i did all the upgrades till now , no fix yet , i'll guess we'll have to be pacient.

Hi darkcrucible, Does the LAN interface on your pfsense box have an IPv6 address or is it just the WAN? Both my WAN and LAN have IPv6 addresses - http://i.imgur.com/I75bC.png What does Status->Services show? Everything seems to be running unless a service is missing - http://i.imgur.com/o7rBS.png Thanks! Edit: darkcrucible – I have to say thanks! Looking at the services page made me wonder if snort was causing me issues. Disabling it allowed my devices to start working on IPv6 and passing the IPv6 test. I'm still rocking the 2001: address however. Edit Again: I take back the last part, it looks like snort was entirely to blame. Everything is back to normal with a /64 now.

Turns out there is a device or two on the network here that wont work with ipv6, so I've had to turn off the ipv6 stuff for now :( Mainly the FetchTV box and the printer, the moment both IPV4 & IPV6 are being advertised, those 2 devices stop working All good, without ipv6 running now, the network is running rather nicely Im rather liking the uptime :D [image: Screenshot.png] [image: Screenshot.png_thumb]

Client has not been replaced yet. I have not managed to put in the time yet.

Yes the subnets have to be the same length - but since most ISPs will be handing you a /64 it probably won't be an issue. Not sure if there will be NAT for IPv6. It would have to be added into pf, I don't think it's currently supported there. It's really not necessary in most cases. People who have thought they needed it, really turned out to have an ISP deploying a broken/non-compliant setup and it was the ISP that needed fixing, not the client… So far the only interesting use-case I've seen for it is the possibility of doing transparent proxying, since that requires a port forward to function.

Thans for your reply podilarius.  :) I find it out. I put in the wrong WAN Prefix on the WAN Interface. Now I can reach the Internet with IPv6.  ;) ;) ;) ;) The LAN Adapter is for internal uses. The OPT1 is now for testing. :) I have a vCloud Director installation behind. Every machine in the Cloud need one IPv4 and one IPv6. Webserver or something like that will be only v6 reachable. But the machines must also reach the Internet with IPv4. Because of this reason I have such a big range on the OPT1. Thank you all regards supermega

My bad! I noticed an IPv6 rule that did not allow undefined address access to the fw. After I explicitly created a rule for this case, pfSense responds with RA after the RS mentioned above. Sorry for the confusion.

A am using get as well, and I am considering to upgrade my main FW to 2.1 as well, but in the mean time I have it installed on a test box with tunneling to NetAssist where I get a /48 network and a static ip on WAN. With get.no, I've read that you get a /60 prefix, and DHCP allocated IP. With the "Track Interface" setting, are you able to set a /64 network on the LAN side and enable SLAAC? How does that work? Thanks

I don't think it sounded strange :-) Just found it interesting that they are now starting a push and saying the norm now should be IPv6 and IPv4 is just and option. The logic is clear enough, the problem has always been when they would do something like this.

What are ISPs like comcast doing for IPv6 customers in the residential market? They use DHCPv6 with a /128 on the WAN side and a /64 for the LAN. [1] http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=49575.0 [2] http://ipvsix.me/?p=220

2.0.1 does not have IPv6 support, never has. 2.1 does. There used to be some old gitsync instructions that would turn a 2.0.1 box into a 2.1 box but those haven't been valid for at least the last 5-6 months or so. If you want IPv6, you need 2.1.

Wow yeah, that's one heck of a path. Judging by the latency, I suspect that is accurate. I'm in Austin at the moment and I have basically the exact same connectivity and latency to that .42 host as you have, about 50 ms, +/- 5 ms. I'm going ATX > DAL > LA > PHX > DAL. Terrible path… One of our developers is about 40 miles outside of Chicago, to get to the Chicago HE.net endpoint, his traffic goes to NYC and back. At home I'm about 300 miles away from Chicago using the same one, and my latency is about the same if not a little better than his. Not always the best routing in the world on those, unfortunately...

I'm sorry but enabling privacy extensions on a router does not make any sense. You will want to enable these on your clients.

NAT64 allows an IPv6 only client to reach an IPv4 server [1]. There exists an implementation for OpenBSD [2] but probably not yet for FreeBSD. If I remember correctly the targeted version was once FreeBSD 9, but Ermal might know better as he is/was involved [3,4]. [1] http://www.slideshare.net/IOSHints/nat64-and-dns64-in-30-minutes [2] http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca/ [3] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2011-February/006011.html [4] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2012-January/006411.html

After talking with my ISP, wondering why it is that the tunnel to them doesnt work They informed me I did have IPV6 enabled in the control panel when I log in to check my account ::) Just need to swap some details over once i get home, makes me wonder why it is I went through the hassle of the one for SixXS, lol

Regardless of NAT or no NAT, you can still firewall it so that only connections to the ports you allow through to each system will pass through the router.

@johnpoz: ^ so your quoting http://www.ipv6now.com.au/primers/benefits.php Why??  Your other post is gibberish as well.  Thinking your going to start spamming some sort of nonsense as soon as you can post links? Better to use the option to notify moderators so we know about them.

I tried to ping even the firewall and there's no response. yes rules are in place to allow all v6 to all and nothing I double checked again today the v6 tunnels functionality… ran a ping to google from my pf box... PING google.com (173.194.33.35) from 68.150.1xx.xxx: 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 173.194.33.35: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=74.204 ms 64 bytes from 173.194.33.35: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=75.006 ms 64 bytes from 173.194.33.35: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=73.949 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 73.949/74.386/75.006/0.450 ms PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:470:x:xxx::x --> 2607:f8b0:400a:801::1007 16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400a:801::1007, icmp_seq=0 hlim=59 time=57.728 ms 16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400a:801::1007, icmp_seq=1 hlim=59 time=59.010 ms 16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400a:801::1007, icmp_seq=2 hlim=59 time=58.224 ms --- google.com ping6 statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 57.728/58.321/59.010/0.528 ms

This already happen. I find a pfsense Bugtrack. Maybe this is the Problem http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2483 I'm trying to set a IP alias for the WAN Interface. Is there a workaround ? Like over the CLI ?? I found this Link  but I can't find the rc.conf file in pfsense. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2009-February/192845.html The IPv4 and IPv6 that i get over DHCP from the ISP are working. The IPv6 that I get from the DHCP is in the same Range (/64). Update I upgraded to the newest Version of pfsense (BETA 0 ) now the Virtual IP Addresses for v6 are working Closed