O Canada! → Canadian → TekSavvy > IPv6 beta

Re: IPv6 beta

I asked Marc that given how long the beta has been and the response was "Good question." After the last CRTC decision they have been slammed with new subscribers and current customers upgrading as well as migrating Rogers to aggregated access.

Gabe at least mentioned recently he is working on it... so who knows.

»Re: ipv6 out West

Those using PFSense, currently the 2.1RC does support IPV6 for regular single connection DSL lines, but anything in MLPPP does not work. It has not been fully implemented and/or is broken, I don't think it has ever worked. My setup is 2 - 25M/2M VDSL Lines in MLPPP with PFSense 2.1RC.

Jacob

I tried with one of the earlier betas and got no WAN connectivity at all. Only after disabling IPv6 did I get any IPv4 connectivity.

I haven't tried lately as I run pfsense only at a couple of remote sites, so I don't get to mess with them much.
--
db

Hello Everyone.
I am trying get pfsense working with ipv6. I have one dailer pppoe0 which configured to ipv4 which working good. I added another pppoe interface which ipv6, but I am can't get what mode need set to ipv6 interface. I tried set to static and assign first ip from subnet, but it didn't worked.

You use DHCP6 on the IPv6 PPPoE. You then set the static /56 on the LAN interface.

Thank you for suggestion. Gateway shows offline. I wonder what mtu need specified, currently set to 1492.

Thank you for help. I got Ipv6 working.
Pfsense working good.
I wonder when tracking interface possible to use.

[root@test ~]# ping6 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=135 ms
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=116 ms
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=149 ms
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=193 ms

Here my ping result for mtu issue. Need correct mtu to 1420 to get optimal size

[root@test ~]# ping6 -M do -s 1452 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net) 1452 data bytes
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::1 icmp_seq=1 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
^CFrom 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485

--- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 0 received, +21 errors, 100% packet loss, time 1985ms

[root@test ~]# ping6 -M do -s 1420 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net) 1420 data bytes
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=33.7 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=54.7 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=36.4 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=52.5 ms
^C1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=40.2 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=46.2 ms
^C
--- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 33.776/44.013/54.752/7.840 ms
[root@test ~]# ping6 -M do -s 1428 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net) 1428 data bytes
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=120 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=55.0 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=123 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=97.2 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=90.3 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=97.8 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=73.1 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=39.7 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=53.5 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=10 ttl=57 time=64.0 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=11 ttl=57 time=80.4 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=12 ttl=57 time=35.0 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=13 ttl=57 time=71.9 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=14 ttl=57 time=77.0 ms
^C
--- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
14 packets transmitted, 14 received, 0% packet loss, time 13013ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 35.053/77.150/123.811/26.094 ms
[root@casipgw01 ~]#

Is it possible to use both the IPv6 and IPv4 PPPoE logins simultaneously?

Use the v6 PPPoE for v6 only (no v4) and route all the v4 via the other interface?

Just curious - why do you specify a /48 for cases where routers are involved? I'm using just the /64 I received from Teksavvy and SLAAC/NDP, works like a charm (but then, usually I overlook something )

Maybe late at the party, but except for boasting rights, what does IPv6 currently provides on Teksavvy?

More or less. Still no compelling or really interesting reason to subscribe to it.

If you're not a techie, probably not. I am, and I want to get used to IPv6 before it becomes ubiquitous; probably somewhere around 2030, that is.

I'm making two statements. Which one is your question referring to? The "interesting-to-techies-only" bit or the "it'll take a while" bit?

I've set up a DIR-601 (latest firmware) for relatives in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

The instructions they were emailed gave a static configuration with a /64 WAN prefix and a /56 LAN prefix, but when the router is configured that way it just gets automatically overridden by DHCP-PD—the router gets a /64 WAN, and a /64 LAN dynamically out of a pool of (apparently) 2^16 prefixes.

The comments to this board recommend sharing the hsiservice login between IPv4 and IPv6, but this resulted in broken IPv4 connectivity, while using separate teksavvy and hsiservice logins for IPv4 and IPv6 respectively appears to work. Is this the expected behaviour of the IPv6 service in Niagara Falls, or should I be worried about the current router setup?

Also, they're using P2P SIP, and while a dynamic prefix isn't a show-stopper it's pretty inconvenient. Is there any way that TekSavvy could set its DHCP server to assign a consistent prefix?