Skip to content

Improve IPv4 and IPv6 requirements #4224

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 22, 2025
Merged

Improve IPv4 and IPv6 requirements #4224

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion guides/common/modules/ref_ipv6-and-ipv4-requirements.adoc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ The following requirements apply to installations in an IPv4 network:
* Ensure an IPv6 loopback is configured on the base system.
The loopback is typically configured by default.
Do not disable it.
* Do not disable IPv6 in kernel by adding the `ipv6.disable=1` kernel parameter.
Using the `ipv6.disable=1` kernel parameter or the `net.ipv6.conf.lo.disable_ipv6 = 1` sysctl option will break the installation.

The following requirements apply to installations in an IPv6 network:

Expand All @@ -24,8 +24,10 @@ ifndef::foreman-deb,foreman-el,satellite[]
* If you rely on content from IPv4-only networks, use an external dual-stack HTTP proxy.
Configure {Project} to use this dual-stack (supporting both IPv4 and IPv6) HTTP proxy as the default HTTP proxy.
endif::[]
ifdef::katello,orcharhino,satellite[]
* {Project} does not support configuring an HTTP proxy using a direct IPv6 address.
Instead, configure the HTTP proxy with a FQDN that resolves to the IPv6 address.
endif::[]
Comment on lines +27 to +30
Copy link
Member

@ekohl ekohl Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I still debate if we should just drop this. Katello/katello#11432 has been merged and AFAIK that was the only limitation. However, AFAIK nobody verified it so I'm still hesitant.

Copy link
Member Author

@aneta-petrova aneta-petrova Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @ianballou, can you please take a look here? Is this requirement still relevant, or can we drop it?

Copy link
Contributor

@ianballou ianballou Sep 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The PR seems to be merged, so this can be a later thing, but I'm pretty sure as well that direct IPv6 addresses could be used considering the PR that Ewoud posted.

I might vote that we take it out based on the assumption it works, and if it doesn't, treat it as a bug rather than something to document.

I noticed too further up in this document it's mentioned that dual stack deployments aren't supported even though we recently verified otherwise.


If you intend to provision hosts in an IPv6 network, the following requirements also apply:

Expand Down