IPv6 DHCP-PD Support

There hasn't been a lot of talk in the roadmap discussion about the implementation of IPv6 DHCP-PD support on the XG platform.  Can we expect to see that at some point in the near future?

  • Hi Todd,

    Good question. There is no specific immediate plans, as we already support DHCP v6.  

    Thanks

    Sachin Gurung

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    So how does one go about setting up IPv6 from their  ISP in a home environment.  I couldn't for the life of me get it to work.  It works fine on the external interface but I can't get any of my IPv4 clients to talk to IPv6 sites.  I have no interest in using a tunnel broker.  I'd like for it to work the same way it did in UTM and my understanding was it was using DHCP Prefix Delegation.

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    Hello Sachin,

    I respectfully disagree that Sophos XG supports DHCPv6.   Please reference RFC 3633.  https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3633.txt

    I am certain this is common knowledge that DHCPv6 is different from DHCPv4.  In comparison to other firewall vendors, prefix delegation is available in DHCPv6.

    Thank you.

  • Hi Todd,

    DHCP-PD is not supported.

    You can raise a feature request from here:

    http://feature.astaro.com/forums/330219-sophos-xg-firewall

    Please send me the link, so that I can vote it.

    Thanks

    Sachin Gurung

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    there are countless requests for dhcp -pd.. Most business class ISP  (Timewarner, Comcast) use DHCP-pd to hand out v6 addresses so you not supporting that feature means we can not use native v6 . this was a feature of utm9 so why not migrate it over? the way v6 is implemented now makes it as useful as a sack of shit. 

  • In reply to DavisDarvish:

    I would consider the ability to obtain IP addressing basic functionality, but what do I know.  As mentioned, DHCP-PD client is in UTM, even if it can't send a "hint" to request more than a /64.

    Anyway, the XG workaround I'm doing is to have a router (MikroTik) get the IPv6 addressing (DHCP-PD) and then place XG immediately behind it, in bridge mode.  This will give you the essential functions of Web Filter, Application Filter, IPS, etc. for both IPv4 and IPv6.

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    There is a major difference between DHCPv6 used for addressing an interface and DHCP-PD.  DHCP-PD is the normal means for which PA (Provider Allocated) addressed network obtains its prefix.  As in a network that does not have its own IP space.  

    Comcast uses DHCP-PD for both its residential and business cable service to allocate IP space to the end network.

    As a gateway device, you need to support acting as a PD client as well as a PD server that can use the prefix obtained as a client  in sub-delegations.

    2016...

  • This feature still seems to be missing, and it is indeed something that a lot of ISPs would make use of...

    I don't think that an idea for this has been actually suggested yet?

  • In reply to Sergiu Panaite:

    Sadly, still has not been implemented.It is the only reason why I am still on UTMv9

     

    https://ideas.sophos.com/forums/330219-xg-firewall/suggestions/11546439-add-options-for-ipv6-dhcpv6-pd

  • In reply to JesseStanford:

    Supposedly its on the radar but don't think it will appear with v17. 

  • Wish I would have known this about 4 hours ago. Just finished setting up XG on a utm 220 to replace a virtual instance. This really sucks.

     

    Thanks Sophos for your lack of support!!

     

    Now to see if I can remove it from my infrastructure and start over again!

  • In reply to RobertW:

    Not seen as a high priority by Sophos was the answer when raised during v17 beta.

    Ian

  • In reply to RobertW:

    It is truly inexplicable that we are now at the doorstep of 2018 and a feature that most major providers, at least in the US, use to hand out IPv6 addresses on both residential and business service, is totally AWOL in a next generation firewall.  I know there are workarounds and I'm using one, but really no excuse for it.

  • In reply to Bill Roland:

    Hi Bill,

    I am too, but it is not reliable. I have to reset the ISP connection in the XG if the link drops.

  • In reply to Ian Morehouse:

    Hi,

    I have been playing around with putting a UTM in front of the XG, works so far. Need to put the XG into bridge mode which is a major rework of static addressing.

    Ian