 JCohenPremium
join:2010-10-19
Nepean, ON
kudos:3
 ·Start Communicat..
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·Bell Fibe
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to thestealth
Re: IPv6 beta said by thestealth:Has anybody had any success in getting pfsense 2.1 to work with ipv6?
Using this guide, »doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Using_IPv6_on_2.0, I was able to get a connection on the WAN and was able to access the internet but I was having trouble getting IPv6 working on the LAN. |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| I did find that guide, but it speaks of tunnelling. I was looking more for a native solution.
Reading through the past posts has caused me more confusion than good. I'm not sure where to assign the /64 or /56 addresses (WAN OR LAN). |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by thestealth:I did find that guide, but it speaks of tunnelling. I was looking more for a native solution.
Reading through the past posts has caused me more confusion than good. I'm not sure where to assign the /64 or /56 addresses (WAN OR LAN).
You don't have to use the /64 and assign the /56 to your LAN. |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| In the end I gave up on pfsense and tried the tomato that Gabe posted. At first I tried the 2nd link and that did not work at all. Tried the first build in the post and BINGO worked right away. I then upgraded to the 2nd build and its still working. So thanks for the help. I'll wait until pfsense has more mature ipv6 code. |
|
 kragop
join:2006-02-15
Scarborough, ON | reply to TSI Gabe
Whats the best router to use for IPv6?
I have a D-link DIR-827, it says it supports IPv6, but when I set everything up, it won't work properly. |
|
 shwatkinPremium
join:2007-10-02
Bowmanville, ON | said by kragop:Whats the best router to use for IPv6?
I have a D-link DIR-827, it says it supports IPv6, but when I set everything up, it won't work properly.
I too am using the DIR-827 and have noticed that the shipping firmware seems to be broken for native IPv6 setup over DSL. I upgraded from a DIR-655 rev.B1 which did work properly but only with firmware v2.01. However, since the DIR-827 is brand new I'm sure that some future update will fix the native IPv6 support so that it works with the TekSavvy network. |
|
| reply to TSI Gabe
Is IPv6 extended to the MLPPP (wiredhighspeed) logins yet? I've had to move back to my regular login so I could use my /29, but I'd really like to keep IPv6. |
|
 TSI GabePremium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:2 | It has been extended. I just haven't given the announcement yet. 
You can ask for it in the direct forum and you'd be the first customer to give it a try |
|
| Done. Though, MLPPP was working fine on the beta logins. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to brad
said by brad:said by brassy:lol, probably the only domain name I didnt try. Still, they could put it in their motd
Or just put the AAAA record for irc.teksavvy.ca as it should be. I see this was done. Thanks. |
|
| is this for cable users as well? What is the benefit of ipv6? |
|
JCohenPremium
join:2010-10-19
Nepean, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·Bell Fibe
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by Babuloseo:is this for cable users as well? What is the benefit of ipv6?
DSL only, cable users need to wait for Rogers/Videotron to roll it out on their network, if you want IPv6 now you will need to use a 6to4 tunnel. For the average home user the only benefit is a static IPv6 address, other than I don't really think their is any. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to TSI Gabe
TekSavvy should look at IPv6 enabling their main website and other websites and other related sites.
I noticed awhile ago that almost all of WIND's site and vhosts (shop, care, etc) are v6 enabled. Come on TSI. This is low hanging fruit.  ) |
|
1 edit | reply to TSI Gabe
Now that I'm up and running with IPv6 on my regular login, I figured I'd give the ICSI Netalyzer another go. Everything came back golden with one exception:
IPv6 Path MTU: Warning
Your system can not send or receive fragmented traffic over IPv6. The path between our system and your network has an MTU of 1486 bytes. The bottleneck is at IP address 2607:f2c0:1:2110::13. The path between our system and your network does not appear to handle fragmented IPv6 traffic properly.
Does anyone at TSI have any input on this? Also, any chance of being able to configure reverse DNS for our IPv6 addresses anytime soon? |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by Mersault:Now that I'm up and running with IPv6 on my regular login, I figured I'd give the ICSI Netalyzer another go. Everything came back golden with one exception:
IPv6 Path MTU: Warning
Your system can not send or receive fragmented traffic over IPv6. The path between our system and your network has an MTU of 1486 bytes. The bottleneck is at IP address 2607:f2c0:1:2110::13. The path between our system and your network does not appear to handle fragmented IPv6 traffic properly.
Does anyone at TSI have any input on this? Also, any chance of being able to configure reverse DNS for our IPv6 addresses anytime soon? The MTU issue definitely appears to be on the first hop router on the TSI side. Interesting catch. I haven't seen any performance or connectivity issues with V6 though - am able to saturate my pipe with V6 traffic if I need to and playing World of Warcraft over IPV6 is actually -less- latent for me then playing over IPV4 (though these are tiny packets and MTU would never be an issue here). |
|
| I've not had any issues either, and I know this issue has been around for a while. IPv6 is tolerant of MTU issues (the MTU for the entire path is discovered during connection setup typically, if I'm not mistaken), but that doesn't mean that bad MTU values are optimal. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to TSI Gabe
Also please consider signing up for Google's IPv6 program to get whitelisted for Google (search, GMail, Google Apps, Blogger, Google+, etc.)/YouTube over v6.
»services.google.com/fb/forms/requestipv6/ |
|
| In the meantime you can use he.net's nameservers. 2001:470:20::2 will get you what you need. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by Mersault:In the meantime you can use he.net's nameservers. 2001:470:20::2 will get you what you need. I'm very well aware of that and have been doing so since their name servers were initially whitelisted but it would be more beneficial for TSI users for TSI to finally get their name servers whitelisted too. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| It would definitely be more beneficial.
The issue with using HE's DNS servers is that it sometimes returns suboptimal IPv4 addresses when DNS global load balancing is being used by the site you're trying to visit.
For example, using HE's DNS servers, I occasionally get like 200-500Kbps/s to the iTunes Store. Changing the DNS to TSI's DNS servers and flushing my DNS cache immediately returns performance to 25Mbps. Changing back to HE's DNS and flushing the cache again slows me down to sub megabit speeds.
With IPv6, because TSI uses HE for v6 transit you always get a pretty optimal return address for IPv6 requests. If any DNS GSLB is used for V6 at all (and I'm not sure how common that is yet), the addresses you get back are provided for HE's backbone and your packets are headed straight there (probably via TORIX) anyways.
It's basically always -best- to use a DNS server directly attached to your local backbone to get optimal IP resolution. So I'd second/third/etc TSI opting their v6 DNS servers into Google's V6 whitelist. |
|
