Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?
-
@mattlach said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
Can you use DHCPv6 or are you stuck with SLAAC?
ISPs generally use DHCPv6-PD. SLAAC is normally used on the LAN.
Are they static or do they change? With the new address space available in IPV6, there should be no reason anyone gets a dynamic IP address anymor
With IPv6, the prefix is usually stable, provided you select Do not allow PD/Address release. I've had my prefix for years and it has even survived replacing my modem and the computer I run pfSense on. On the other hand, some ISPs are stupid.
I'm still wrapping my head around how addressing works on a LAN when everything has to be a globally unique IP, especially if the ISP changes block addresses on me.
Even if they change the prefix, the addresses will still be globally unique. However, it will mess up DNS. You can use Unique Local Addresses to avoid this issue on your LAN.
Does this mean that static LAN IP's are pretty much dead, unless your ISP grants you a static block?
My addresses, both IPv4 and IPv6 are virtually static. Also, on IPv4, the host name is based on modem and router MAC addresses and so change only with hardware change. My IPv6 prefix doesn't even change then.
It's really frustrating to have to mess around with this stuff when IPV4 was working perfectly.
If you had to use NAT, it wasn't working perfectly. You are using a hack that causes it's own problems.
If you want to really learn about IPv6, I can recommend "IPv6 Essentials" from O'Reilly.
-
@jdefuria said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
@betapc Your troubleshooting tip of asking to plug right into the ONT does indeed show that IPv6 is not on at my CO, and I tried at my friends house in a different subdevelopment (she thought I was crazy) and I do not believe MARLNJMA is online with IPv6. @MikeV7896 are you the one that updates this spreadsheet?
I am... I'd prefer any discussion of the sheet and active (or non-active) CO's take place on DSLR though... that's a bit off-topic for this site since it's not directly related to pfSense. Plus, that's where the original report was made (page 70 of the topic; East Cherry Hill was reported, phone numbers in that area appeared to point back to Marlton). No registration needed if you don't want (you can post as an anonymous user there). Here's a link to the last page of the topic as of the time I'm posting this.
-
@jknott said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
If you had to use NAT, it wasn't working perfectly. You are using a hack that causes it's own problems.
I fundamentally disagree with this assertion.
NAT works, works well, and is even desirable in many circumstances. It is not just a hack, it is a valuable tool.
I feel like people overplay the issues with NAT, derisively calling it a hack, and completely dismiss its benefits.
No, I am not talking about security. Anyone who thinks NAT provides them with any level of security is in for a surprise. That's what the firewall is for. But NAT is an immensely valuable tool for flexibility.
I take exception with the concept that my local network is just a way to get to the greater internet, and because of this everything on my local network needs to be 1:1 addressable with everything else in the world. In fact, I fundamentally reject this concept.
My network is not part of the internet. It is a completely separate thing. The majority of my traffic never even leaves my LAN. It is separate from the internet, does not exist because of the internet, and really has very little to do with the internet at all, except for the occasional packet I direct to traverse my router to the outside world.
My network should be completely separate and completely independent of the internet. There being a firewall is not enough.
If I have to manage my internal network with coordinated globally unique addressing and DNS, there is something very very wrong.
This is what NAT buys me. Complete independence. I am not dependent on my ISP to provide me a block of some completely unintelligible hexadecimal nonsense address range. As long as I use the predefined private address blocks, I can set anything I want, and use it however I want, which is the way it should be, because it is my private network. I shouldn't be tied to the internet in any way.
In fact, I PREFER my local network being NAT:ed for this reason, and I don't want NAT to ever go away. Without NAT my network isn't truly mine.
As long as I control it, NAT doesn't cause me any problems at all. If I need to open and forward a port I can easily do so, no problem at all. And in return it offers me true flexibility with what I want to do with my local network. (This - however - only holds true if I am the one controlling the NAT. If my ISP uses CG-NAT to provide me a non-public IP address from upstream, I'll be pretty upset.)
Anyway, having done some reading, that if I switch to IPV6, I have determined that SLAAC is not going to work for me, so I am going to need DHCPv6, but I have also discovered that Google refuses to support DHCPv6 on their devices, leaving them with a broken IPV6 implementation. Because of this I am going to have to stay on IPV4 until Google pulls their heads out of their asses and properly implements IPV6. I'm not even going to try to transition until that happens....
...unless:
1.) My ISP eventually starts CG-NAT:ing me, and I can no longer use a dynamic DNS to access my network remotely; or
2.) I stop being able to access the remote sites I want to useIf either of these happen, I'll have to selectively enable IPV6 on a limited number of systems, but keep blocking it on everything else. I'd probably lean towards using the link local addresses and NAT66 though, because that's the way I like it.
I have zero tolerance for this "everything should be 1:1" mindset. There is absolutely no reason why my local media file server needs to be 1:1 with some guy halfway around the world's "smart" toaster.
When creating IPV6, the IETF made erroneous assumptions about how people want to use their networks that might work well for some, but certainly is not the solution for all.
-
The first issue with NAT I was aware of was active mode FTP didn't work. At that time most FTP clients didn't support passive mode. Browsers were still fairly new then, so FTP clients were generally used. These days, you need STUN servers for VoIP and some games, to get through NAT. It breaks IPSec authentication headers. It also adds extra overhead for routers to process NAT. You can get the same function as RFC1918 addresses with Unique Local Addresses on IPv6.
-
@mattlach IPv6 specifically has ULA addresses available to meet your desire for local addresses.
Meanwhile, NAT is problematic for security applications like IPSec, DNSSEC, and Geolocation. CGNAT just makes this problem even worse.
Also, private RFC1918 addressing makes combining internal networks with overlapping 10.x.x.x space unnecessarily complicated (very common in the case of business acquisitions and mergers). Never mind that the entire RFC1918 space is insufficient for large individual organizations.
-
@mattlach IPv6 has been working fine for Google, Facebook, and Verizon wireless for many years now. If you want to use site-specific addresses, those are called ULAs in IPv6.
-
@mattlach I suggest if you want to use private addresses use ULAs, however, keep in mind ULA address preference is lower on the source address selection - meaning if you use ULAs you may never use v6 at all because it's low on the source slection table.. If you want private, just do better on your firewalls and routing. Honestly, nothing is stopping the internet-community from routing 10/8 addresses on the internet except best common operating practices. There's no magic special sauce in 1918 addresses - just norms and rules.
-
@mattlach said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
When creating IPV6, the IETF made erroneous assumptions about how people want to use their networks that might work well for some, but certainly is not the solution for all.
I have been running IPv6 on my LAN for over 12 years. Works fine so far.
-
@jeremy-duncan said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
I suggest if you want to use private addresses use ULAs, however, keep in mind ULA address preference is lower on the source address selection - meaning if you use ULAs you may never use v6 at all because it's low on the source slection table.
???
I have both ULA and GUA on my LAN. No issues at all.
-
My CO supposedly went live a few weeks ago. A scrip to detect RAs did briefly show something.
Last night, there was an outage that I hoped was some further progress.Today, my LAN interface as a 2600:4040 IP, but my WAN only has fe80s. LAN devices have
I can ping 2600:: from LAN devices and from the pfSense WAN interface.
Is this normal? Should I expect the 2600:4040 address on the firewall to be on the LAN interface and not the WAN and to have the one without the 2600:4040 address to be able to ping 260::?
-
@sophware said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
but my WAN only has fe80s.
Depending on your ISP, that may be normal. On IPv6, link local addresses (fe80) are often used for routing.
-
@jknott Thank you. That makes setting up HAProxy to handle inbound internet traffic interesting (or not possible).
-
@nolaquen said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
For the folks that have had IPv6 up and running for a while, has anyone had the /56 prefix change on them?
I've only had mine for a week and yes, the /56 has already changed twice. I'm hoping that's just because they're still monkeying around during the rollout.
-
Have you enabled Do not allow PD/Address release?
-
@jknott Yes, I have that enabled. It's possible over the last week of lots and lots of config changes and testing, that I may have briefly had it off. I also changed the seed number in my DHCP6 DUID once, which could have caused it.
-
M MaxK 0 referenced this topic on
-
M MaxK 0 referenced this topic on
-
@mikev7896 if I've used the settings you are suggesting and I'm not passing ipv6 traffic, is that an indication that my area isn't using it yet, or is there a better way to confirm that?
Thanks!
-
@mkomar Hard to say. As far as their "standard" GPON service area (which I believe should be nearly all of their footprint), they should have IPv6 rolled out completely. I've heard of no new areas from other users... Verizon doesn't share info on where IPv6 is available or not. But since it's been almost a year since they started rolling it out, I think they should be done by now.
I've seen some posts from people in NYC that have been upgraded to NG-PON2 (for multi-gig) that don't seem to be able to get IPv6 working... so it's possible that Verizon hasn't enabled it on that infrastructure yet. But I'm pretty sure that in most other areas where Fios is available, IPv6 should be working.
There have been some issues that seem to have arisen lately regarding IPv6 on pfSense, especially pfSense Plus 23.01, but I'm running it right now and don't seem to have any IPv6 issues... so not sure if related or not.
-
@mikev7896 I apprecaite it. I appear to be getting an an assignment, but ping6 is reporting:
ping6: UDP connect: No route to host
-
@mkomar I think my brother had the same thing last week - he got IPv6 addresses, but no routing. My parents had it happen a few months ago too. (Both are in Montgomery County, MD. I'm a few miles north of them in a different CO area, and it's been working for me for many months, so I'm guessing some of the CO's don't have routing set up properly.)
-
@kohenkatz sounds good. I'm in Culpeper, VA.
