Ipv6

Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:10 pm

I would like to know what is the demand for Ipv6 support in RouterOS and how far you would like it to be supported. So if you are interested, please post something. Also you can post what exactly you expect from Ipv6 in RouterOS. Any kind of response on this topic is very welcome

oook · Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:13 pm

I would like to know what is the demand for Ipv6 support in RouterOS and how far you would like it to be supported. So if you are interested, please post something. Also you can post what exactly you expect from Ipv6 in RouterOS. Any kind of response on this topic is very welcome

We will be very pleased to see IPv6 working on Mikrotik.

(but at first please make BGP -> ospf distribution runnable)

rpingar · Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:51 pm

I think it is going to a must for routing OS-

So, go on!

Please don't forget QoS at wireless level also.

Beccara · Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:27 am

IPv6 is becoming critical for us, while i'm still picking a few things up the abilty to run a pure ipv6 network with no ipv4 stack would be great. For legacy clients the ablity to run a ipv4 LAN with a ipv6 realworld ip would be needed and likewise the ablity to map RW ipv4 ip's to the networks ipv6 address would be also needed to allow clients running ipv6 to access ipv4 resources and still retain their own ipv4 address

jarosoup · Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:07 am

We are currently working with a client on a bid for a build...one of their requirements is that the network be capable of IPv6, or at a minimum a garanteed upgrade path to IPv6 via software/firmware. We are sort if counting on Mikrotik to have this at some point as Mikrotik will be our preferred platform for this network (and most others too).

I think by adding this it will only give Mikrotik a leading edge over the competition as well. At some point, it'll be required anyway (as far as being competitive). We will need it sooner than later.

So, I vote yes please

Sergioz · Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:06 pm

It is for the time being a requierment that make difference between last time equipemnts and futur equipment ready for scalability an QoS handling.

It is seen more and more in Minimun Technical requierements for massive networks, public projects...

It's becoming a must. When you have not this feature and have no plan to implement it in your equipments, you are simply through out from discussion!

stephenpatrick · Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:49 pm

Agreed, IPV6 now a "required feature" on large bids, whether or not the end customers actually end up using it or not.
i.e. without it, bids to certain customer requirements are going to get harder and harder and sometimes impossible as the months go by.

Regards

sten · Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:13 am

I would like to know what is the demand for Ipv6 support in RouterOS and how far you would like it to be supported.

minimum;
Basic addresses,
basic static routing,
ipcp6 support to all ppp(!!)
ipv6 type packet filter firewall
tools support (e-mail, ping, traceroute)
bridge filter ability to filter basic ipv6 options

cool;
bgp support
ospf6 support
rip6 support
ipv6 exclusive access
ip services access
mac-telnet
winbox access

frosting;
firewall stateful tracking of tcpv6

pdf · Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:26 pm

I would like to know what is the demand for Ipv6 support in RouterOS and how far you would like it to be supported. So if you are interested, please post something. Also you can post what exactly you expect from Ipv6 in RouterOS. Any kind of response on this topic is very welcome

Hi normis, sten is right about the feature we would like to see but I would also add MIPv6 which is an important feature.

Also consider that IPv6 is going to be mandatory for large bids, so take into account as an important and very urgent need!

tramker · Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:33 pm

I'd like to see ipv6, at least basic routing and ospf6.

sten · Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:24 pm

I have no clue what MIP6, perhaps it's what i am about to suggest as a "minimum" thing (it's so immensly important for successful ipv6 networking); The functionality of BSD's "rtadvd", that is, to broadcast prefixes for host autoconfiguration. Technically it's probably ethernet multicasted, but i have not taken the time to verify that.

savage · Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:21 pm

With Vista having a fully functional ipv6 implementation, I'd expect demand for it to grow massively after the release as there is a functional end user device out for it to the masses...

Time for me to start reading up I guess!

Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:00 am

And still, nobody here is sure what they are requesting. Any specific needs yet?

(Btw "Vista" means Chicken in Latvian. The new windows name is hilarious here.)

Beccara · Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:21 am

I'm still learning IPV6 myself so i cant list exactly what i want but i would like to be able to run a pure IPV6 stack, with all the services needed like DHCP etc and PPP if its needed (I douno is PPP has a place in IPv6) and dynamic routing is also a must

What would also be nice is the ablity to map v6 to v4 address so if a AAAA dns lookup fails the client network can still access v4 resources with a Realworld v4 IP

savage · Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:32 am

Exactly my feeling as well. What 'specifically' is there to request? IPv6, is IPv6, will stay IPv6. Perhaps I just don't know enough about it yet to be educated enough.

ipv6 over ipv4 tunnels will be good, but yeah. What is needed to run a ipv6 network? ipv6 applications I would guess... dhcp, bind, bgp, etc etc etc etc... Maybe I'm just missing the point though

pdf · Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:46 pm

And still, nobody here is sure what they are requesting. Any specific needs yet?

(Btw "Vista" means Chicken in Latvian. The new windows name is hilarious here.)

Hi normis, yes we have specific needs, but I need to contact you off the forum for our needs. Mainly what we need is IPv6 support....

Thank you

nuclearcat · Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:30 am

On my opinion ipv6 kernel/packages must be optional(means if you want - you install it), and separate. Because they will make i think system bigger and slower, which is critical for embedded applications.

Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:19 am

Hi normis, yes we have specific needs, but I need to contact you off the forum for our needs. Mainly what we need is IPv6 support....

Thank you

therefore, I ask all of you here. We wish to hear what everyone needs, so that we can make it better for everyone. off-list will be of no use to everyone else.

pdf · Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:52 am

therefore, I ask all of you here. We wish to hear what everyone needs, so that we can make it better for everyone. off-list will be of no use to everyone else.

then I will try to summarize:

IPv6 total support for the same features we have on IPv4 (including firewalling and more important ROUTING!)+ MIPv6

Cheers

ktw-matt · Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:08 pm

I'd also like to see IPv6 support in MikroTik.

Most useful to me, would be a feature or method that would allow a MT router to act as a v4 to v6 gateway (via a v6 tunnel broker or similar). Then, clients sitting behind the router could use both public IPv4 and public IPv6 (via v6 tunnel) resources [[edit]] until a v6 upstream provider is available in the future. [[/edit]]

Hope that makes sense.

Beccara · Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:24 am

So once again i have to ask, is there conformation of IPV6 in 2.10? it's coming around when 2.10 was said it might be released.

Can you confirm if IPV6 will be in 2.10?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:47 am

Yes, I understand that you want a full implementation. But where should we start, what is the first thing to make?

beccara - we will start on this soon, so yes, it is planned for 2.10

Beccara · Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 am

The first thing i would do is get IPV6 stack running well and have tools like ping and traceroute done, Static routing

Thats a nice base

Then add Lan services like PPPoE and DHCP

Then Dynamic Routing

Then Multicast

and W00t!!! thanks for the conformation!

Armin · Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:40 pm

It would be nice to have the dynamic routing working among one of the first things. Static routing is a little bit uncomfortable

Beccara · Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:12 am

So MT how is IPV6 coming alone, does it look like it will be ready for v3?

polokus · Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:47 am

what about WDS link capable to forward ipv6 traffic, and i hope 2.9.xx routeros will have dual stack capability, and basic capabilities for routing ipv6 packets, ping

thanks

variable · Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:45 am

ipv6 and multicasting support are on my must-have list for the upcoming ROS

Stryker777 · Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:16 am

I need IPv6 BGP and OSPF very soon. The rest I can work around, but BGP is a real must.

JR · Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:55 pm

We can start with tunnels, support for TSP to freenet6.net, tunnelbroker.net, etc. Thanks.

protocol 41
6to4

JR.

grzesjan · Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:11 am

I would like to know what is the demand for Ipv6 support in RouterOS and how far you would like it to be supported.

I don't need IPv6 in 2007. But at the end of 2007 and at the beginning of 2008 I think we will need dynamic routing, dhcp, hotspot and - first of all - easy ipv4-ipv6 tunneling.

Gregor

gewissler · Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:02 pm

basic support of ipv6 should be:

ipv6 addressing
ipv6 static routing
ipv6 ping

it is enough for beginning, later can be added other stuff.
if it will be in Mikrotik 3.0, I would appreciate that.

zhall · Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:47 pm

Due to changing DOD/DOE requirements we're going to need to start using IPv6 for some of our contracts. So we're going to need routers that can support ipv6 routing, addresses, handout, etc. Is there any update on ipv6 status in mikrotiks?

Thanks

canniscam · Thu May 24, 2007 10:22 pm

I have a few customers who have deployed hotspots in condiminum envrioments where a good number of thier clients run Windows Vista in some flavor or another. With IPv6 Enabled by default it has been causing some issues with the Hotspot. I know it can be disabled but most of these customers are senior citizens with little understanding of the basic operating system functions let alone the IPv6 stack options.

So what I would like to see is native IPv6 to Backbone Support as well as IPv6-v4 Tunneling, OSPF6, and IPv6 Hotspot, IP Firewall Connection Tracking, IPv6 Filtering options in the Mangle (my favorite tool heh), and IPv6 Address List Support for the Firewall.

/Casey

pinam · Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:11 am

Very appreciated would be:
IPv6 addressing + DHCP
IPv6 to IPv4 tunneling (must for the initial period)
IPv6 firewall (filter, nat, mangle)
IPv6 routing + OSPF
IPv6 multicast, but that is a topic for another thread

JR · Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:29 am

Many thanks for the initial v6,
i tried to use 6to4 with anycast (192.88.99.1) gateway, no luck.

how about 6in4 tunnel?
and a manual?
Thanks.

JR · Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:54 am

here is a cisco example config:

configure terminal
interface tunnel0
description Hurricane Electric IPv6 Tunnel Broker
no ip address
ipv6 enable
ipv6 address 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::x/127
tunnel source xxx.xx.xx.xx
tunnel destination 64.71.xxx.x
tunnel mode ipv6ip
ipv6 route ::/0 tunnel0
end
write

What would be MT code?

marlow · Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:27 pm

Due to the lack of OSPF6 or any other dynamic routing protocol for IPv6 right now, 6in4 tunnels would be VERY appreciated.

Also, is there a way to enable IP address autodiscovery, if there already is a radv or zebra server running ? Doesn't seem to work on the MT boxes.

/Martin

changeip · Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:58 pm

Due to the lack of OSPF6 or any other dynamic routing protocol for IPv6 right now, 6in4 tunnels would be VERY appreciated./Martin

I second the tunnel for ipv6. . .

Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:00 am

marlow, 'RIPng' is supported with IPv6 (RIP protocol version for IPv6), as well 6in4 SIT are already there.

changeip · Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:54 pm

Excellent ... I see 6to4 tunnels now : )

Can you tell me what 'Local Address:' parameter should be? Is this supposed to be the remote tunnel ipv4 endpoint ?

changeip · Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:34 pm

nevermind. I am reading up on 6to4 tunnels and it seems to be auto discovery based on DNS records? What I can't tell is that if the DNS records are A records or TXT records.

Sam

JR · Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:40 am

marlow, 'RIPng' is supported with IPv6 (RIP protocol version for IPv6), as well 6in4 SIT are already there.

SIT = 6in4 or 6to4?
... but, does it work?

here is a cisco example config:

configure terminal
interface tunnel0
description Hurricane Electric IPv6 Tunnel Broker
no ip address
ipv6 enable
ipv6 address 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::x/127
tunnel source xxx.xx.xx.xx
tunnel destination 64.71.xxx.x
tunnel mode ipv6ip
ipv6 route ::/0 tunnel0
end
write

What would be MT code?

If So What would be MT code?

piwi3910 · Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:54 pm

anyone got this working already

variable · Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:25 am

we need nat pt for 6 to 4 conversion!

Any idea on when mikrotik will be supporting this?

andrewluck · Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:09 am

Spent some time trying to get this to work (RC14) with a tunnel broker (Hurricane Electric). However, while I can ping the ipv6 addresses at the local end of the tunnel, I can't ping the remote end and I'm not seeing any traffic on the ipip tunnel.

Has anyone else been able to get this working yet? I can post my config's if required.

Regards

Andrew

andryan · Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:07 am

IPv6 BGP support please.

fmoses · Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:16 am

IPV6 routing/dhcp/firewall/dhcp/qos support. And IPV4-IPV6 Tunneling support. would be needed as well.

We have clients that have needs to be able to get to IPV6 Sites and we currently just run the tunnels on each end user machine. Ability to have ROS do the tunneling for not only its internal use. But then allow IPV6 to the end users desktops. Would make things deploy better. Most tunnel brokers will route some IPV6 Space with there tunnel, and to be able to then ROS handle the tunnel to offer native IPV6 On the local lan.

andrewluck · Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:42 am

Digging into this a little deeper (complete newbie at this ipv6 stuff!) I see that I'm using the wrong tunnel type. The iproute command to set the tunnel up in Linux is:

ip tunnel add foo mode sit local 192.168.0.1 remote 192.168.1.42 dev eth0

I can see that MT now has a 6to4 tunnel type which sets up a tunnel with the name sit1 (which looks promising), but this only allows me to specify the local end-point address. Can anyone give me any clues as to how to set this type of tunnel up?

Regards

Andrew

andrewluck · Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:51 pm

OK. Some lateral thinking and a whole lot of reading later, I think I've got this working. Here's what I've setup:

First sign up for your tunnel at http://www.tunnelbroker.net

This will get you some information that looks like this:
Server IPv4 address: 216.66.80.26
Server IPv6 address: 2001:470:1111:11::1/64
Client IPv4 address: 222.222.222.222
Client IPv6 address: 2001:470:1111:11::2/64
Assigned /64: 2001:470:3333:33::/64

First setup the 6to4 interface

/interface 6to4 add mtu=1280 name=sixbone local-address=222.222.222.222

Add your client IPv6 address to the new interface

/ipv6 address add address=2001:470:1111:11::2/64 interface=sixbone

Add a default IPv6 route via your tunnel

/ipv6 route add dst-address=2000::/3 gateway=::216.66.80.26

You can now add your assigned IPv6 addresses as required.

Hope this helps someone.

Regards

Andrew

timoid · Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:56 am

ipv6 bgp is available in the later rc's - but it is missing very critical functionality such as the ability to define prefixes and filters, neighbours and aggregates. if v6 can be brought up to the functionality available on a v4 peer then that would be excellent.

ospfv3 support is essential also.

curveball would be 32bit as numbers.

uebi · Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:15 am

Well, luckily I don't have to use IPv6 yet, but please always remember http://youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

Greets,
uebi

Madrox · Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:18 am

hey, im just playing around whit ipv6.

/ipv6 route add dst-address=2000::/3 gateway=::216.66.80.26
Wonder why that address?: dst-address=2000::/3

laurinkus · Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:53 pm

There's a problem with IPV6 firewall 'log' action:

21:46:31 firewall,info forward: in:6to4 out:vlan1200, proto ICMP, 0.0.0.0->0.0.0.0, len 0
21:46:34 firewall,info forward: in:6to4 out:vlan1200, proto ICMP, 0.0.0.0->0.0.0.0, len 0
21:46:40 firewall,info forward: in:6to4 out:vlan1200, proto ICMP, 0.0.0.0->0.0.0.0, len 0

karyal · Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:41 pm

Is bgp v6 working at this time? (ROS 3.2)
I'm trying to set up a session between two rb, i can assign the ip addresses to ptp links, i can ping the point-to-point, but session keeps on active state.
Logged error is:
01:33:14 route,bgp,info Failed to open TCP connection: Connection refused
01:33:14 route,bgp,info RemoteAddress=XXXXXXXXXXX
on both RB

thanks,
ricky

andrewluck · Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:22 pm

Wonder why that address?: dst-address=2000::/3

2000::/3 is the current allocation of global unicast addresses.

Regards

Andrew

timoid · Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:44 pm

Hope this helps someone.

Regards

Andrew

That is awesome, i shall have to try.

currently i have a box doing the v6y stuff, which is rather annoying.

normis:
is there an eta of when bgp will allow aggregation and filtering? its rather embarassing having to send connected routes and rely on the far end filtering in order for bgp to work.

kthameen · Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:39 pm

Guys lets start from basic things the most important basic thing is to provide transparent routing for address in IPv6 networks to communicate with address in IPv4 networks and vice versa,in other words "NAT" .

ktw-matt · Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:14 am

andrewluck / timoid,

Currently I have a Linux virtual server in Dallas providing an IPIP tunnel to my LAN. Also on my Dallas VServer, I have a 6in4 (sit) tunnel to SixXS, which works fine (eg, ping6 www.kame.net). I recently got a /48 subnet routed to my Dallas v6 endpoint, and I'd like to route a smaller subnet of that /48 to my LAN via MT.

I can't seem to get it work directly with MT, but, with a NetBSD box behind the MT - I can successfully do a 6in4 tunnel to Dallas -- across the IPIP tunnel that's already established between the MT and Dallas.

I just can't get MT to do a 6in4 directly to Dallas - across the IPIP tunnel that's on the MT.
What happens is: MT can ping Dallas's IPv4 address and vice versa. MT can ping it's own IPv6 address, but not Dallas's IPv6 address (actually, the MT v6 address replies, instead). And finally, Dallas can ping it's own IPv6 address, but not MT's IPv6 address.

MT Log when pinging MT(v6)->Dallas(v6):

21:29:30 firewall,info v6 output: in:(none) out:sit1, proto ICMP (type 128, code 0), ab80::9a8:0:6f:2:1:0->::1:0:0:0, len 947
21:29:30 firewall,info v6 output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 6000:3aff:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1->::2:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1, len 0
21:29:30 firewall,info v6 input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 6000:3aff:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1->::2:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1, len 0

MT Log when pinging Dallas(v6)->MT(v6):

21:32:04 firewall,info v6 input: in:sit1 out:(none), proto ICMP (type 128, code 0), c5c9:cc47:110e::809:a0b:c0d:e0f->1011:1213:1415:1617:1819:1a1b:1c1d:1e1f, len 7086
21:32:04 firewall,info v6 output: in:(none) out:sit1, proto ICMP (type 129, code 0), c5c9:cc47:110e::809:a0b:c0d:e0f->1011:1213:1415:1617:1819:1a1b:1c1d:1e1f, len 7086
21:32:04 firewall,info v6 output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 6000::40:3a40:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1->::2:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1, len 0
21:32:04 firewall,info v6 input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 6000::40:3a40:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1->::2:2001:xxxx:xxxx:1, len 0

So obviously if I can ping6 from Dallas and have MT log it, something's happening... but what am I doing wrong?

I hate to give this out, but I'm sure it will help you diagnose my problem.
My IPv6 /48 subnet: 2001:xxxx:xxxx::/48
Dallas IPv6 Address: 2001:xxxx:xxxx:1::1/40 (or actually /32 when the above was logged)
MT IPv6 Address (sit1): 2001:xxxx:xxxx:1::2/40 (or actually /32 when the above was logged)

So where in the heck those weird addresses in the log came from, I do not know..

ktw-matt · Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:01 am

Nevermind. I got it working, but not with RouterOS.

I read on TheWan (Google: thewan mikrotik ipv6) that as late as RouterOS v3.0rc13 (?), 6in4 tunnels are still not supported. The change log does not seem to indicate any 6in4 updates either. (Is this why the ROS 'sit' interface does not allow you to specify the remote address - because it's not finished?)

I might tinker with it some more later.

The other goofy thing I did was messing up on my subnetting: you can get a /64 out of a /48 -- not a /40 out of a /48 (it's been a few months since I last tinkered with IPv6).

If you know something I can try, give me a holler.

Thanks,
Matt

marlow · Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:47 pm

I read on TheWan (Google: thewan mikrotik ipv6) that as late as RouterOS v3.0rc13 (?), 6in4 tunnels are still not supported. The change log does not seem to indicate any 6in4 updates either. (Is this why the ROS 'sit' interface does not allow you to specify the remote address - because it's not finished?)

Well. That was 3.0rc13. We're are at 3.7 now and I've not had time to test Andrew's configuration samples yet. Our wiki has been updated with Andrews config now and I will test it this weekend, to ensure that everything works.

Thanks to Andrew for the pointers.

/Marlow

marlow · Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:36 pm

Hi,

I can confirm, that Andrews documentation is as precise as it will get and works.

Many thanks for that Andrew.

A sample can be seen at 195.222.111.194, user: wan, no password. It's a Routerboard 600 running 3.7, BGP and OSPF for IPv4, RIPng for IPv6, 6in4 tunnels to endusers. Documentation on what this is, can be found here: http://doc.thewan.net/wiki/index.php/IPv6

/Martin

wsgtrsys · Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:30 am

ipv6 can't work?

foobaz · Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:43 pm

I'd like to see RouterOS services like ssh, www, and ftp listen for connections on IPv6, so I can configure a RouterBoard using only IPv6. I'd also like to be able to restrict access to certain addresses like you can with IPv4 addresses in /ip service.

It would be nice if the mikrotik dns server supported static AAAA records, so that when I access machines on my LAN with their domain names, I could communicate in IPv6.

Thanks, I'm glad you're working on IPv6 now. I don't use it much now, but in a couple years I bet it'll be a lot more important.

marcins · Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:40 pm

Hello

after few days of configuring I gave up.
I have 433 AH, public IP and trying to get IPv6 working

I had tries SixXS, and right now tunnelbroker.net.
no connectivity at all..

first configs:

[admin@mt.home] > interface 6to4 print
Flags: X - disabled, R - running
 #    NAME                                                                                                                             MTU   LOCAL-ADDRESS
 0  R 6in4                                                                                                                             1280  194.54.190.195

[admin@mt.home] /interface> /ipv6 address print
Flags: X - disabled, I - invalid, D - dynamic,
G - global, L - link-local, M - multicast
 #    ADDRESS                                     INTERFACE           ADVERTISE
 0  G 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2/64                     6in4                yes
 1  G 2001:470:1f15:5d7::1/64                     ether1              yes
 2 DG ::194.54.190.195/128                        6in4                no
 3 DL fe80::ff:feaa:2/64                          vap12               no
 4 DL fe80::202:6fff:fe4d:9e74/64                 wlan1               no
 5 DL fe80::20c:42ff:fe2d:9d83/64                 ether2              no
 6 DL fe80::20c:42ff:fe2d:9d84/64                 ether3              no
 7 DL fe80::20c:42ff:fe2d:9d82/64                 ether1              no

[admin@mt.home] > ipv6 route print
Flags: X - disabled, A - active, D - dynamic,
C - connect, S - static, r - rip, o - ospf, b - bgp, U - unreachable
 #      DST-ADDRESS              G GATEWAY                  DIS INTERFACE
 0 A S  2000::/3                 r ::216.66.84.46           1   6in4
                                   6in4
 1 ADC  2001:470:1f14:5d7::/64                              0   6in4
 2 ADC  2001:470:1f15:5d7::/64                              0   ether1

then
ether3 is public IP
ether1 is local lan

settings from tunnel broker

Server IPv4 address: 216.66.84.46
Server IPv6 address: 2001:470:1f14:5d7::1/64
Client IPv4 address: 194.54.190.195
Client IPv6 address: 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2/64
Routed /48: Allocate
Routed /64: 2001:470:1f15:5d7::/64

what i had observed pinging server IPv6
1. prior to 3.10 i had so strange address'es that makes no sense.
right now working on 3.13 ( 3.12 gives unreachable ::gateway )

ping my local IPv6 address (::2) - OK

[admin@mt.home] > /ping 2001:470:1f15:5d7::1
2001:470:1f15:5d7::1 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time<1 ms
2001:470:1f15:5d7::1 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time<1 ms
2001:470:1f15:5d7::1 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time<1 ms
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 128, code 0), 2001:470:1f15:5d7::1->2001:470:1f15:5d7::1, len 24
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 128, code 0), 2001:470:1f15:5d7::1->2001:470:1f15:5d7::1, len 24
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 129, code 0), 2001:470:1f15:5d7::1->2001:470:1f15:5d7::1, len 24
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 129, code 0), 2001:470:1f15:5d7::1->2001:470:1f15:5d7::1, len 24

then server IP

[admin@mt.home] > /ping 2001:470:1f14:5d7::1
2001:470:1f14:5d7::1 ping timeout
2001:470:1f14:5d7::1 ping timeout
2001:470:1f14:5d7::1 ping timeout
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW output: in:(none) out:6in4, proto ICMP (type 128, code 0), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::1, len 24
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 72
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 72

detailed analysis, line by line
1. looks OK
output: in:(none) out:6in4, proto ICMP (type 128, code 0), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::1

2/3 we have problems ( look into ::2 -> ::2 )
output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 72
echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 72
Type 1 is Destination Unreachable

then next try: telnet to serv. ipv6

[admin@mt.home] > /system telnet 2001:470:1f14:5d7::1
Trying 2001:470:1f14:5d7::1...

Welcome back!

logs:
1. output: in:(none) out:6in4, proto TCP (SYN), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2:57117->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2:23, len 40
2. output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 88
3. input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 88

same situation connection from ::2 -> ::2

--
test from looking glass ( ping ::2 ) gives no success, and logs:

1.echo: firewall,info FWv4 input: in:ether3 out:(none), src-mac 00:16:36:f9:23:5f, proto 41, 216.66.84.46->194.54.190.195, len 64
2.echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW input: in:6in4 out:(none), proto ICMP (type 128, code 0), 2001:470::7d:0:0:0:1->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 24
3.echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW output: in:(none) out:6in4, proto ICMP (type 129, code 0), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470::7d:0:0:0:1, len 24
4.echo: firewall,info FWv4 output: in:(none) out:ether3, proto 41, 194.54.190.195->216.66.84.46, len 64
5. echo: firewall,info FWv4 input: in:ether3 out:(none), src-mac 00:16:36:f9:23:5f, proto 41, 216.66.84.46->194.54.190.195, len 64
6. echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW input: in:6in4 out:(none), proto ICMP (type 135, code 0), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::1->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 24
7 echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW output: in:(none) out:6in4, proto ICMP (type 136, code 0), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::1, len 24
8 echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW output: in:(none) out:(unknown), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 72
9.echo: firewall,info IPv6 FW input: in:(unknown) out:(none), proto ICMP (type 1, code 3), 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2->2001:470:1f14:5d7::2, len 72

analysis
1. looks ok IPv4 packet come in
2/3 correct echo request/replay ( CORRECT IPv6 address )
4. IPv4 tunnel sended
5. next IPv4 tunnel packet
6./7 here are problems
ICMPv6 type 135: Neighbor Solicitation
136: Neighbor Advertisement
8/9 we are gone: type 1, code 3: address unreachable

---
Thats all
i have no clue whats wrong, for me implementation on MT, any help?????
ps. IPv6 connectivity with Cisco dont work also

foobaz · Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:27 pm

Try setting your IPv6 address on the 6in4 interface to the same address but with a prefix length of 128 instead of 64, i.e., 2001:470:1f14:5d7::2/128. Also, you shouldn't need to advertise your address on the external interface, just the internal where you're passing out IPs to your network.

Who is online