Open IPv6 Issues / questions

- will the fix for issue NUTM-7187 be included with 9.5?

- is there a fix in the works for IPv6 Connections where the WAN Port is supposed to use an address out of the delegated prefix? Currently users of such ISPs do not get any IPv6 address. (for esxample KPN netherlands)

- what about the ability to change/edit the UID for IPv6 Delegation Requests?

- what about long standing feature requests such as 6tunnel integration, lets encrypt - is that on the roadmap? Users, myself included had high hopes for 9.5 but this seems to be more than a maintance release.

 

thank you in advance.

Parents
  • Hi Ben, please see my answers inline below:

    Ben said:

    - will the fix for issue NUTM-7187 be included with 9.5?

     [BL]: The fix for NUTM-7187 is not included in this current UTM 9.5 beta version. We are actively working on the fix right now though, so as soon as we have a confirmed fix it will be included in a subsequent release.

    - is there a fix in the works for IPv6 Connections where the WAN Port is supposed to use an address out of the delegated prefix? Currently users of such ISPs do not get any IPv6 address. (for esxample KPN netherlands)

    [BL]: This should be supported today, unless the ISP is doing both stateless & stateful. Is that the case for you? If so, we are fixing that as part of NUTM-7187 as well.

    - what about the ability to change/edit the UID for IPv6 Delegation Requests?

    [BL]: Unfortunately this isn't part of this 9.5 release.

    - what about long standing feature requests such as 6tunnel integration, lets encrypt - is that on the roadmap? Users, myself included had high hopes for 9.5 but this seems to be more than a maintance release.

    [BL]: Lets Encrypt is on our current roadmap, but it's mainly planned as a WAF feature. As for 6tunnel integration, it's currently not planned for any specific release.

     

    thank you in advance.

     

  • bobbylam: thank you for answering my questions, its much appreciated.

    I found a problem with the current NUTM-7187 fix, i have forwarded my findings through our partner (the sophos utm first sends "renews" for the prefix, than "rebinds" and the prefix eventually becomes non functional after 24-48 hours)

    the KPN netherlands non ipv6 wan adress is an issue that rklomp has, we were working together on the prefix issue. I am sure he would be more than happy to provide you access to a test machine.

    ---

    Sophos UTM 9.3 Certified Engineer

Reply
  • bobbylam: thank you for answering my questions, its much appreciated.

    I found a problem with the current NUTM-7187 fix, i have forwarded my findings through our partner (the sophos utm first sends "renews" for the prefix, than "rebinds" and the prefix eventually becomes non functional after 24-48 hours)

    the KPN netherlands non ipv6 wan adress is an issue that rklomp has, we were working together on the prefix issue. I am sure he would be more than happy to provide you access to a test machine.

    ---

    Sophos UTM 9.3 Certified Engineer

Children
  • Hi Ben,

     

    Thanks for testing out our fix, we did indeed received your feedback and a developer is actually working on NUTM-7187 right now. We're currently investigating why the prefix eventually becomes unresponsive.

     

    As soon as we have something, I'll let you know!

  • most recent test: (testbox)

    reconnected monday, april 10th at 11.58 am, 

    ipv6 prefix "died" about 7pm, april 12th, so it worked for 61 hours. ;P

    triggered reconnect, working again. UTM did one "rebind" after reconnecting, it is not doing renews or more rebinds after i trigger reconnect.

    I suspect i'd have to disable/reenable interface or something else to start the renew/rebind cycle again.

    Your Programmer probably has enough info already, but i always try to be as complete as possible with infos ;) 

    ---

    Sophos UTM 9.3 Certified Engineer