IPv6 over PPPoE

Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:05 pm

We have been happily using IPv6 over PPPoE but note that this was removed/disabled in ROS 3.18

Is there a timescale for when this will be reinstated ?

Thanks

Nick.

NAB · Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:09 pm

I'll second that question - I raised a bug report yesterday when a perfectly working IPv6/PPPoE configuration failed to operate at all after an upgrade to 3.20.

Nick.

mrz · Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:39 pm

If you want to transport IPv6 traffic over a tunnel, then the only option is 6to4 tunnels

NAB · Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:50 pm

If you want to transport IPv6 traffic over a tunnel, then the only option is 6to4 tunnels

That's not a particularly helpful answer - especially since it used to work and appears to have been deliberately broken. It's also not helpful if one's Internet connection is delivered over a PPPoE connection. Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained why this feature is no longer available and why it cannot be enabled with a 'I want this feature' switch.

In the mean time, as far as I am concerned, the only option is not to use 6to4 tunnels, but to revert to ROS 3.17.

Nick.

Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:52 pm

If you want to transport IPv6 traffic over a tunnel, then the only option is 6to4 tunnels

I understand the only current option from 3.18 onwards is 6to4 tunnels

I want to know when we will be able to use native IPv6 over PPPoE, as this is what our ISP provides and is a clean solution.

It was working up to 3.17 and then someone took it away.

Surely it must be possible for the PPPoE tunnel to know the IP6CP has been negotiated and then to allow IPv6 to pass over the PPPoE rether than just not allowing it at all. (after all it used to work)

Nick.

mrz · Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:07 pm

If it was working for you, it doesn' t mean that it was working correctly in all cases.
IPv6 can't be transported over ppp, it requires new implementation which will not be added in near future.

Sure you can revert to v3.17, but when eventually some problems will occur then do not complain, you have been warned.

NAB · Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:51 pm

IPv6 can't be transported over ppp

Are you stating that your implementation of PPP is broken/buggy and that you are not prepared to investigate/fix? If so, this has very serious implications for our use of ROS/RBs in future.

I appreciate that electronic communications are sometimes unintentionally confrontational, so perhaps this is something we could discuss face to face in Prague over the next couple of days?

Nick.

gr0mit · Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:26 pm

hello there
I think this thread finally explains the problems I also have been having here in the UK with my IP V6 configuration over PPPoE since upgrading to version 3.20. Everything was working just fine with 3.17, and I have spent a morning trying to work out why my IP six connectivity failed!

Having now read the release notes in more detail, it seems that this feature has actually been removed! I have had to resort to a 6-4 tunnel in order to restore my IPv6 connectivity. this is not an ideal situation, especially since our Internet provider is one of the few to support native IP V6.

it would be really helpful if you could provide some details on why these changes have had to be made, and your approximate date for resolution.

Best regards

Tim Robinson

NAB · Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:08 pm

To update:

perhaps this is something we could discuss face to face in Prague over the next couple of days?

Well, I did try, but sadly this didn't happen.

I have received the following response from Mikrotik:

that is by design that IPV6 is not working over PPPoE tunnel. That was securyty bug, that in some previous versions IPV6 worked over that tunnel type, also there where problems with other pppoe clients that where not aware of IPV6.

Which seems to say to me "Our product has a bug in it we're not prepared to fix", and "we've disabled the feature because some other people's products have bugs in them."

In the first case, please can you categorically state that your PPP code is buggy and that you are not prepared to fix it?

In the second case, none of my clients have this problem, my ISP doesn't have this problem, so why can't I use this feature? At least disable it by default and give me an option to enable it if I want to.

Given the number of people at MUM who were talking about PPPoE connections, it seems to me that Mikrotik will disenfranchise an awful lot of people who would like to move to IPv6.

Nick.

Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:15 pm

no, it's like this

3. it was a bug that it was working, because it's not supposed to work over IPv6. We fixed the bug, so it doesn't work anymore, as it should be

Chupaka · Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:10 pm

so, what's replacement of PPPoE for IPv6? =)

hci · Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:52 pm

no, it's like this

3. it was a bug that it was working, because it's not supposed to work over IPv6. We fixed the bug, so it doesn't work anymore, as it should be

That explains it. We are not using IPv6 'yet' but do use PPPoE. Is there any time frame for PPPoE server to work with IPv6? Year from now? IPv6 is the future. Hopefully a good long ways off but there is no way around it.

Matt

Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:52 pm

no, it's like this

3. it was a bug that it was working, because it's not supposed to work over IPv6. We fixed the bug, so it doesn't work anymore, as it should be

WOW its not often that something working is described as a bug !

Lets just get this clear

in version 3.17 I can configure up PPPoE client, with my DSL router in bridge mode.
I can then login to my ISP and it automatically negotiates both IPv4 and IPv6 - yes it all works - even IPV6CP
I can then route IPv6 over the connection.

From 3.18 you removed this facility, so why was it removed ? and when can we have it back ?

Nick.

changeip · Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:46 pm

I specifically ran into the bug they were talking about. There may have been many others I'm sure. In my specific case L2TP encryption no longer worked, even without using IPv6 across it. Simply adding the IPv6 package broke L2TP encryption.

Prior to where we are at today there was no RFC or standard for IPv6 over PPP lines. I show RFC2742 has been updated, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i ... -ppp-v2-03 or http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5072. This talks about IPv6 over PPP. Microsoft has also just implemented this in their newer OS, per their statement below:

"For native IPv6 traffic, the VPN client, server, or router sends IPv6
packets across the VPN connection without the initial IPv4 encapsulation.
This works for intranets that have native IPv6 connectivity and requires
that the VPN clients, servers, and routers support the IPv6 Control Protocol
(IPV6CP), RFC 2472, which defines how IPv6 nodes negotiate IPv6
configuration options for Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)-based connections.
Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 support IPV6CP while Windows XP and
Windows Server 2003 do not. Figure 4 shows the general packet structure for
VPN traffic when sending a native IPv6 packet using a VPN connection across
the IPv4 Internet." ... http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/maga ... leguy.aspx

I am sure that if there is an RFC that it will get implemented soon... I really need it.

Sam

Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:23 pm

IPv6 over PPP is defined in RFC2023 originally.

And that's dated October 1996.

NAB · Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:53 pm

bazzer · Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:01 am

Looks like I'll have to continue exploiting the bug in v3.17 for IPv6 over pppoe too until either the option/(bug) is re-introduced in newer versions or I find alternative equipment.

NAB · Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:11 pm

taylorc · Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:18 am

NAB · Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:03 pm

cieplik206 · Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:53 am

bump ?

I need that feature in about 2 months, i am preparing a project that will need that feature, if that will not work, i will buy other equipment than Mikrotik

NAB · Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:34 am

I need that feature in about 2 months, i am preparing a project that will need that feature, if that will not work, i will buy other equipment than Mikrotik

I rather suspect that you'll have to go elsewhere. The Mikrotik guys are being very evasive about the problem. Until I get an answer like "Yes, our code has a bug in it we're not prepared to fix", or "It'll be working in the next release" or something definitive, I'll keep bouncing this thread - we have more and more customers starting to use IPv6 and being able to deliver IPv6 traffic directly from the ISP is becoming more and more important.

cieplik206 · Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:55 am

I need that feature in about 2 months, i am preparing a project that will need that feature, if that will not work, i will buy other equipment than Mikrotik
I rather suspect that you'll have to go elsewhere. The Mikrotik guys are being very evasive about the problem. Until I get an answer like "Yes, our code has a bug in it we're not prepared to fix", or "It'll be working in the next release" or something definitive, I'll keep bouncing this thread - we have more and more customers starting to use IPv6 and being able to deliver IPv6 traffic directly from the ISP is becoming more and more important.

More strange it is, that pppd works with IPv6, and i can bet they uses that deamon.

changeip · Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:46 pm

i very much need this as well. both pppoe and standard l2tp tunnels. i know a sit tunnel takes care of it, but thats two tunnels per path now and twice the configuration.

marlow · Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:04 am

I second that. We're running a native IPv6 network and end-user deployment is rather difficult with current consumer products. IPv6 (IP6CP) over PPPoE would be the most straight forward approach and is supported by some router manufacturers.

Please give us at least a timeline.

The IPv4 freepool is supposed to be empty in 2011. You'd hope that this is in Mikrotik before that.

/M

Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:54 pm

Still no answers from mikrotik on this ?

This worked in earlier versions, why can't you just add a switch to make it be disabled by default, and then those of us who want to use IPv6 over PPPOE could then enable it.

Leaving everyone else not affected.

Be really good to get a response from mikrotik on this, instead of the deafening silence.

Nick.

changeip · Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:19 pm

it wasnt that they turned it off because they felt like it, it was causing problems with existing configurations. PPP encryption would stop working (so everythign was sent in the clear rather than stopping a tunnel), and a few other bugs if I could remember them.

The problem is that they need to fix the legacy PPP code before they can allow it back I assume. Heopfully this happens sometime soon.

Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:15 pm

Well 3.26 is out and still no answer on this.

How long do we have to wait to get IPv6 over PPPoE back ?

Please will someone from mikrotik answer this.

This is not idle curiousity, we have customers who are using this functionality on 3.17 and need it, but they would also like to be able to upgrade.

Nick.

bazzer · Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:48 pm

The longer the silence, the more I think its either a can't or won't fix.

thadem · Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:32 pm

it's a "won't fix"

they are actively ignoring this thread, i think.
perhaps it is too much work and they mind it, as they think it would be just for a few freaks and not a broad spectrum of customers. but mistakes like that scare customers away, as it is a industry-standard to be able to use v6 if you want to play in the same league as the big guys and not stay SOHO like linksys, d-link and others. use cisco, juniper or if you mind spending that much money, use a openwrt-box. v6 over pppoe won't be released in the next future i think. but who knows.

NAB · Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:06 pm

Bump.

janisk · Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:15 pm

as was answered in other thread somewhere - the problem is that some widespread ppp clients (like windows one, if not mistaken) does not support ipv6 over ppp and therefore (and some other security/management related reasons) ipv6 is disabled on ppp links.

thread was ignored due to answer was already in the forum.

at least, if it will be made available, it wont be in form that it was.

Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:43 pm

as was answered in other thread somewhere - the problem is that some widespread ppp clients (like windows one, if not mistaken) does not support ipv6 over ppp and therefore (and some other security/management related reasons) ipv6 is disabled on ppp links.

thread was ignored due to answer was already in the forum.

at least, if it will be made available, it wont be in form that it was.

Please confirm you understand what we are using.

We want to use IPv6 over pppoe with the mikrotik acting as a pppoe client.
If there is a problem with the mikrotik serving ip6 over ppp then sure disable it !

But please can we have the possibility to switch it back on when the mikrotik is the client.

Nick.

janisk · Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:36 pm

yes, that is correct.

rickhodger · Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:48 pm

To give my view, I work for a UK based ISP and we are in the process of upgrading our ADSL systems.

The system is delivered to us by our wholesale provider as L2TP tunnels (one for each user). Obviously a device such as the RB1000 is ideal for this due to it's price and available features.

Our problem is that we want to be able to offer IPv6 to our customers. If RouterOS cannot handle IPv6 over L2TP then we will have to use a different vendor as Cisco, Juniper and many others all support IPv6 over L2TP without issue. RouterOS appears to be the only device that cannot.

liteforce · Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:48 am

Hi,

This is only my second post since joining the forum; recently deployed three RB1000U on a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 production network to replace three Quagga boxes.

While we don't have a vested interest in IPv6 o/ PPPoE functionality, we are 'pro IPv6' and it greatly concerns us that Mikrotik are prepared to remove support for it because of *bugs* in other manufacturers' implementations.

For instance, if the Microsoft PPP implementation barfs when it receives an IPV6CP from the other end, that is a violation of the relevant RFC on Microsoft's part because any PPP negotiation that is supported by one end and not the other should result in a negative response from the client and not the behaviour which is described.

Also, the 'security' concern is not a Mikrotik bug either - if someone is using MPPE over the session, it makes sense for both ends to specify encryption is required rather than optional; if the Microsoft implementation does not honour this setting and allows the connection to establish with encryption disabled, that is a bug which Microsoft needs to address.

The whole point of RFCs is that each and every vendor adheres to them as strongly as possible; if any particular vendor breaks their implementation in such a way that it violates an RFC, other vendors should not be implementing workarounds to fix bugs in another vendors' products.

One thing does spring to mind though: Is it possible to run a PPP package from 3.17 with the remainder of the system being updated to 3.28 ?

If it does, it might be a temporary workaround until Mikrotik do the decent thing and fix their implementation or at least allow their customers to choose whether they want broken MPPE *or* working IPv6.

Regards,
Terry Froy
Spilsby Internet Solutions

changeip · Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:07 am

Also, the 'security' concern is not a Mikrotik bug either - if someone is using MPPE over the session, it makes sense for both ends to specify encryption is required rather than optional; if the Microsoft implementation does not honour this setting and allows the connection to establish with encryption disabled, that is a bug which Microsoft needs to address.

This was a RouterOS to RouterOS tunnel that was broken... at least in my case. I didnt test using other vendors.

rickhodger · Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:45 am

If it does, it might be a temporary workaround until Mikrotik do the decent thing and fix their implementation or at least allow their customers to choose whether they want broken MPPE *or* working IPv6.

Cutting back IPv6 support from a product because of a bug and not making any effort to fix that bug when everyone is finally trying to make the push towards IPv6 seems like vendor suicide to me. If RouterOS can only run IPv6 over ethernet and wireless, and will never be able to run it over PPPoE, L2TP or any other PPP-using session then it is going to be of seriously limited to use to most ISPs.

IPv6 over L2TP makes it usable to every ISP in the UK using BT's 21CN delivery mechanism. IPv6 over PPPoE on a router that costs less than 100 GBP makes it useful to every ISP in the world wanting to offer cheap IPv6 access to DSL customers.

By not fixing whatever bug it is exactly, or offering a workaround Mikrotik are cutting themselves off from a huge segment of the market.

bootc · Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:05 am

The most infuriating thing about this whole issue is that it used to work. I used it and it was great.

Then, all of a sudden, it disappeared for no apparent reason. After much fuss we eventually found out why it was removed, and no amount of begging can make MikroTik see that people want this feature.

OK, so it breaks crappy MS RAS - can it be an option please?

changeip · Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:13 am

OK, so it breaks crappy MS RAS - can it be an option please?

Again, just for clarity, it broke Mikrotik to Mikrotik VPNs with > 1280 MTU... I have no idea about MS RAS, I never tried it.

I could really use this feature TODAY if it was working properly. I have tons of IPv6 opportunity going forward. You'd figure that an L2TP tunnel is Layer 2, so it shouldnt matter if you send IPv6 over it or not, thats layer 3. Same with pppoe.

liteforce · Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:32 am

So the 'bug' broke a RouterOS to RouterOS PPPoE session ?

Does Mikrotik do any kind of interoperability testing with their own products or other vendors' implementations ?

... and who at Mikrotik makes the decision as to what functionality should be sacrificed in the event of an 'either or' scenario like the one detailed by the OP ?

Regards,
Terry Froy
Spilsby Internet Solutions

Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:35 am

So the 'bug' broke a RouterOS to RouterOS PPPoE session ?

Does Mikrotik do any kind of interoperability testing with their own products or other vendors' implementations ?

... and who at Mikrotik makes the decision as to what functionality should be sacrificed in the event of an 'either or' scenario like the one detailed by the OP ?

Regards,
Terry Froy
Spilsby Internet Solutions

I recommend reading the thread from the beginning, you will then understand what was the bug, and why was the bug removed.

rickhodger · Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:08 pm

I recommend reading the thread from the beginning, you will then understand what was the bug, and why was the bug removed.

I can happily understand that there was a bug causing problems for people and that bug was corrected, and that as a side effect IPv6 no longer works over PPP which it was not intended.

However it's the complete lack of answer to the question that is frustrating us: When are we going to be able to use IPv6 over PPP? Does Mikrotik have any plan to add this in, or is RouterOS dead in the water as far as IPv6 over PPP goes?

Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:10 pm

Not quite. IPv6 working over PPPoE for some people was not intentional, and we had to remove it because it caused other issues.

We are working on a more complete IPv6 support, and this will be implemented in the way it's supposed to be.

rickhodger · Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:16 pm

We are working on a more complete IPv6 support, and this will be implemented in the way it's supposed to be.

That's great to know, but is there any sort of time frame you can give us? As mentioned, my personal situation is that I could use 2 or 3 RB1000's as L2TP devices if they support IPv6 within the next 2-3 months. Otherwise I'm going to have to go and spend $30,000 on a pair of Cisco 7200 routers.

liteforce · Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:10 pm

That's great to know, but is there any sort of time frame you can give us? As mentioned, my personal situation is that I could use 2 or 3 RB1000's as L2TP devices if they support IPv6 within the next 2-3 months. Otherwise I'm going to have to go and spend $30,000 on a pair of Cisco 7200 routers.

Rick,

Going slightly OT, we currently terminate our IPv4/IPv6 DSL end users using a custom build of l2tpns (http://l2tpns.sourceforge.net/) - only caveat is that l2tpns' in-built throttling capability doesn't work properly with IPv6 traffic.

I am currently experimenting with the use of FreeBSD and its' mpd5 daemon which does very much the same thing but is more actively supported and allows lots of other funky features such as individual 'walled gardens' for different groups of subscribers and proper supported multilink (in both MLPPP and the ability to route the same netblock to multiple static IPs - ideal for users who terminate multiple PPP sessions and use something like a Draytek to 'load-balance' between them).

The other alternative is a Watchfront FB6000 (http://www.firebrick.co.uk/) but I was quoted £6,000 just for a beta unit with full price anticipated to be around £15,000 for one unit - they may be stellar bits of kit but they aren't worth *that* much!

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Terry Froy
Spilsby Internet Solutions

rickhodger · Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:58 am

Going slightly OT, we currently terminate our IPv4/IPv6 DSL end users using a custom build of l2tpns (http://l2tpns.sourceforge.net/) - only caveat is that l2tpns' in-built throttling capability doesn't work properly with IPv6 traffic.

We considered it, but we do not have programmers on staff so the lack of any sort of vendor support is a real killer for us. We even built a preconfigured bootable CD for testing, but if we were to encounter a bug or problem we'd be dead in the water.

I am currently experimenting with the use of FreeBSD and its' mpd5 daemon which does very much the same thing but is more actively supported and allows lots of other funky features such as individual 'walled gardens' for different groups of subscribers and proper supported multilink (in both MLPPP and the ability to route the same netblock to multiple static IPs - ideal for users who terminate multiple PPP sessions and use something like a Draytek to 'load-balance' between them).

I haven't heard of mpd5... probably because we're not a BSD house, but we'll perhaps look into it.

The other alternative is a Watchfront FB6000 (http://www.firebrick.co.uk/) but I was quoted £6,000 just for a beta unit with full price anticipated to be around £15,000 for one unit - they may be stellar bits of kit but they aren't worth *that* much!

Exactly my issue... we can buy a Cisco 7201 for £10,000 which will pretty much do all the same things (bar their fancy graphs and such) and have proper vendor backing, as opposed to being built in someone's garden shed

. If Mikrotik's RouterOS supported IPv6 properly, then suddenly it could be done on a box that costs £450.

As an aside, the "Firebrick" devices appear to be using lt2pns, albeit a more developed version. Andrews & Arnold /Watchfront donated code to l2tpns a number of years ago. If you try to start it up without a proper config file, it spits out a copyright line:

2009-08-24 09:50:46 00/00 Copyright (c) 2002 FireBrick (Andrews & Arnold Ltd / Watchfront Ltd) - GPL licenced

bootc · Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:29 am

I'm going to suggest that everyone who wants this feature please add your vote to this page:
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_ ... e_Requests

And in response to the note about L2TPNS on FireBricks - I believe the FB6000 OS and software stack was written completely from scratch, so this may have been the case some time ago but I believe this isn't the case anymore. I use Andrews & Arnolds ISP here in the UK and they have all their ADSL subscribers going through these - they are not basic pieces of equipment!

NAB · Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:05 pm

Bump.

bazzer · Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:49 am

We are working on a more complete IPv6 support, and this will be implemented in the way it's supposed to be.

Any timescale on this? This month, year or decade?

jzaw · Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:35 am

ok ... I trust that you are working most ardently at getting your ipv6 especially with respect to PPPoE working right

mean while

is it possible to install the earlier 3.17 onto a RB750 ?
at least until you fix PPPoE / ipv6

I use Andrews & Arnold's aka AAISP one of the few isp's in the UK who offer native ipv6
so it would be very nice to be able to purchase one of your fine RB750's and use it thusly

here's encouraging you in your endeavours on our behalf re PPPoE/ipv6

I look forward to seeing your progress ... but meanwhile ... can I install ros3.17 on the RB750?

cheers

jzaw

Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:36 am

Support for RB750's new components was added only in v3.29

jzaw · Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:51 am

Support for RB750's new components was added only in v3.29

thanks for the quick answer

same question re the RB 450g ..... can I install ROS 3.17 on that?

jzaw

Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:51 am

jzaw · Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:52 am

nope

again thanks for the _instant_ answer

I guess I'll just have to wait for the PPPoE/ipv6 fix .... cheers

jzaw

Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:53 am

We are working on IPv6 support, so I will see what we can do ...

again thanks for the _instant_ answer

welcome, and enjoy the forum

term0r · Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:52 am

Just wanted to add my own little post to this thread.

I work for an ISP where we have spent quite a bit of time lately on IPv6. Our core is now IPv6 dual-stacked and we've actually used a Mikrotik for doing a lot of eBGP and iBGP as well as 6to4. Things work really well and just using routing rather than routing-test. Well done Mikrotik.

The biggest thing for us now is getting v6 to customers. And that proves hard.

We mainly deliver to DSL customers using PPPoA. The Cisco LNS at our end supports it, but DSL CPE's generally don't.

And our other main delivery model is PPPoE over wireless. And Mikrotik is heavily involved here.

I would love some PPPoE IPv6 support when its working nicely and securely so we can carry on down our IPv6 path.

omega-00 · Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:51 am

I'm loving use of IPv6 on core routers etc but yes I agree with the other posters in here, that we really *need* both DHCPv6 and PPPoE with IP6CP support available to us on the mikrotik devices.

omidkosari · Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:57 am

I agree . i think it is a MUST nowadays .

omega-00 · Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:51 am

One of our big upstream providers just rolled this out today for any adsl users.

http://ipv6.internode.on.net/access/adsl/

Can't wait for a solution

omidkosari · Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:10 am

My opinion is ipv6 over pppoe should have higher priority than less useful features like mikrotik virtualizations or others . i was waiting for this in v4 release but unfortunately it is absent feature.

bazzer · Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:36 am

I would imagine quite a few folks hoped IPv6 over PPPoE would be included into v4 but alas it would appear its not high on the agenda

omega-00 · Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:39 am

*bumping for MT attention*

Really looking for DHCPv6 or better IPv6 PPPoE support here as soon as possible. Happy to test new packages etc as well if they're released.

omidkosari · Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:26 am

Any report form current stage of ipv6 over pppoe progress appreciated .

omega-00 · Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:51 pm

*weekly nudge* Any ideas on when you guys will be looking at this mikrotik?

If not now some sort of time frame would be great!

Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:40 pm

2 weeks later bump for news.

Can mikrotik please give us some hope on this.... its a real need for lots of our customers,

Nick.

gr0mit · Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:48 pm

Bump.
Please can we take another look at this? 6 to 4 tunnels are a nuisance!

jzaw · Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:55 pm

Bump.
Please can we take another look at this? 6 to 4 tunnels are a nuisance!

I second that bumpage

tunneled ipv6 requires ipv4 to work
I have had at least one situation where native ipv6 saved me because I borked up and killed my ipv4 connectivity
fortunately I was still able to get into my server via ipv6 ... tunnelling doesnt do this for me

the sooner we have ipv6 over pppoe the better ... cheers

Zaw

NAB · Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:45 am

Can mikrotik please give us some hope on this....

Clearly not.

omega-00 · Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:53 am

Has anyone emailed them asking what timeframe we can expect it in?

I plan on doing this today, obviously if anyone else wants to do so it'd be helpful.

omidkosari · Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:45 am

Has anyone emailed them asking what timeframe we can expect it in?

I plan on doing this today, obviously if anyone else wants to do so it'd be helpful.

Any answer from mikrotik ?

Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:09 am

It's in our to-do list. I just checked, and it's still there. Nobody forgot it.

omidkosari · Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:22 am

The main problem is timeline . it should not be exact date . just say for example "first quarter of 2010".

Chupaka · Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:01 pm

first querter of 21st century %)

omidkosari · Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:09 pm

first querter of 21st century %)

Then we should again wait for IPv32

QpoX · Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:14 pm

first querter of 21st century %)
Then we should again wait for IPv32

If we used all the IPv6 address' then damm...

NAB · Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:24 pm

If we used all the IPv6 address' then damm...

Well I've got 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPv6 addresses allocated to me (a /48) but I can't use them until MT have IPv6oPPPoE working

OK. Strictly speaking, I can use them if I ditch MT and use something else...

QpoX · Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:45 pm

If we used all the IPv6 address' then damm...
Well I've got 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPv6 addresses allocated to me (a /48) but I can't use them until MT have IPv6oPPPoE working

OK. Strictly speaking, I can use them if I ditch MT and use something else...

I got 2x /64 and a /48 pending... The /64 is used on the Lan, where i don't use PPPoE or VPN's. The /48 is for PPPoE and VPN, so atm useless

rickhodger · Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:53 pm

If we used all the IPv6 address' then damm...
Well I've got 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPv6 addresses allocated to me (a /48) but I can't use them until MT have IPv6oPPPoE working

OK. Strictly speaking, I can use them if I ditch MT and use something else...
I got 2x /64 and a /48 pending... The /64 is used on the Lan, where i don't use PPPoE or VPN's. The /48 is for PPPoE and VPN, so atm useless

I have an entire /32 sitting doing nothing because I can't deploy it to my ADSL customers yet.

mtnet · Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:57 am

Hi

So we are waiting for ipv6 over pppoe :/
and RADIUS support for this !

FIPTech · Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:48 pm

We are waiting for IPv6 over PPPoE as well. We are using Openwrt actually who works fine in this situation with a dual stack IPv4 / IPv6 over the same PPPoE session. We have tested Mikrotik RB750 and 750G for deployment at clients site, but without IPv6 over PPPoE support from Mikrotik we need to wait.

We do no want to use Metarouter or any kind of virtualization. To much reliability concerns, those systems are not tested enough to be reliable. We need a rock solid, fast and simple product.

We would be happy to use DHCPv6 for Ipv6 xDSL deployment, but unfortunately most providers here do not want yet to hear from IPv6 over ATM or MER (Mac encapsulated routing) for ADSL links. In the meantime, PPPoE is the only available solution for IPv6 ADSL.

As clients will begin to get only IPv6 adresses in a couple of years, we'll need as well in a near furur an IPv4 to IPv6 protocol translator (NAT-PT)-RFC 2766, so that clients using old IPv4 local networks will be able to connect to Internet through IPv6 without adding an IPv6 layer on their network, something expensive because it means buying Windows Seven licenses, new hardware to run it, and modifications to some expensive softwares because of compatibility problems.

Router OS is missing a set of IPv6 tunnels (Ethernet over IPv6 and IPv4 over IPv6, Ipv6 over Ipv6...).

Cisco does support this since a couple of years, but clearly it is not possible to put Cisco hardware today at small client sites, even if it is the only serious solution inside provider networks for IPv6 support since about year 2000.

Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:55 pm

Time to bump this again.

Come on Mikrotik please tell us some timescales, this can't be that hard, after all you had it mostly working 'by accident' in 3.17

We have more and more customers asking for this

Nick.

omidkosari · Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:19 am

Here is an email from RIPE .

Dear Colleagues,

With the distribution of two /8 blocks to APNIC, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) today announced that less than ten percent of available IPv4 addresses remain unallocated.

“This is a key milestone in the growth and development of the global Internet,” noted Axel Pawlik, Chairman of the NRO. “With less than ten percent of the entire IPv4 address range still available for allocation to RIRs, it is vital that the Internet community take considered and determined action to ensure the global adoption of IPv6. The limited IPv4 addresses will not allow us enough resources to achieve the ambitions we all hold for global Internet access. The deployment of IPv6 is a key infrastructure development that will enable the network to support the billions of people and devices that will connect in the coming years.”

You can view the NRO press release in its entirety at:
http://www.nro.net/media/less-than-10-p ... cated.html

Please contact <ncc@ripe.net> if you have any questions or comments.

Regards,

Mikrotik , hurry up .

jzaw · Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:32 am

any news about ipv6 pppoe?

please do say some progress has been made

FIPTech · Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:17 am

Mikrotik, what is your exact problem with IPv6 and PPPoE ? Do you need some help to make it works ? Some testers ?

Please just put a simple switch in the GUI so that we can enable it again.

I've never heard of problems with Ipv6 support over PPPoE or IPv6 packets confusing servers or clients. Anyway servers cannot receive IPv6 packets if they don't support IPv6CP extensions.

And clients will not receive Ipv6 packets from an IPv6 enabled server if they do not support IPv6CP extensions.

So where is the problem ?

We have this working since three years now using Openwrt. I can't understand that you've dropped support and can't put it back. Seems like you are receiving pressure from someone ?

I can't understand neither why you have dropped support for SSH static and dynamic tunnels.

Tunnels are not a security holes. Before to go in the tunnel you need to be authenticated. And SSH is a strong protocol, so there is absolutly no risk.

SSH tunnels are the more efficient, fastest and more secure way of remotly access a LAN subnetwork.

The other solution is to setup a VPN, but as a VPN is generaly opened full time, there is infinitely more risks that it will be a security hole between the remote and local network.

Anyway if somebody can enter the SSH session, it can go to the LAN network using many other methods than SSH tunnels.

bazzer · Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:55 pm

We are working on a more complete IPv6 support, and this will be implemented in the way it's supposed to be.
Any timescale on this? This month, year or decade?

Well the month went by, then a year and still no sign of IPv6 over PPPoE.

Please let's have a timescale on this!

NAB · Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:37 pm

Well the month went by, then a year and still no sign of IPv6 over PPPoE.

Good grief, doesn't time fly.

Please let's have a timescale on this!

I'll second (third/fourth/whatever) that.

The worrying thing is not that it still isn't available (this being despite the fact that we're now one major version greater than we were when the problem first appeared), but that nobody at MT wants to comment on where this is in the list of priorities (or even if it's in the list of priorities at all).

From my point of view, I'd happily accept the security implications of running it with the problems - and be happy to accept a little tick box marked "Enable IPv6 over PPP, yes, I know what I am doing". I'd be happy to put a MT box on the edge of my network and if needs be another one on the inside to do secure PPPoIPv4.

Ho hum.

jzaw · Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:15 pm

if you're in any doubt that ipv6 can be and in fact is useful, this shows you how many bytes I've passed in the last two weeks ... not via routeros needless to say

but I'd like it to be and it could have been under 3.17

google and even now YOUTUBE are on ipv6 in earnest (not that youtube is a serious reason for wanting ipv6 hehe)

jzaw$ host www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com is an alias for youtube-ui.l.google.com.
youtube-ui.l.google.com has address 209.85.135.101
youtube-ui.l.google.com has address 209.85.135.102
youtube-ui.l.google.com has address 209.85.135.113
youtube-ui.l.google.com has address 209.85.135.138
youtube-ui.l.google.com has address 209.85.135.139
youtube-ui.l.google.com has address 209.85.135.100
youtube-ui.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2a00:1450:8007::64
youtube-ui.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2a00:1450:8007::65
youtube-ui.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2a00:1450:8007::66
youtube-ui.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2a00:1450:8007::71
youtube-ui.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2a00:1450:8007::8a
youtube-ui.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2a00:1450:8007::8b

cant encourage you enough to get ipv6 over pppoe working PLEASE!

Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:33 pm

Any update on this.

Please could we have a timescale for when IPv6 over PPPoE will be available again ?

Nick.

drrk · Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:03 pm

I second this, I have not been able to successfully get ipv6 working with a tunnel, I suspect due to my complex setup so really need IPv6 over PPPoE support back.

hci · Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:23 pm

How does IPv6 work on PPPoE anyway? As I understand they want at least one subnet assigned to each end user. That way every device in there home has a public IPv6 IP. No more NAT. So does it hand out one IP and a route? How does the CPE device/router know what subnet it was assigned?

I also worry when Motorola Canopy is going to implement it. We depend on there CPE devices as well. They currently have PPPoE and NAT built in the SM which we authenticate to a Mikrotik PPPoE server.

jzaw · Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:55 pm

How does IPv6 work on PPPoE anyway? ....

this is a small howto we wrote for connecting to our isp in the UK Andrews and Arnolds aka AAISP

http://www.aa-asterisk.org.uk/index.php ... sing_PPPoE

hope its useful ... once you get your ipv6 running either native as above or tunnelled etc youll be able to reach that page via ipv6

note that this method requires that you have an adsl router that is capable of being set to BRIDGED MODE thus is in effect transparent thus allowing the linux box or hopefully in the future routerboard router to terminate the ppp sesh

in my case ive sucessfully used
Zyxel 660r compact
Billion 5200
Speedtouch 546v6

the last one being the best on my line
there are plenty of others to try .... maybe your current adsl router has a bridging setting?

prod to Mikrotik guys ... PLEASE SOON PLEASE!!

Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:45 am

yes, we are working on it

gr0mit · Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:12 pm

Working on it? Fantastic! Do you have any timescales? I think you will find a lot of people interested in helping you beta test it once you have it in a testable state.

Cheers
Tim

FIPTech · Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:48 pm

I would be happy to test it as well.

Chupaka · Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:59 pm

Do you have any timescales?

it's like with Blizzards: no timescales until release =)

jzaw · Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:17 pm

..... I think you will find a lot of people interested in helping you beta test it once you have it in a testable state.

/me signs up for pppoe/ipv6 test group

Inssomniak · Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:31 pm

My ISP Just rolled out ipv6 for testing, and excitedly jumped in to test with them, to my disappointment I found this thread and ipv6 over pppoe really doesnt work.

FIPTech · Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:54 pm

Still no IPv6 PPPoE client support inside RouterOS 4.6 version...

There are chances from now that Mikrotik will receive offers from Cisco, Juniper, HP, Motorola or similar companies, before they can rise IPv6 at a professional usable level.

It seems evident that Cisco, Juniper and others will not allow low cost hardware like Routerboards destroy 70 % of their market.

It is even possible that they receive pressure now, for example it is quite strange to see that GRE tunnels are not supported inside RouterOS.

If this supposition is true, then you will not see full IPv6 support and vendor interoperability functions like GRE tunnels or IPSEC virtual tunnels before they will have been acquiered.

Linksys is a good example. Cisco is using this brand to sold products they bought a few years ago. They sold them now at a very low cost, locking the market and controlling technology evolution. In the same time, they avoided that the vendors they acquiered a few years ago would have become market leaders.

Unfortunately the market is like this today, pushing technology downwards. Fluke or Fluke Networks are other examples of such market and technology killers.

NAB · Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:16 pm

Good news. Sort of.

MT have announced at MUM that IPv6 over PPP is working in ROS 5. The first release will be within two weeks.

Reading between the lines, it would seem that it won't be backported to ROS 4.

Chupaka · Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:06 pm

guys, haven't you seen that in online streaming? ))

Inssomniak · Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:54 pm

ROS V5 already?

Seems that v4 just came out.

jzaw · Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:11 pm

guys, haven't you seen that in online streaming? ))

linkie for the streaming pls ... we're still in the uk you see

EDIT:
no problem
found it

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/mikrotik

its streaming now

marlow · Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:48 pm

Good news. Sort of.

MT have announced at MUM that IPv6 over PPP is working in ROS 5. The first release will be within two weeks.

Good stuff. Issue is just, that 2 weeks are gone and no release yet. Where did you see that info ?

Depletion of IPv4 is at the moment Oct 1st, 2011.

/M

TonyHoyle · Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:07 pm

Depletion of IPv4 is at the moment Oct 1st, 2011.

Well.. depends on which forecast. The earliest IANA depletion forecast is currently forecast at less than a year away. The last RIR being being depleted something like 18 months after that.

In theory as the time gets closer the predicitons should converge.. accompanied by rising panic from IT managers everywhere who hoped they'd be somewhere else when it happened

Chupaka · Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:30 pm

anyway, it will be first public beta. if you want to join private testing - write to support, but beware - it's just alpha =)

FIPTech · Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:41 pm

Would it be possible to have a backport of IPv6 over PPPoE ?

We would like to begin testing IPv6 at client sites with a stable routerOS 4 version.

Thanks.

bazzer · Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:13 am

Thankfully, v5 beta1 has been released to public just in time! http://aaisp.net.uk/news-1-Apr-2010.html

janisk · Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:42 am

Thankfully, v5 beta1 has been released to public just in time! http://aaisp.net.uk/news-1-Apr-2010.html

ipv4-to-ipv6 converter cables...

NAB · Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:59 am

ipv4-to-ipv6 converter cables...

The same cables, when connected back to front convert IPv4-to-FrameRelay. I guess there's not much use for that these days, but it's a handy thing to have in your toolkit and certainly makes ROS and RB devices much more flexible.

interpoint · Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:29 am

Hello,

Our network is pretty much 100% MT ROS v3.x based.

We are currently providing IPv4 addresses via PPPoE to 100% of our wireless customers.

We have bought ROS Level 3 licences for all CPE equipment (as this comes pre-installed)

I want to start to dual stack and rollout IPv6 using PPPoE to all existing CPE and am concerned and disappointed with MT that I need to have ROS v5 to do this and my ROS v3.x or ROS v4.x is not going be able to handle PPPoE IPv6.

As per the License manual http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:License_levels
Level 3 ROS v3.x is only upgradable to ROS v4.x

I intend to upgrade CPE to ROS v4.x as I migrate and continue to upgrade our network but it is not feasable to pay more / replace all the perfectly good existing equipment that is installed over the past 24 months.

What alternatives do I have ? Customers are going to demand IPv6 soon and all the benefits that it brings (No NAT transversal issues for example)

Will MT produce an IPv6-test package that will work with ROS v4.x and properly provide IPv6 over PPPoE ?

What is the story ? Is there a workaround ?

FIPTech · Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:42 pm

It is quite late to begin IPv6 transition now, about 1 - 2 years before IPv4 exhaustion. But nobody wanted to hear IPv6 before.

Cisco is ready since about ten years, so big providers will not have any problems with this.

In France, we have the chance to have a medium sized provider who gaves us native IPv6 since 2002 through PPPoE over ADSL. But almost nobody did profit of this.

As always, small companies and final clients will have problems, because nothing is ready for them, as an example, no IPv4 to IPv6 protocol converter do exist on the market (except perhaps a couple of opensource non tested and not supported projects).

It's a pity to see this. I encourage everyone to start IPv6 as soon as possible, before big providers takes our money and our jobs.

After playing a couple days with IPv6, everyone will see that it's simpler than IPv4. So let's start now.

It seems to me that there is no problems to install v5 on older Mikrotik product with licences level 3.

According to the small number of new functions in version 5, i think it's more something like version 4.9, except if the beta will become an alpha and they introduce some other functions.

interpoint · Sun May 02, 2010 8:52 am

Bump.. Any update on having IPv6 PPPoE in ROSv4 ?

I have no interest in using V5 nor can we as all our existing CPE is Level 3 licenced and perfectly good equipment. We should not be forced to buy licences within 12 months to get a feature like this. Especially when the feature was implemented and then withdrawn !

Mon May 03, 2010 10:23 am

Bump.. Any update on having IPv6 PPPoE in ROSv4 ?

I have no interest in using V5 nor can we as all our existing CPE is Level 3 licenced and perfectly good equipment. We should not be forced to buy licences within 12 months to get a feature like this. Especially when the feature was implemented and then withdrawn !

In one topic the users demand that all features should exclusively be going into a new release while current release contains only fixes, but in this topic you demand that we sacrifice stability to add new features in v4?

what is the difference, only the number. v5 contains all the same that v4 has plus some new stuff. Forget the number and you will have what you ask for.

FIPTech · Mon May 03, 2010 10:41 am

"Forget the number and you will have what you ask for."

Normis, what about upgrading version 3 to version 5 ?

We can forget the number here as well ?

Mon May 03, 2010 10:50 am

so you would upgrade to v4.9 if it had IPv6 over PPPoE? If yes, then there is no difference in upgrading to v5beta2

But as with any beta, I can only suggest you to wait it out. When new features get added, sometimes there are invisible bugs to be found only later. No matter how much we test it here, there is still going to be a different scenario somewhere. Note that if we would add a new feature to v4.9, it would be the same situation, so version number doesn't change anything.

Beta version is unstable not because it's called "BETA" but because new features have been added.

Chupaka · Mon May 03, 2010 3:19 pm

maybe he means license restrictions? 'upgradeable to:'

interpoint · Mon May 03, 2010 4:49 pm

maybe he means license restrictions? 'upgradeable to:'

Chupaka, you are right this is what I mean..

We have bought loads of CPE over the past 12 months.

This CPE is running V3.30 and has been licenced to Level 3 ROS due to volume licencing.

All our CPE is config'd as PPPoE clients

Now.. We want to use PPPoE and IPv6
Why do we need to upgrade to V5 (stable when available) ?

We are stuck as we are only allowed to upgrade to V4.x which is of no use because PPPoE IPv6 feature is not available and probably never will be in V4.x !! (in my opinion, MT please correct me if I'm wrong)

New equipment being purchased will be fine as Routerboards now come with V4 installed but what about all the V3 that was just installed over the past 10 months !

MikroTik you are moving very fast with version 5 and in my opinion should have completed all IPv6 features in the current version. We are running out of public IP addresses (est Oct 2011) and many ISP's use and rely on PPPoE to deliver service and public addresses to end users.

This is now not possible with current stable versions of ROS. Is it a technical reason or a financial one not to include PPPoE IPv6 in ROS V4 ?

Also since PPPoE IPv6 was in 3.18 it should have been incorporated into V4.x not into V5.x effectively stopping all licence level 3 V3.x users from upgrading and obtaining this feature without paying for another new ROS licence. PPPoE IPv6 must be a CPE level 3 feature in V4.x to allow us to dual stack our recently deployed CPE.

omidkosari · Mon May 03, 2010 7:37 pm

maybe he means license restrictions? 'upgradeable to:'
Chupaka, you are right this is what I mean..

We have bought loads of CPE over the past 12 months.

This CPE is running V3.30 and has been licenced to Level 3 ROS due to volume licencing.

All our CPE is config'd as PPPoE clients

Now.. We want to use PPPoE and IPv6
Why do we need to upgrade to V5 (stable when available) ?

We are stuck as we are only allowed to upgrade to V4.x which is of no use because PPPoE IPv6 feature is not available and probably never will be in V4.x !! (in my opinion, MT please correct me if I'm wrong)

New equipment being purchased will be fine as Routerboards now come with V4 installed but what about all the V3 that was just installed over the past 10 months !

MikroTik you are moving very fast with version 5 and in my opinion should have completed all IPv6 features in the current version. We are running out of public IP addresses (est Oct 2011) and many ISP's use and rely on PPPoE to deliver service and public addresses to end users.

This is now not possible with current stable versions of ROS. Is it a technical reason or a financial one not to include PPPoE IPv6 in ROS V4 ?

Also since PPPoE IPv6 was in 3.18 it should have been incorporated into V4.x not into V5.x effectively stopping all licence level 3 V3.x users from upgrading and obtaining this feature without paying for another new ROS licence. PPPoE IPv6 must be a CPE level 3 feature in V4.x to allow us to dual stack our recently deployed CPE.

I agree . new mikrotik versioning is very commercial

(of course for mikrotik )

Chupaka · Tue May 04, 2010 5:53 pm

Beta version is unstable not because it's called "BETA" but because new features have been added.

- why do you call it 'beta'?..
- cuz it's betta' than nothin'

just kidding...

Wed May 05, 2010 8:58 am

There is no such license restriction, all RouterOS devices can be upgraded to v4. After you click "update license" you will get "upgradable to: v4.x"

omidkosari · Wed May 05, 2010 9:47 am

His problem is upgrading to v5

Wed May 05, 2010 9:48 am

and after you upgrade to v4, usually you will be able to upgrade to v5. plus we have a license exception for betas, you can always test betas, no matter what license upgrade limit you have

interpoint · Wed May 05, 2010 10:00 am

There is no such license restriction, all RouterOS devices can be upgraded to v4. After you click "update license" you will get "upgradable to: v4.x"

Normis: Being able to upgrade to v4.x is of no use to us when you need v5.x to handle PPPoE IPv6. BTW, I am fully aware how you upgrade to v4.x

To restate my point in another way:

Just like we use PPPoE to deliver IPv4 to customers we should be able to use PPPoE IPv6 in the same way.

Considering there are loads of IPv6 implementations in ROS 3.x and PPPoE IPv6 was already a feature in v3.x (subsequently withdrawn) therefore PPPoE IPv6 is not a new feature at all and should be fixed in v4.x where we can upgrade recently purchased equipment to.

Why should such an important feature be dropped and only reimplemented in v5.x ? MT has skipped over a full version of ROS ! This will forcing users to upgrade all historical equipment (some of it only 6-10 months old.) as the max version they can upgrade to is v4.x and that's it !!

Dual stacking our customers is vital and it is very important to start implementing dual stacking now and not waiting until it is too late. Gradual IPv6 deployments are the key to gain experiance for network operators and to ensure that their entire network is ready to handle IPv6. It is the cheapest and safest way to go about this task. Don't wait till the last minute when you are told by that you cannot get any more IPv4 and then discover huge problems delivering IPv6 or worse find some equipment in your network that cannot handle IPv6 at all.

If you need a good reason why ?

C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping http://www.google.com

Pinging http://www.l.google.com [2a00:1450:8007::6a] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::6a: time=112ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::6a: time=117ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::6a: time=107ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::6a: time=116ms

and

C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping http://www.youtube.com

Pinging youtube-ui.l.google.com [2a00:1450:8007::65] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::65: time=125ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::65: time=122ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::65: time=110ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:8007::65: time=107ms

More and more traffic and services are starting to move and be provided on IPv6 and unless we can dual stack our PPPoE enabled CPE then we are at a disadvantage (financially and competitively) against oter ISP's we will have not other choice but to start NAT'ing or renumbering existing network to improve short term effiencies. Neither of these solutions are an option ! Please re-implement PPPoE IPv6 in v4.x.

Wed May 05, 2010 10:03 am

while you wrote this huge post, I already clarified the beta issue in post above

Wed May 05, 2010 10:50 am

It is quite late to begin IPv6 transition now, about 1 - 2 years before IPv4 exhaustion. But nobody wanted to hear IPv6 before.

It's a pity to see this. I encourage everyone to start IPv6 as soon as possible, before big providers takes our money and our jobs.

It's interesting, but the biggest ISP in Latvia has no interest in IPv6 even today.

interpoint · Wed May 05, 2010 11:05 am

and after you upgrade to v4, usually you will be able to upgrade to v5.

Thanks Normis for the quick response. That is great.

I am glad that MT will usually allow upgrade to continue onto v5.x. I obviously misundersood the licence wiki on the "upgradable-to" section. Anyway, I am glad that MT will not restrict the CPE upgrade path to v5.x.

Suggestion: Might be worth updating this to say that the upgradable-to only applies to v3 keys purchased betweenJanuary 08 and January 09 and then allow all other keys upgrade to v5.

Anyway, this is good news..

Wed May 05, 2010 11:08 am

I am glad that MT will usually allow upgrade

did you read this part?

we have a license exception for betas, you can always test betas, no matter what license upgrade limit you have

interpoint · Wed May 05, 2010 11:32 am

It is quite late to begin IPv6 transition now, about 1 - 2 years before IPv4 exhaustion. But nobody wanted to hear IPv6 before.

It's a pity to see this. I encourage everyone to start IPv6 as soon as possible, before big providers takes our money and our jobs.
It's interesting, but the biggest ISP in Latvia has no interest in IPv6 even today.

I agree with both FIPTech and with Normis. It is the same here in Ireland.

However, you will find most ISP have deployed IPv6 to some degree to gain experiance. Customers are not demanding it at the moment but this will change once marketing and perception kicks in. Someday the "Spin Doctors" will start saying "why settle for IPv4 when you can have IPv6" and not give any reason why, then customers will start to demand IPv6 numbering. Simple as that. Concentrate on what you are doing as an ISP and forget about the other "Big Guys" you can be sure they have their own plans.

The main thing is that all ISP's should have networks that are fully ready for IPv6 and are all dual stacked, it is a different thing to have a demand from customers. Network engineers need to gain experiance and test these deployments. Network managers should deploy IPv6 in their office or home and try it out and also dual stack your webservers too.. Worse case is that you will find that your equipment is not able to handle IPv6 however, wait a few more months and there maybe commercial consequences.

I recently attended a RIPE-NCC conference and they are pushing IPv6 and dual stacking is the best way forward also IPv4 and it is getting harder and harder to get a new allocation while they practically throw IPv6 blocks at you.. If only we could use them fully

(joking..)

Anyway, great job done MT.. ROS blows away the competition in nearly every catagory..

interpoint · Wed May 05, 2010 11:41 am

I am glad that MT will usually allow upgrade
did you read this part?

we have a license exception for betas, you can always test betas, no matter what license upgrade limit you have

Yes.. I did read it.. This is fine, but when v5.x (beta) becomes full release what happens then ? Does the licence stop working or does it continue to operate ?

So scenario.

I upgrade [CPE_1] v3.x ---> v4.x (no problem)

I then upgrade v4.x ---5.x (beta) (no problem) [to test pppoe ipv6]

Later.. 5.x becomes full release.. What happens to [CPE_1] then..

Does the expention still apply ? Does it stop booting ?

Wed May 05, 2010 11:46 am

Officially if you have "Upgradable until v4.x" then you need to purchase a new license, if you want the new features.

As I said, we have made exceptions in the past, but officially it's still so.

interpoint · Wed May 05, 2010 12:07 pm

Officially if you have "Upgradable until v4.x" then you need to purchase a new license, if you want the new features.

As I said, we have made exceptions in the past, but officially it's still so.

IPv6 via PPPoE is not a new feature as it was avialable at one stage in 3.x ? Right..

The feature was withdrawn in this version as it caused problems in other areas of ROS.

Then IPv6 via PPPoE should have been implemnted in 4.x. (beta) This is where new features should and could have been fixed. Remember when it was available in v3.x, v4.x was a beta and should have had this feature implemented and tested (beta is for testing new features that could make the OS unstable right !!)

Now it is not in V4.x but in v5.x (beta)

This is not good licencing practice and I believe that MT should either backport this feature into V4.x and fix it or make ROS upgradable-to V5.x

Wed May 05, 2010 12:17 pm

It was not a feature, it was a security hole in RouterOS. We did not make it intentionally. To avoid issues we had to patch the hole and make normal implementation which works and doesn't threaten your security. What's so difficult to understand here?

Let me show you a comparison - you buy a house with a hole in the roof. When it rains, you have wet floor. House maintainer comes and pathes the roof, now it's all new and shiny. You complain - but I used the hole as a secondary entrance door, why must I pay to make a new door now!?

interpoint · Wed May 05, 2010 12:41 pm

Here is my comparison.

Your builder tries to make a door in your house. During construction of the door heavy equipment was used and the roof cracks open. The builder should stop constuction of the door and fix the roof. Then go back and implement the door.

However, this builder has said that doors are impossible and to wait until a prototype house can be designed with a roof that doesn't crack open during construction.

This is perfectly acceptable and reasonable.. However..

The builder then goes and designs a prototype house but forgets about the origional problem and then says you will have to buy the new prototype house before he will consider the door and cracking roof problem in the next prototype house.. BTW all of these prototype houses are liable to fall down at any time because of all the new design features..

Hey Normis.. Maybe we should give up on ROS and start a building company

Wed May 05, 2010 12:44 pm

I think you ordered one house, but expected to see another. Nobody said Ipv6 over PPPoE is supposed to work, so you can't complain that the bug was silently introduced, and silently removed.

CecilWard · Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:12 pm

Could anyone post a wrap-up, something on the current state of play on this?

Cecil Ward.

interpoint · Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:39 pm

Could anyone post a wrap-up, something on the current state of play on this?

Cecil Ward.

I think that we must upgrade users to v5 of ROS to get IPv6 working over PPPoE.
It is not possible in ROS v4 or v3

It is a pity as our IPv6 deployment now has been put on hold as we cannot risk running ROSv5 (beta) software on the CPE or on the AP's

Normis is there any work around planned for ROSv4 ?

charliebrown · Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:30 am

Have to say that this is very disappointing. Regardless of what Normis says beta is beta, RouterOs beta's have always been unstable and likely to break things that weren't even changes. It'll be nice to be able to deploy IPv6 to our clients without having to deploy beta's. Given that we're only just upgrading to 4.10 now after running 3.30, It took till 4.10 for v4 to be stable enough for deployment.

omega-00 · Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:55 pm

Just wanted to say we've been running the v5 beta version on one of our test boxes with no major problems/crashes etc. KVM access from terminal sometimes locks up but other than that, for a beta it has been very reliable.

Currently running v5beta06 on x86 hardware.

omidkosari · Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:39 am

Just wanted to say we've been running the v5 beta version on one of our test boxes with no major problems/crashes etc. KVM access from terminal sometimes locks up but other than that, for a beta it has been very reliable.

Currently running v5beta06 on x86 hardware.

I should use Mikrotik-Address-List for my pppoe users . How do i provide ipv6 to pppoe users without radius ?

Beccara · Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:03 am

So...

Since NV2 was backported to ROS 4.13 is we all jump up and down enough do we get PPPoEv6 in ROS 4.14?

Who is online