Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allocate IPv6 resources #62

Closed
swift2plunder opened this issue Feb 24, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Allocate IPv6 resources #62

swift2plunder opened this issue Feb 24, 2016 · 6 comments
Labels
core change A feature request or enhancement that changes an existing feature or behaviour significantly.

Comments

@swift2plunder
Copy link

When attempting to allocate IPv6 resources on a node, the panel currently claims victory and silently fails.

@DaneEveritt DaneEveritt modified the milestone: v0.3.0 Feb 26, 2016
@DaneEveritt DaneEveritt added priority: low core change A feature request or enhancement that changes an existing feature or behaviour significantly. labels Feb 26, 2016
@DaneEveritt
Copy link
Member

This will need to be further investigated to implement properly with docker.

@DaneEveritt DaneEveritt removed this from the v0.3.0 milestone Feb 26, 2016
@DaneEveritt DaneEveritt added this to the v0.5.0 milestone Sep 26, 2016
@DaneEveritt
Copy link
Member

Hey @swift2plunder, just getting back to this issue for the next release. I realized I didn't get a lot of information from this and probably misread it.

From what I understand you're saying you can try to add a v6 address, and the panel will say it was added, but really it isn't and nothing new happens? Or is i that you can add the IP and suh, but when allocating it to a server it fails?

@swift2plunder
Copy link
Author

I never got to the point of investigating what may or may not have happened in the daemon. The extent of my observation was that the panel gave a success message, but didn't show the IPV6 resources in subsequent lists of allocations. What went over the wire and what the daemon may or may not have attempted to do are separate but related issues.

@swift2plunder
Copy link
Author

It should be noted that last I checked, Minecraft acts funny on IPV6 enabled systems. Java likes to glom onto the IPV6 addresses available for listening, but the client won't accept IPV6 addresses as valid for connecting. The command line switch to have Java connect to IPV4 addresses doesn't seem to work for me and I've yet to successfully configure a bridge using either Linux network tools or socat.

I guess I'm saying that when I filled this bug I was naive about Minecraft's ability to serve on an IPV6 network.

Also my use case of running servers on cheap IPV6 connected hardware and routing the traffic through some hardware where IPV4 addresses are more plentiful has proven impractical.

@DaneEveritt
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the information, I'll take a look into it a little more.

If anything, we shouldn't be giving a success message when it doesn't work!

@DaneEveritt DaneEveritt modified the milestone: v0.5.0 Oct 30, 2016
@DaneEveritt
Copy link
Member

Will not implement currently. Don't see much of a use case at this time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
core change A feature request or enhancement that changes an existing feature or behaviour significantly.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants