And I appear to have 'fixed' it by explicit reference to an interface, ie:
Set console telnet=0.0.0.0:xxxx
Similarly for the DZ attachment.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: 07 December 2019 13:40
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Some SIMH weirdness on Raspbian
That looks just like the IPv4 over IPv6 thingy...
Johnny
On 2019-12-07 13:37, Keith Halewood wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Perhaps this isn't strictly HECnet related but as HECnet traffic is
> traversing some part of this weird arrangement via pydecnet, I'm
> taking a chance:
>
> I run SIMH on Raspberry PIs under Raspbian Buster.
>
> I have both IPv4 and IPv6 networking switched on and a
> router/DHCP(v6)/DNS infrastructure to cope successfully with it.
>
> (Nothing is wireless for what I'm about to describe, not that it would
> make much difference)
>
> SIMH's simulated Ethernet devices on the PIs are TAP connections to a
> bridge device connection to a real eth0 - no problem here.
>
> SIMH instances' consoles and terminal MUX devices are listening on
> individual ports and I telnet into these usually from my PC via Putty.
>
> The DNS servers do not have AAAA for the PIs, just A, so the PC
> connects to the PIs via IPv4 - no problem here.
>
> The PIs show the SIMH instances listening on the right TCP ports but
> when I filter with -4, ie:
> netstat -a -4
>
> I don't see SIMH listening. When I filter with -6, ie:
>
> netstat -a -6
>
> I do see a listen on those ports.
>
> I notice that, for example, ssh listens on 0.0.0.0:ssh AND [::]:ssh
> but SIMH listens only on *:8601 (for example)* *The * seems to show up
> only when I restrict the search to the ipv6 family.
>
> The * seems to indicate a listen with no 'family' preference.
>
> An established connection to *:8601 seems even stranger.
>
> It only shows up when netstat is run with -6 but it shows the correct
> IPv4 addresses for each endpoint. It is an IPv4 connection anyway.
>
> The 'ss -6' command shows up something even weirder for the
> established
> (IPv4) connections:
>
> The local address port is: [::ffff:192.168.2.42]:8601 and the remote
> address port is: [::ffff:192.168.2.12]:61152
>
> The IPv4 part of these ports is correct. Why are they 'encapsulated'
> in some IPv6 syntax and listed as IPv6 connections?
>
> Can anybody point me in the right direction for some explanation please?
> My google keyword searching skills seem a little off today.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol