Starting to think it's the Duke Nukem Forever of RouterOS.

It'll come out about a decade after it was expected and suck.

I can manually setup an ipipv6 tunnel and pass ipv4 over it, but what a PITA to do that for every v6-only client.

What sort of tunnel? RouterOS has a 6to4 tunnel capability but I cannot find a way to do 4to6.

Another option for you to look into is DS-Lite. Mikrotik can do what's necessary at the CPE (B4) side. You could configure your Linux appliances as AFTR device(s) and get your NAT64 functionality that way. This is a route I'm currently investigating for my company's IPv6 deployment. Do you have any...

After reading several books on the topic we have settled on a sparse allocation scheme. We were given a /36 by ARIN and based on the way our network is laid out we have split it into /44s with current infrastructure allocations evenly spaced throughout the /36. We are planning to allocate a /52 to e...

Are any of you running an ISP? I'm wondering how you are handling all this. How are you handling all this in your ISP? We are just starting to test all this. I'm not only the owner, I'm also a client! So I've been testing dual-stack at my house via an HE.net tunnel at the core for more than six mon...

I was just wondering because I've had it working without one. But I do see the benefits now in a bigger environment. Yes, when you have a site with several different links out in an OSPF network, you really need a stable address for things like VPLS connections and (if you use it) iBGP. The loopbac...

It would be nice to have it in ROS, but we've got a box with bind9, jool, and quagga running in testing right now and it's working great. I plan to put in more using anycast/ospf which will optimize performance and give us failover. If you are planning on doing stateful NAT64 with anycast make sure...

Look up "OSPF" and "loopback"

BTW while /128s are considered OK for loopbacks, it's currently recommended to allocate an entire /64 for PtP links, even if you only assign it as a smaller subnet. IPv6 assumes an interface will have 64 host bits under most circumstances.

It would be nice to have it in ROS, but we've got a box with bind9, jool, and quagga running in testing right now and it's working great. I plan to put in more using anycast/ospf which will optimize performance and give us failover.

We have a VPN that works fine for Windows and Android on IPv4, but I can't seem to get it to work on IPv6. Initially I had trouble with ph2 packets in the log, but I fixed that by creating an IPv6 specific policy in /ip ipsec policy: 2 T ;;; ipv6 group=default src-address=::/0 dst-address=::/0 proto...

@blackmesawireless
This is supposed not to work, but yes, filters does seem to work with IPv6.
Thanx man.

Glad I could help. For once what seemed to be a bug truly is an undocumented feature! Ha!

Problem solved for me. Route filtering DOES apply using the default ospf-in filter chain. Not sure if it uses the regular ospf filter chain setting or a hidden default.

Adding a filter to accept the routes in the routing filter chain ospf-in fixed it.

There's no ospfv3 route filtering in ros v6 so the routes should just populate into the table AFAIK. Seems like it has to be a bug.

We are seeing this problem on RB1100AHx2es with 6.38.3 and 6.38.5. Update: Even upgrading to the latest 6.39.2 does not resolve this issue, but only on RB1100AHx2 routers. Other routers (including other PowerPC routers like 850Gx2) are not exhibiting this problem. Anything else that might cause this...

6.22 seems to have fixed this.

(whoops double post)

We discovered this during a major network reorg and upgrade today. It's pretty bad and happening on an RB450G. We've upgraded to 6.22 (which mentions a DNS fix in the changelog). So far so good, but it's only been ~20 minutes so it could still recur. Has anyone else found workarounds? Do you know if...