, what's the state of the art for NAT64 at this point? did that NetworkManager etc. stuff or the kernel-space stuff happen?) | 16:03:18 |
 hexa | pcp is something your isp would need to support | 16:03:20 |
| hexa | nm nat64 support did not land in the current release | 16:03:37 |
| hexa | it will land in the next | 16:03:40 |
| emily | in this situation I'm imagining the gateway/router doing the NAT64 | 16:04:36 |
| emily | so it has a public v4 | 16:04:41 |
| emily | question is, how can clients ask "give me an exposed v4 port that forwards to this port on my v6, thanks" | 16:05:01 |
| hexa | I only tried jool so far, and I don't think it supports pcp | 16:05:02 |
| emily | oh yeah it would be a separate daemon for sure | 16:05:13 |
| raitobezarius | MAP-T | 16:05:13 |
| emily | I mean it's really just a matter of port forwarding on the v4 end | 16:05:22 |
| emily | right (omg why are there so many overlapping acronyms and similar-but-not-quite-identical mechanisms in this stuff) | 16:06:01 |
| raitobezarius | something something about the people writing them | 16:06:16 |
| raitobezarius | jool supports MAP-T | 16:06:23 |
| emily | correct me if I'm wrong, but MAP-T requires an explicit table of "this IPv4 addr + port → this IPv6 addr + port" right? | 16:06:23 |
| raitobezarius | port range, but yes | 16:06:36 |
| emily | so my question is more about: how can clients dynamically request such a forward | 16:06:44 |
