implemented DHCPv6-PD in the 17.5?

Sorry, you have to wait until v18 sometime next year.

Ian

It would be a false expectation to think DHCPv6-PD would be in v18, or that it would be available next year.

If you have an immediate or short term need for DHCPv6-PD (or even a need for NATless IPv6) then the XG Firewall is not for you.

Hi Chris,

this thread points at v18

https://community.sophos.com/products/xg-firewall/sophos-xg-beta-programs/sfos-v17-5-early-access/f/sophos-xg-17-5-early-access/108561/no-ipv6-for-pppoe

Somebody in Sophos with a sense of priority needs to grab the lack of IPv6 functionality and shake the development teams into modern network design and practices.

Ian

Yeah I saw that thread.

While I'd like for both DHCPv6-PD to be in v18 and v18 released by November 2019 (even better, earlier), until I see an offical roadmap document or a post from talex announcing such things, then it's basically vapourware.

Release date slippage for SFOS is the norm, so definitely not holding my breath.

I would hope that seeing they brought v17.5 (yes hd other v17 bits) forward they might apply some additional resources to bringing v18 forward.

Ian

I must also say that Sophos overslept the issue. Other vendors are much further along. I'm still hoping they might implement it in 17.5 as it's still a beta.

I must also say that Sophos overslept the issue. Other vendors are much further along. I'm still hoping they might implement it in 17.5 as it's still a beta.

I don't see what the issue is, this shouldn't be too much code to add to be able to implement this...I hoped that it would be in v17, and then hoped again that it will be in 17.5, and now have no hope that it will be in v18...

Hi Tim,

you have to remember that in the XG the IPv6 is treated as a seperate firewall, so requires almost everything to be duplicated.

Ian

The surely....

Ctrl + C, Ctrl +V - Find "IPv4" Replace with "IPv6"

Job done lol

The rest of the IPv6 firewall is there, this is just a very simple addition to allow DHCP-PD to function over PPPoE.;

And exceptions by IP and FQDN creation and no NAT and business rules and the ability not have an IP4 configuration eg IPv6 standalone.

Ian

I've not noticed that any of this is missing, as not been able to use IPv6 with the XG to test.

So a long way to go - can't believe that it will take a YEAR to get the XG firewall modernized.

I noticed the other day the the cheap BT router that you get is issuing IPv6 addresses, and tries to enforce IPv6 over IPv4 where possible.

As I say I have clients that use IPv6 communication for backup and other server communication rather than VPN.

IPv6 Device > Firewall 1 > Internet > Firewall 2 > IPv6 Device

Where: Firewall 1&2 would allow, devices from 2a02:aaaa::0001/112 on SMB ports to communicate to 2a02:bbbb::fefe/128 (File Server).

I ended up renewing their Cisco ASA 5525-x licenses, was trying to sell the XG to them but wasn't fit for purpose - I still cannot understand why a company would release a device in such an immature state where competitors can provide all the functions required,  but like having a car with no radio.