That is not your whole ipconfig /all output.. A widows box will have teredo, 6to4 and isatap interfaces listed... Unless you took the time to clean them up... They will attempt to get IPv6 and tunnel out of your ipv4 network.. If you want to play with IPv6 - your ISP doesn't have to support it.. Just get an HE tunnel.. they are FREE and and will give you a /48 to play with.. And they have certification program to walk through and help you learn the stuff you need to learn to correctly setup IPv6.. My last isp support ipv6 - well kind of.. It was way more trouble than it was worth... So I ran HE tunnel.. And my new isp doesn't have any ipv6 support.. Still have my same /48 because I was using tunnel.. But then again I only run it on the devices I want to run it on, for my own amusement and testing.. There is not actual "need" for it.. If that is something you want to do to learn about IPv6 than yeah lets go - lots of learning to do.. Happy to help... But when someone doesn't know the difference between a A record and AAAA... maybe they quite ready to ride the IPv6 train correctly. Here is the thing - IPv6 for sure is the FUTURE... But no matter how much some people want it... IPv4 is not going away any time soon.. For the home user, sorry there is no actual reason they need to run IPv6.. And to be honest until such time that they can commit to learning how to correctly configure it.. Its easier to turn it off.. Some people don't like that approach... But sorry thing tunneling out of your IPv4 network just to use a protocol that is not actually needed. Name a internet resource that you NEED, that you can not get to unless you have IPv6 and then we can talk about IPv6 being a "required" thing... And in the corp world - yeah the cost of transition on the lan side when they have all the IPv4 space they need with rfc1918.. Sure they can put their public facing stuff on both IPv4 and IPv6 that is for outside access.. But on the internal corp network - it cost money to do this transition... Until there is a financial reason - corp is going to drag their feet screaming into the IPv6 world.. So there is PLENTY of time to get up to speed on IPv6.. Nothing saying you need to take on that challenge right now.

On my Comcast Interface page, I've enabled the option: "Do not wait for a RA". This seems to accomplish what I want to do. Are there any ill effects I should be aware of?

Ok, thank you, sorry for duplicated theme. About :3:: - it really not existing IP at all, but real if remove this part. I sure, because have ntopng installed and have configured monitoring for long time storing. For me this strange situation. P.S. This clients is Win10.

So what does the config on pfSense look like vs your external server config? There must be some difference in the formatting or naming of the option to explain what is happening. Look in /var/dhcpd/etc/dhcpdv6.conf

@roally That's more than I see in my file. I am currently setting up a box with an older version of pfSense. 2.3.4 worked for all the time and I'll see soon whether there is a difference. If it would work, I'd know what is supposed to be in radvd.conf...

It looks like FreeBSD is able to create IPv6 fragments (45 fragments created), but i have no idea where they are going to in case of the WAN interface. netstat -s -p ip6 ip6: 402474348 total packets received 0 with size smaller than minimum 0 with data size < data length 0 with bad options 0 with incorrect version number 0 fragments received 0 fragments dropped (dup or out of space) 0 fragments dropped after timeout 0 fragments that exceeded limit 0 packets reassembled ok 614833 packets for this host 401766863 packets forwarded 2 packets not forwardable 45 redirects sent 746064 packets sent from this host 0 packets sent with fabricated ip header 0 output packets dropped due to no bufs, etc. 0 output packets discarded due to no route 0 output datagrams fragmented 45 fragments created 0 datagrams that can't be fragmented 0 packets that violated scope rules 0 multicast packets which we don't join

@jimp said in TunnelBroker - Should "Enable IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling" be enabled?: No, that is not needed. It's for passing IPv6 encapsulated traffic from your WAN through to some other device behind the firewall, so that the other device can handle IPv6 routing. https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/book/config/advanced-networking.html#ipv6-over-ipv4-tunneling Thanks

@beremonavabi said in Three Entries in NDP for Some Devices? [ANSWERED]: Unfortunately, I don't even have a name for what I'm seeing so I can't look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#SLAAC_privacy_extensions

I got an e-mail from Hyperoptic today saying that apparently IPv6 is disabled pending a firmware update they are currently working on... not sure if was just being fobbed off but that was enough discouragement to make me leave playing for a few days. I will try again then. I wonder if this is a firewall issue really but I tried a bunch of frankly scary things there too and nothing helped.

@jimp Thanks, this time I have edited the file /etc/inc/filter.inc as it appears here: https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/repository/revisions/e9446f537051c7b536d0b3fbb5ebd00c3766001a/diff?utf8=%E2%9C%93&type=sbs /* Do not form an invalid NPt rule. * See https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/8575 */ if (!(is_subnetv6($srcaddr) || is_ipaddrv6($srcaddr)) || !(is_subnetv6($dstaddr) || is_ipaddrv6($dstaddr))) { continue; } the system patches package it seems that it is not ready yet, but with that edition by hand it works great for now and in version 2.4.5 it will be fixed. Putting a prefix other than 128 does not work in the environment I use, the rule is created, but it does not work as expected. Thank you

It seems as if radvd is not working properly. Either there is no routing info, or unbound marches to a different drummer. I think the next step is to find out what the ISP actually sends and evaluate that with Wireshark. It could be problem a problem with the subnets and prefix sizes.

@ftln46 said in What is my ISP using for IPV6?: What I was having a hard time figuring out is why does my WAN interface get no global IPV6 address ? From a technical standpoint, it's not needed. A global IPv6 address on the WAN interface wouldn't be used for anything beyond testing (ping, etc.) or management. On IPv6, routing is normally done with the link local addresses. As for your ISP, you'll have to ask them if they provided an IPv6 address for the WAN interface. .

@mircolino I wish I could give a better answer but I did what I previously described and my problem hasn't come back since. I think there was some sort of setting persisting that shouldn't have and what I did was clear it out...

@roally Are you certain your ISP delegates a /48?

Doesn't say much? ND entry? how do I delete? [image: 1542848043356-screen-shot-2018-11-22-at-1.53.07-pm-resized.png]

@bepo I know that it is not a payment service @bepo, thanks for remembering it. I also know that there are comments that allow progress and others that do not. Thank you for your comment.