There are definitely differences, but usually they don't matter from a simple address and routing perspective.
For example, there is no ARP in IPv6. Instead another protocol is used called Neighbor Discovery Protocol, which actually is done through ICMPv6. Therefore, if you blindly block all ICMPv6, your network may break.
Once you have a grasp on v6, it is much better than v4 because even the smallest common v6 network size of /64 is many times larger than all the addresses in v4. Every device can have it's own global ip, so you no longer need nat at all. Everything can easily connect, assuming there is no firewall blocking it.
It can and will work, but it will not be optimal. You will be able to connect to other peers, but other peers will not be able to connect to you. This usually isn't a big deal, but it's not great in situations where there are not many peers, and you need every connection you can get.
DNS vc is used for any dns request, not just zone transfers. UDP can sometimes fail in some situations, in which case the client will fall back to TCP which will keep it working.
No, you should keep both udp and tcp port 53 open going out. blocking dns vc/tcp will result in dns being partially broken.
Why would you strip ipv6 if mullvad supports it. The reason people disable or block v6 are for 2 reasons, ignorance, and/or the vpn providor doesn't support ipv6. V4 and v6 can and usually do run at the same time (this is called dual stack), so if the vpn only touches the v4 side of things, v4 will be tunneled while v6 will be unaffected.
Also, the firewall doesn't matter if you use a torrent client that can just bind to the wg interface (assuming there is no nat being performed from the wg interface to the physical interface). The client will take one or all of the ips on the interface, which will make it impossible to leak IP directly assuming your switch or router doesn't also have an ip in the same subnet as your wg interface ip.
I don't know UFW, but if you run iptables-save
or nft list ruleset
i can take a look to see if it is sane.
But what i can tell is that it might work. You appear to be only allowing public traffic to wg. It should be noted that this setup will likely fail at some point because you are hard coding the IP. It should fail safe, but the public internet will not work.
It's basically how widevine works. The hardware "secure" boots the OS, and the OS only loads signed code. And there is a chain of custody all the way to the hardware, so the software that communicates with the server can attest that it is the same as what they expect.
The simple explanation is that they wish to further erode property ownership by the proletariat by locking down operating systems such that they can't do as their owners wish, but only what the corporation wants.
Maybe, but in practice nothing happens. Microsoft has had numerous issues reported to them before, years ago, and the issue reported to them was never fixed or taken seriously. Then years later, the issue is sometimes rediscovered and they find the report from years earlier, and nothing happens.
Until legislation gets passed to force companies to take liability of their software, nothing will change.
I know btrfs alone doesn't replace unraid on its own, but it does replace or at least substitutes most of the raid functionality. Btrfs is extremely flexible and it's raid features are almost unmatched in capability for running in small environments where you may need to increase or decrease the number disks in an array at will and without much limitation.
If you want a gui to manage various linux systems, you could look into cockpit. It can manage VMs, containers and other linux systems via a unified gui. I would recommend fedora if you want to give it a go.
But you do you. I have not really had the desire to use unraid since i already know linux and manage the system myself without many tools, but i understand most people do not know linux that well and learning is a significant time sink.
Tbh, you might just consider using btrfs instead. Using pirated software to run a nas doesn't seem like a great idea when btrfs is so easy to use for making flexible storage arrays.
@dragonfly4933
@lemmy.dbzer0.com