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.

     

  • 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 All,

    Have not been following the thread for the last week. What is the current status?

    As I can see there is an issue for  that causes traffic to stop sometimes?

    Did you manage to resolve the static route issue? Or is that just working now for you?

     

    I think for me the only issue is the default route. I have not noticed any disruptions in traffic once I add the default myself. 

     

    Regards,

    René

  • Updated Summary:

    SanderRutten System:

       This system has been working for almost 3 full days now without problem. We can see the DHCPv6 renew and traffics are flowing.

       Le: Still looking for explanation as to why it did not work prior to April 25, 2:00PM Vancouver Time.

    Rklomp System:

       The default route is the issue. and it had been added by manual.

       Le: Manual adding default route is good for now. But we need to make it work without having adding the default route manually

       Rene:

           1) Can Le get into your system and debug without when the default route is missing? Thanks

           2) What is the static route issue? More info, please. Thanks.

    Ben System:

       It had been reported this system is fine

     

     

  • @  SanderRutten

    Updates wrt SanderRutten System

    One potential cause of the ICMPv6 did not work prior to April 25 2:00PM Vancouver time is following:

    The "pppoe" negotiation between the UTM and ISP somehow did not succeed, i.e. the UTM did not have an local link IPv6 address (LL) on the ppp0 interface;

    Only from this LL, dhclient6 can ask for a PD. Since there was no LL, there was no PD. Hence no IPv6 traffics was possible due to DSP not giving a PD.

    This scenario can be verified by various system log messages:

    i)  dhclient6: no link-local Ipv6 address for ppp0

    ii) dhclient6: send_packet6: Operation not permitted // even though the ip6table looks fine

     

    Action: Even the system is working fine now for almost 3 full days. Le needs to reconnect (PPPoE) to watch the negotiation.

    Are you (SanderRutten) OK with me to push the "button" to reconnect Interface on PPPoE? Thanks and please let me know ASAP.

  • Hi Le,

    Sorry for the delayed reply, has been quite some busy days at work last few days so I haven't had time to capture my switch port yet. Do you still want me to do that?

    And about reconnecting my connection: Go ahead! Even multiple times if needed.

  • Thanks a lot SanderRutten,

        Thanks for your help.

        No need to do mirroring.

        Since no PD, hence no traffics (outbound is OK, mirroring will show this. However, inbound is not since DSP does not know how to route).

  • Hi Le,

    1) I will send you a private message with login details of the system. Go ahead and troubleshoot on it. You can initiate some reconnects if needed.

    2) With the static route issue I meant the default route. So only one issue :)

     

    - René

  • Hi Rene,

       Thanks so much for your help and also for letting me debug the system.

       The reason for no default route on your system is that no router responds to the RS request on the ppp0 interface.

       The system (fe80::2a31:52ff:fe59:9fa6) on the other end of ppp0 connection does not respond at all to RS on ppp0. Also, it does not send out

       regular RA. So no default route for ppp0 is a reasonable thing.

       But this system (....:9fa6) serves as DHCPv6 server, i.e. it will dish out PD if request.

       UTM's behavior wrt to "no default route" is correct.

       Will update more tomorrow.

       Thanks Rene. Your help is much appreciated.

     

    Edited: rdisc6, radvdump can be used to send out RS on ppp0 and see what happens. Thx.

      

  • Hi Le,

    Thanks for the efforts troubleshooting. I indeed already noticed that there are no RAs in my situation. Even with the capture I made when using the ISPs supplied box it did not send any RAs

     

    # rdisc6 ppp0
    Soliciting ff02::2 (ff02::2) on ppp0...
    Timed out.
    Timed out.
    Timed out.
    No response.

     

  • OK and Thanks Rene.

    Can I use your system for another day or two? Thanks.

Reply Children