Open IPv6 Issues / questions

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.

 

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.

Hi Bobby,

Normally the ISPs router will then request /48 prefix and use a /64 from that prefix for the wan interface and a /64for the lan interface. So there are no other global ipv6 addresses than the ones from that /48.

On the Sophos UTM, in my case I will only receive a link local IPv6 address via PPPoE. Using a tcpdump I have verified the UTM is not sending out a prefix request after the PPPoE has been established. Is it waiting for a advertised IPv6 address for the WAN interface first before it will do this? Because in this case it will never get it... And thus a IPv6 prefix will never be requested.

If you want to have a look at my Sophos VM, or need some tcpdumps of the PPPoE setup let me know!

Rene

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!

Hi Rene,

The fix we provided to Ben SHOULD resolve the issue you described below with PPPoE (although as I said above it doesn't completely resolve Ben's issue, so we're still working on the final solution). Have you tried that fix, or are you running a stock 9.411?

rklomp said:

Hi Bobby,

Normally the ISPs router will then request /48 prefix and use a /64 from that prefix for the wan interface and a /64for the lan interface. So there are no other global ipv6 addresses than the ones from that /48.

On the Sophos UTM, in my case I will only receive a link local IPv6 address via PPPoE. Using a tcpdump I have verified the UTM is not sending out a prefix request after the PPPoE has been established. Is it waiting for a advertised IPv6 address for the WAN interface first before it will do this? Because in this case it will never get it... And thus a IPv6 prefix will never be requested.

If you want to have a look at my Sophos VM, or need some tcpdumps of the PPPoE setup let me know!

Rene

 

If i can take that as permission to share the fix with Rene il do that and test it.

About the PPPoE fix, i have provided the partner with additional info (not sure if you received it yet)

As a suggestion: It would help immensely if you would take into consideration of taking in bug reports like this without a running subscription and gold+ partner status. In the end it will benefit all customers in form of a more polished UTM and you as a company with a better product. Having to run and jump through loops trying to report an issue like this was not fun.

i am pretty sure the problem that is still present is that the sophos doesn't properly interpret the ISP routers reponse to the prefix renews, after 8(or so) renews the sophos switches to rebinds in an endless loop. Eventually the prefix lease time runs out on the ISP router or something (at least thats my theory so far after spending 2 days with wireshark and rfc documents)

so i see a renew after 2,5,10,22,40,80 ... 600 seconds .. and than just rebinds ... in the same manner, first doubling the seconds and hovering around 600-700 seconds (see partner info mail)

Rene: see skype, test the patch and report back please ;)

Thank you Ben, that is extremely helpful info! The developer working on the issue was suspecting & investigating this same area as well, so looks like we're on the right track.

Rene: Please check out the patch Ben sent you, and let us know if it resolves the PPPoE issue for you.

UTM stopped sending Rebinds sometime early yesterday, ipv6 prefix stopped working yesterday sometime after i last replied to this thread (it wasnt working this morning anymore)

i am leaving the machine in this state, think your support is still logged onto the machine. Thanks again for this open communication, its much appreciated. 

I provided Rene with the patch and waiting to hear back from him.

I installed the patch I received from ben, but it has not been solved.

gateway:/home/login # rpm -Uvh ep-ipv6-watchdog-9.40-2.gffa2228.i686.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
 package ep-ipv6-watchdog-9.50-3.g64d8245.rb3.i686 (which is newer than ep-ipv6-watchdog-9.40-2.gffa2228.i686) is already installed
gateway:/home/login # rpm -Uvh --force ep-ipv6-watchdog-9.40-2.gffa2228.i686.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
 1:ep-ipv6-watchdog ########################################### [100%]

gateway:/home/login # /var/mdw/scripts/ipv6_watchdog restart
Shutting down IPv6 Watchdog done
Starting IPv6 Watchdog done
gateway:/home/login # tailf /var/log/ipv6.log
2017:04:11-09:46:58 gateway ipv6_watchdog[4378]: Stopping IPv6 address watchdog
2017:04:11-09:46:59 gateway ipv6_watchdog[22269]: Starting IPv6 address watchdog
2017:04:11-09:47:08 gateway ipv6_watchdog[22269]: Start of monitoring interface ppp0(ifidx 7)
2017:04:11-09:47:08 gateway ipv6_watchdog[22269]: RA flags changed for interface ppp0(ifidx 7): NONE -> SENT,READY

I am not receiving a IPv6 prefix. After making a capture on the interface I do not see a DHCPv6 Prefix request. What I see is a router solicitation every 5 seconds but no reply to it.

Hi Rene,

From the debug logs you have pasted, it looks like the ppp0 interface hasn’t received any RA from the ISP end.

Unless an RA is received with the appropriate flags (M, O or A) set, dhclient6 will not be started for this interface on the UTM.

Please check if disabling and re-enabling the DSL interace on the UTM helps.

-Prakash

Hi Prakash,

That is correct. The ISP does not do RA i my case. If you want I can share the capture of the regular setup with the box provided by the ISP instead of the sophos. 
After setting up the PPPoE connection it should do a DHPCv6 request for the prefix immediately. No RA is received.

Regards,

René