It works fine on either /64 or /128 for me now. Make sure to sync up with the current code before changing anything.

Yeah :) That way, works.

More fixes.

ok next weekend when i run a snapshot upgrade, I will also run the ipv6 upgrade as-well.

At the moment I'm editing the conf with textmate but I have also edited the file with Kod. I'm mounting the filesystem with an implementation of fuse called ExpanDrive so that I can edit and backup the file as if it were a local disk.

The file doesn't seem to be corrupted, as I can read it back in after editing.
Also, it gets reset when saving settings in the webconfigurator, as you noted.
Perhaps there is something else going on, as I had a bunch of calcru went backwards error messages preceding a panic just now.

so what your saying is there currently is no fix?

thanks for the this response too

let me know when it is added to the code

thanks for everything!

Cino has it just about right. Once 2.0 ships the current ipv6 code from databeestje will likely be pulled in and used as the basis for 2.1 from that point. Obviously many other things will go in to make 2.1 proper, but that will be a good starting point to jump ahead on ipv6. The current ipv6 code is periodically synced up with 2.0 proper to make sure there isn't too much divergence between them.

Many of us devs are running the ipv6 code on routers in various places trying to help track down issues. I run it at home on my router and use a he.net tunnel, it works great for me (aside from some dhcpd issues which have probably been fixed since my last sync.)

@billm:

That's a horrendously large sync.  Looks like it has over 1100 changed files, I'm not totally surprised it's making Firefox cry (mine didn't die, but it certainly had massive issues rendering the page).  If it's any consolation, I'm reasonably confident that our Gitorious install wouldn't have been any happier with it.

Gitorious would have just refused to show it entirely, "too large", so it loading at all is definitely an improvement. Gitorious had that nice habit of doing that to small diffs in some circumstances too. That page indeed takes a long time to load but that's just the massive amount of stuff there. Chrome loaded the page about 5* faster than Firefox 4.

@Kampfwurst:

i got the same error. Is it possible to post the fix

It still doesn't work for me, but I have added the IPv4 and IPv6 gateways manually. When I have the time I will do a fresh install and restore the configuration and see if it works better.

didn't know that, thanks for the info!

@billm:

Should be fixed here:
https://github.com/smos/pfsense-ipv6/commit/fed025ea776a0f8ec2a7b324c73dbac9c72a2c6d

ha, you were faster. i digged in the code myself, and was just about to commit a patch myself, but yours is more clean than mine.  :D

Ok looks like reached max attachment size - had to create new post.

This does seem a bit odd?  I looked at the total blocked ipv4 in after generating some ipv6 traffic, that shows as ipv6 passed in – this is odd.  Is this what your seeing?  See 3rd attachement

isthiswhatyourseeing.jpg
isthiswhatyourseeing.jpg_thumb

You're welcome guys :)

Yeah I saw that ;) hehehe Right place at the right time I guess!  Saw the fix right after I posted.

Maybe I should play the lottery today ;)

I've found that the default route might dissapear when the parent interface goes down.

I have not debugged that.

Yeah I think that is a 2.0 thing. I'm not exactly sure what the criteria are for showing up there, but it should be gateways listed there, I thought.

Looking a bit deeper we already have a ticket open for that: http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/785

But it's set to 'future' since it's more of a convenience and could be done via static routes as well.

The remco bressers post is indeed hackery. And as you also mention this is very different from the current IPv6 code in my branch which is far more turn key.

I just setup another v6 box at work, and it's becoming easier, just plug in some addresses and it works. That was the whole intention of pfSense.

Your advice on configuring proper IPv6 over fiddling around is a good suggestion. It's far more valuable and less likely to break your internet in interesting ways. :-)

This sometimes happens, it's reproduceable, I have not investigated.

Have not done this since moved tunnel endpoint to my pfsense box.. Much better way to do it!!  Now you have firewall control at pfsense, etc.

But to allow the tunnel endpoint to be box on lan side of your pfsense box, allow ipv6 traffic and put in the lan side IP address you want to be the endpoint, example 192.168.1.100 or something, whatever the IP of your box is that is going to be the endpoint of your ipv6 tunnel.

ipv6behindpfsense.jpg
ipv6behindpfsense.jpg_thumb