[Samba] Specifying an IPv6 wildcard in the interfaces directive?

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 3:32 PM Jeff Morris via samba
<samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>
>
> My network uses reserved IPv4 addresses (192.168.2.0/24) behind a NAT
> firewall, but public IPv6 addresses behind a filtering firewall.
>
> My ISP (Comcast) assigns both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses dynamically.
>
> As a result, the IPv4 address of my internal Samba server is statically
> assigned, but its IPv6 address is dynamically assigned.

Why can't your internal DHCP server assign reserved IP addresses,
suitable to a non-routable address space?

> The server has multiple IPv4 addresses assigned to it, all on interface
> enp3s0. One of these I'd like to use for Samba, but the other is used as
> a proxy address for another device on my network, so I do NOT want Samba
> to bind to it , as it would conflict with SMB services on the proxied
> device.

So.... how are you segregating the IPv4 addresses on the same NIC? Are
you using tagged VLAN's, or is it just not working? Is there any
reason you can't put the proxy on a different port, rather than on a
different IP address?

I'm going to strongly suggest you stop playing the IPv6 and IPv4 and
exposed public IP and NAT and DHCP and static address and an umbrella
with two olives stick on the handle sticking out of it cocktail
approach to network configurations. The result is a chimera. Pick your
local standards:

* IPv4 or IPv6? One or the other, stop using both internally
* Always use static IP addresses for all IP addresses on servers, with
DHCP reservations if appropriate. It's usually possible, even with a
DHCP server in play, to set the DHCP range to be a subnet of the
allocated IP range and set static addresses in the rest of the space.

Why are you trying to expose the IPv6 address to the Internet at all?
If you have stable IPv4 and stable port forwarding with the NAT, why
don't you just use that?