Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Multiple IPv6 Prefix Delegation over AT&T Residential Gateway for pfSense 2.4.5

    IPv6
    30
    147
    60.9k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • B
      brswattt @JKnott
      last edited by brswattt

      @jknott Oh okay, I must of misunderstood here. I took what was said in the first post to heart, that AT&T DOES provide a /60, but it seems like they only provide me a /64. Why? I don't know. Seems like other people get /60 to work, but this works for me. /64 is plenty of IP addresses, why do people fuss about it?

      johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • johnpozJ
        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @brswattt
        last edited by johnpoz

        @brswattt you can not split a /64 - it is designed to be the smallest prefix to use really. There is some special use of /128

        But putting a prefix on a interface for say your lan or optX etc would be a /64

        In the quick reading I did about the att issue, which might be dated and I don't have att to test with.. Is they will not issue anything other than a /64 vs say a /60 or /56 etc.. that you could break up and use /64s out of that for your different networks/vlans behind pfsense.

        So again my quick read of this issue is this script/config allows you to request a delegation for each interface on pfsense. Seems like a horrible setup, why not just let you request a /60??

        But which is very typical with many an ISP and IPv6 - they F it up!! ;)

        What should/supposed to happen is you request a /60 for example, and then use say prefix 1 of that on lan, prefix 2 on your optX, and prefix 3 on your optY, etc..

        An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
        If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
        Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
        SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

        B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • B
          brswattt @johnpoz
          last edited by

          @johnpoz Yep, god forbid they do it right so we can split it how we want. Also, with managed RA my android devices won't get IPv6 addresses. Can I just set it to Assisted so they can use SLAAC?

          johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • johnpozJ
            johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @brswattt
            last edited by johnpoz

            @brswattt if you want a dead simple solution to all your isp ipv6 issues.. I have 2 suggestions really, don't use ipv6 at this time. Do you have some actual reason to use IPv6 - other than learning/playing with it? I have yet to have anyone post 1 legit resource that actually requires IPv6..

            So the easy thing is just not use it ;)

            Yeah sure IPv6 is the future, but that future sure isn't today, nor tomorrow or prob even next few years to be honest. So unless you have some actual need or want for using it, other than learning curve? I have yet to even see or hear of a game that leverages it to be honest.

            Other option, is forget your isp stupid deployment method, and just get a free Hurricane electric tunnel. Free - you can get a /48 that doesn't change, you can set your interfaces to use any prefix you want out of your /48.. And guess what you can run slaac all you want ;)

            I have had a HE tunnel for like 12 some years.. I use it when I want to test/play with something in IPv6.. Takes all of few minutes to setup. It doesn't change, you can even set your own PTRs for any IP in the /48 etc. Good luck getting your isp to let you do that ;)

            My current isp doesn't even offer IPv6, nor have I seen any mention of providing it any time in the near future.

            edit:
            Click I have ipv6

            click.jpg

            Click I do not...

            not.jpg

            An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
            If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
            Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
            SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • P
              paul_s
              last edited by

              @ttmcmurry @lilchancep

              I have a pfSense CE router now and find your guide to prefix delegation works great. Thank you. I discovered that any Save/Apply to the Interfaces / LAN tab must be followed by a Save on the Router Advertisements tab to correctly define the radvd.conf file. The pfSense system seems to default the radvd.conf file after a Save/Apply on the Interfaces tab ignoring the Router Advertisements configuration until a Save is done on that page. You might want to note that in Step Six of your guide.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • GertjanG Gertjan referenced this topic on
              • M marcg referenced this topic on
              • M marcg referenced this topic on
              • M marcg referenced this topic on
              • M marcg referenced this topic on
              • M
                marcg
                last edited by

                Is this recipe still applicable to 23.01 with recent BGW320 releases (mine is on 4.22.5)?

                When I use the recipe, both the BGW and the router say that no prefixes have been delegated, and the router generally refuses to pass IPv4 or v6 traffic to the WAN. The behavior is the same after swapping the dhcp6c_wan_script.sh script into the .conf file and with "Managed" for RA settings.

                I'm able to get and use a single prefix when the Configuration Override isn't specified for the WAN interface. Thanks.

                L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • L
                  lolipoplo @marcg
                  last edited by

                  @marcg

                  Still works for me on the same hardware and firmware. I suggest you pcap your link with the RG for dhcp6 traffic and see if you are sending and receiving PDs

                  M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M
                    marcg @lolipoplo
                    last edited by

                    @lolipoplo Interesting results.

                    The router solicits three prefixes, which is correct. The BGW advertises them. The router gets them, and then releases all of them ~3 seconds later. You can see that in the screenshot below.

                    The OP says to uncheck "Do not allow PD/Address release" in the WAN interface DHCP6 setup. I couldn't find that option anywhere. Wonder if it's part of the issue?

                    Screenshot 2023-05-09 151504.png

                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M
                      marcg @marcg
                      last edited by

                      It's working now. This was a new pfSense install, with the WAN interface of my old router (UDM Base) plugged into a dedicated LAN-side interface on the pfSense. I had neglected to turn off prefix solicitation on the UDM. The UDM and pfSense were apparently "fighting" for prefixes from the BGW. Disabling prefix solicitation on the UDM fixed the issue. IPv6 was disabled on the pfSense interface for the UDM throughout; still puzzled as to why the BGW saw the UDM's DHCP6 requests at all.

                      L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • L
                        lolipoplo @marcg
                        last edited by

                        @marcg do you feel that your IPv6 connections drop after a few days (>24hrs)

                        I believe this is caused by the latest firmware. the RG has to be rebooted every few days

                        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • M
                          marcg @lolipoplo
                          last edited by marcg

                          @lolipoplo not yet, but I'll keep an eye on it. My pfSense has only been installed for a ~week.

                          I did notice an issue with the BGW's NAT table on 4.22.5. NAT table source and destination addresses are reversed for a subset of the entries, i.e., the BGW's NAT table incorrectly shows some traffic being initiated from external->internal when in actuality the flows are initiated internal->external. The pfSense NAT states correctly reflect that. I thought this was a display issue on the BGW only, but it may be deeper. More details here.

                          Someone responded on that thread saying that their v6 connections were dropping. Maybe the same thing you're observing.

                          T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • T
                            ttmcmurry @marcg
                            last edited by

                            @marcg @lolipoplo

                            Hey folks. pfSense+ 23.05 has been released which has a better GUI, specifically for AT&T residential gateway customers. They have documentation in the release notes on how to set up IPv6 as well as RG bypass (direct to ONT).

                            I would urge people to try out 23.05 as it appears this documentation/post won't be updated to align with built-in features.

                            OP

                            M A SimpsomRJS 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                            • M
                              marcg @ttmcmurry
                              last edited by marcg

                              @ttmcmurry Thanks for the heads-up and for the original recipe.

                              I have a BGW320. It would be great to get around its NAT state table limitation. The only rub is that I have no separate ONT: the fiber terminates directly on an SFP in the BGW. Not clear to me that I could take advantage of this new 23.05 feature unless I install a separate ATT-compatible ONT? The "ONT IN" port on the back of the BGW has a plastic cover. I'm not even sure there's an ethernet port underneath.

                              I installed 23.05 yesterday. Your original recipe continues to work well.

                              T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • T
                                ttmcmurry @marcg
                                last edited by

                                @marcg

                                Yeah, I heard that AT&T was offering new gateways that have a built-in ONT. IIRC, all lines of service > 1 gigabit require that particular gateway.

                                This may or may not be a solution for customers with the newer RG. It stands to reason there's a possibility a separate or aftermarket ONT can be acquired and used, but that goes well outside of what I can test/document. :)

                                And thank you for the compliment! It's great keeping a healthy discussion forum!

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • A
                                  AiC0315 @ttmcmurry
                                  last edited by

                                  @ttmcmurry

                                  Thank you for making me aware of this. Everything is working great.
                                  Here is a link to a DUID generator that I found.

                                  DUID Generator

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • A
                                    AiC0315
                                    last edited by

                                    I thought everything was working great. The bridge mode is working perfectly.
                                    IPv6 is another story. I get IPV6 address on WAN and LAN but when I go to test it at various sites it fails. I have everything configured per the Netgate guide that @ttmcmurry posted.
                                    Do I need to enable the DHCPv6 server? The guide did not state anything about that.

                                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • M
                                      marcg @AiC0315
                                      last edited by

                                      @AiC0315 The recipe here covers prefix acquisition from the ATT Gateway. It's not a full v6 configuration guide for pfSense.

                                      For example, v6 traffic needs to be enabled via System > Advanced > Networking > AllowIPv6 and firewall rules that support v6 have to be created.

                                      Try to figure out where the traffic is being blocked and whether DNS v6 name resolution is working, e.g., traceroute -6 www.google.com

                                      A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • A
                                        AiC0315 @marcg
                                        last edited by

                                        @marcg
                                        Thanks, I was able to find the extra settings. All is working now.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • SimpsomRJS
                                          SimpsomRJ @ttmcmurry
                                          last edited by

                                          @ttmcmurry Thanks for the heads-up on this. But looking at the new advanced options I was not able to figure out how to translate the current script into input to the new settings. Would you or someone else be able to create a post on how to do it?

                                          Thanks!

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • L
                                            lolipoplo
                                            last edited by lolipoplo

                                            I still don't understand the dumbass state limit from att.

                                            first they should migrate all of their RG communication to ipv6 and free the only ipv4 to user

                                            second, they should use STATELESS rules for PD'd ipv6 + ipv4.

                                            this 8k limit feels very much arbitrary, as if it's intended to limit the number of devices for residential users
                                            (it's not an issue for the box to support >1 million states: https://johnleach.co.uk/posts/2009/06/17/netfilter-conntrack-memory-usage/)

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.