Comments on: stunnel “local socket: Protocol not supported” http://dan.langille.org/2008/10/16/stunnel-local-socket-protocol-not-supported/ He has another more popular diary. This one is more general. Fri, 18 May 2012 19:34:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Dan http://dan.langille.org/2008/10/16/stunnel-local-socket-protocol-not-supported/#comment-288 Dan Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:00:46 +0000 http://dan.langille.org/?p=201#comment-288 Thanks Craig. FWIW, I stopped using stunnel. I am now doing these things through a VPN (using OpenVPN). Thanks Craig.

FWIW, I stopped using stunnel. I am now doing these things through a VPN (using OpenVPN).

]]> By: Craig Leres http://dan.langille.org/2008/10/16/stunnel-local-socket-protocol-not-supported/#comment-287 Craig Leres Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:34:45 +0000 http://dan.langille.org/?p=201#comment-287 Actually, there are a couple less drastic solutions than enabling IPV6 in your kernel. If you are referencing "localhost" in your stunnel.conf, change it to "127.0.0.1". Alternatively (or in addition), remove or comment out the "::1" line in /etc/hosts. Don't get me wrong, IPV6 is a good thing. But if you're not going to use it, I think it's a good idea to build your kernel without support so you don't have to worry about details like an ipfw config for IPV6. Actually, there are a couple less drastic solutions than enabling IPV6 in your kernel.

If you are referencing “localhost” in your stunnel.conf, change it to “127.0.0.1″. Alternatively (or in addition), remove or comment out the “::1″ line in /etc/hosts.

Don’t get me wrong, IPV6 is a good thing. But if you’re not going to use it, I think it’s a good idea to build your kernel without support so you don’t have to worry about details like an ipfw config for IPV6.

]]> By: Dan http://dan.langille.org/2008/10/16/stunnel-local-socket-protocol-not-supported/#comment-274 Dan Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:46:05 +0000 http://dan.langille.org/?p=201#comment-274 WORKS FOR ME! WORKS FOR ME!

]]>