IPv6 testing
-
Where is this config.xml located? Can I simply edit it using vi at the console? Could you show me a sample of what you put in there?
Could you perhaps have a look at the screenshots I posted earlier today with the output of my network interfaces and compare those with yours? Maybe I'm missing something crucial in the interface config.
What ISP are you on anyway?
Are you using pfSense behind NAT or directly attachted to your internet line with a public IP?
Config.xml can be found in /cf/conf/config.xml
As you can see in the picture below, I mounted sftp directly in the Finder because I felt it was easier than using the terminal and especially cp and vi.Then, I edited the xml file directly, did a search for gateway and tried a few different things.
As you can see in the images attached, I ended up with this and it works for me.I've also attached the v6 part of the output of netstat -rn on my pfSense installation, not sure what everything means.
Gif is the tunnel, lo0 is the loopback, reX are my interfaces and I run both an openvpn and a pptp server, so those are mentioned as well.Internet6: Destination Flags Netif Expire default 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::1 UGS gif0 ::1 ::1 UH lo0 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::1 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::2 UH gif0 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::/64 link#2 U re1 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::1 link#2 UHS lo0 fe80::%re0/64 link#1 U re0 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%re0 link#1 UHS lo0 fe80::%re1/64 link#2 U re1 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef9%re1 link#2 UHS lo0 fe80::%re2/64 link#3 U re2 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efa%re2 link#3 UHS lo0 fe80::%re3/64 link#4 U re3 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efb%re3 link#4 UHS lo0 fe80::%re4/64 link#5 U re4 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efc%re4 link#5 UHS lo0 fe80::%re5/64 link#6 U re5 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efd%re5 link#6 UHS lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 link#8 U lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#8 UHS lo0 fe80::%gif0/64 link#11 U gif0 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%gif0 link#11 UHS lo0 fe80::%ovpns1/64 link#12 U ovpns1 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%ovpns1 link#12 UHS lo0 fe80::%pptpd0/64 link#13 U pptpd0 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%pptpd0 link#13 UHS lo0 ff01:1::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%re0 U re0 ff01:2::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef9%re1 U re1 ff01:3::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efa%re2 U re2 ff01:4::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efb%re3 U re3 ff01:5::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efc%re4 U re4 ff01:6::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efd%re5 U re5 ff01:8::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff01:b::/32 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::2 U gif0 ff01:c::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%ovpns1 U ovpns1 ff01:d::/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%pptpd0 U pptpd0 ff02::%re0/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%re0 U re0 ff02::%re1/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef9%re1 U re1 ff02::%re2/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efa%re2 U re2 ff02::%re3/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efb%re3 U re3 ff02::%re4/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efc%re4 U re4 ff02::%re5/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2efd%re5 U re5 ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::%gif0/32 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::2 U gif0 ff02::%ovpns1/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%ovpns1 U ovpns1 ff02::%pptpd0/32 fe80::290:7fff:fe32:2ef8%pptpd0 U pptpd0As for my ISP and connection:
A few months now, I've been using Ziggo so at least you know that your ISP isn't the problem.
pfSense is my NAT, so it has a public v4 address.Images:
-
That stuff with mounting with sftp is already beyond my level of Linux knowledge :-[ I used simple vi instead and compared my config with yours. Looks very much similar to eachother. I noticed you also bravely copy/pasted all the exact description and name fields from Databeestje's tutorial to rule out any chance of error ;D
Also the routing table looks like mine. I did have to add the default IPv6 route manually through the console though. You didn't have to do this?
Did you compare your ifconfig gif0 and the ifconfig of your LAN and WAN with my output as seen on the screenshots above? I'm wondering if I'm missing something there.
Are you using pfSense 2.0 beta 5? With all the latest updates? I downloaded all the latest checkins directly from the main tree.
My setup adds an extra complexity because I'm running pfSense 1.2.3 and pfSense 2.0beta5 virtualized under Microsoft Hyper-V on a Windows 2008 R2 x64 box. I am using the legacy network adapters and as said, when still using Alice ADSL it always worked just fine like this. Also with Alice ADSL I used it behind NAT, though using the Alice Copperjet 1616 as the router to the outside world. Now I'm using my DLink DIR655 wireless gigabit access point as the router to the outside world. This has several firewall options in it and I already turned all of them off to be sure that nothing is blocking the signal. But it has worked even in this setup (1 out of 100 attempts/reboots). I don't know why it doesn't anymore. Frustrating. Last night I even tried hooking the pfSense virtual instance directly to the Ziggo Ubee modem to rule out the chance of the DLink DIR655 of causing problems. It didn't work either. I did realise this morning that I recently turned on the firewall at the Windows 2008 R2 host though. I have turned it off again now and it still doesn't work. I could try hooking it up directly to Ziggo again with the Windows firewall being disabled.
Could you perhaps compare the settings from your pfSense configuration using the pfSense web GUI? For clarity, my HE tunnel details are:
Server IPv4 address: 216.66.84.46
Server IPv6 address: 2001:470:1f14:xxx::1/64
Client IPv4 address: 217.123.149.xxx (my public Ziggo IPv4 address)
Client IPv6 address: 2001:470:1f14:xxx::2/64
Routed /64: 2001:470:1f15:xxx::/64And my pfSense config via the web GUI is:
Interfaces -> WANIPv6
Enable Interface is checked
Type: Static IPv6
MAC address: empty
MTU: empty
MSS: emptyIPv6 address: 2001:470:1f14:xxx::2/128
Gateway: HE_NET - 2001:470:1f14:xxx::1System -> Routing -> Gateways -> HE_NET
Interface: WANIPV6
Name: HE_NET
Gateway: 2001:470:1f14:874::1
Default gateway is checked
Monitor IP: empty
Description: HE.NET gatewayInterfaces -> (assign) -> GIF
Parent interface: WAN
gif remote address: 216.66.84.46
gif tunnel local address: 2001:470:1f14:xxx::2
gif tunnel remote address: 2001:470:1f14:xxx::1 / 64
Route caching is not checked
ECN firendly behaviour is not checked
Description: HE.net ipv6 tunnelPlease double check if I made any mistakes in using the routing block (xxx:1f14:xxx) and the assigned block (xxx:1f15:xxx).
-
That stuff with mounting with sftp is already beyond my level of Linux knowledge
Did you compare your ifconfig gif0 and the ifconfig of your LAN and WAN with my output as seen on the screenshots above? I'm wondering if I'm missing something there.
Could you perhaps compare the settings from your pfSense configuration using the pfSense web GUI?
First a little OT:
Mounting with sftp is something I only know how to do because until recently, it was the only way to work directly on a clients' ftp-server when building websites. It uses a gui-application called Expandrive, but recently it's become possible in the venerable Transmit as well.I did glance at your output, but I don't know what to look for.
As far as I can tell, your output look pretty much the same as mine.The settings from my pfSense configuration in the GUI are as follows, and very much the same as yours.
In fact, the only difference I can see, is the three characters following :1f14:.Interfaces -> WANIPv6 Enable Interface is checked Type: Static IPv6 MAC address: empty MTU: empty MSS: empty IPv6 address: 2001:470:1f14:xxx::2/128 Gateway: HE_NET - 2001:470:xxxx:xxx::1 Both private network blocking options checked. System -> Routing -> Gateways -> HE_NET Interface: WANIPV6 Name: HE_NET Gateway: 2001:470:xxxx:xxx::1 Default gateway is checked Monitor IP: empty Description: HE.NET gateway Interfaces -> (assign) -> GIF Parent interface: WAN gif remote address: 216.66.84.46 gif tunnel local address: 2001:470:xxxx:xxx::2 gif tunnel remote address: 2001:470:xxxx:xxx::1 / 64 Route caching is not checked ECN firendly behaviour is not checked Description: HE.net ipv6 tunnel -
Thanks for checking it out. Strange. What I'm especially interested at when comparing your ifconfig with my ifconfig output is the following:
1. Does your GIF0 interface also show: tunnel inet <your ziggo="" ipv4="">–> 216.66.84.46</your>?
2. Does your GIF0 interface show a line starting with inet6 comparable to: inet6 2001:470:1f14:xxx::2 –> 2001:470:1f14:xxx::1 prefixlen 128?
3. Does your GIF0 interface only show an inet6 address starting with fe80:: or in other words the MAC based auto generated address and no other IPv6 address?
4. Does your WAN interface only show an inet6 address starting with fe80:: or in other words the MAC based auto generated address and no other IPv6 address?
5. Does your LAN interface show an inet6 address from your assigned HE IPv6 block, like: inet6 2001:470:1f15:xxx::1 prefixlen 64? -
Thanks for checking it out. Strange. What I'm especially interested at when comparing your ifconfig with my ifconfig output is the following:
1. Does your GIF0 interface also show: tunnel inet <your ziggo="" ipv4="">–> 216.66.84.46</your>?
2. Does your GIF0 interface show a line starting with inet6 comparable to: inet6 2001:470:1f14:xxx::2 –> 2001:470:1f14:xxx::1 prefixlen 128?
3. Does your GIF0 interface only show an inet6 address starting with fe80:: or in other words the MAC based auto generated address and no other IPv6 address?
4. Does your WAN interface only show an inet6 address starting with fe80:: or in other words the MAC based auto generated address and no other IPv6 address?
5. Does your LAN interface show an inet6 address from your assigned HE IPv6 block, like: inet6 2001:470:1f15:xxx::1 prefixlen 64?I checked mine and i'm Yes to all 5 questions
-
Thanks for your time and help Cino and iFloris. Guess my config is fine and the problem must be found somewhere in my physical setup. I'll do some experiments with it tonight.
Cino, is your pfSense 2.0 beta5 installation also directly hooked up to an internet connection so not behind NAT?
If anyone knows something else I might check, please do reply to this topic
-
Cino, is your pfSense 2.0 beta5 installation also directly hooked up to an internet connection so not behind NAT?
I'm using the latest build from this morning. I'm hooked directly to the internet via my cable modem, public address on my WAN.
I'm still having some issues. I'm unable to ping any IPv6 addresses or be pinged but i'm able to browse to IPv6 websites. But I've i'm able to ping from my clients now after putting in a default route for the IPv6 routing table. I did get a TTL error tho.. I had many issues getting the gateway to take.. If you read back a page or 2 there is a post from me on what I did. I change the subnet to /64 in my gif0 and WANIPv6 interface so I could add the HE_Net IPv6 address to the gateway then was able to select that gateway under the WANIPv6 interface. Link wouldn't come up until I changed the subnet back to /128 on the gif0/WANIPv6 interface pages. Only other difference I think, I didn't select the HE_Gateway as my default gateway. I left my WAN as my default gateway.
-
The manual databeestje provided at his website must contain an error somewhere. It kind of jumps from the left to the right with missing the step in the middle. For example when configuring the WANIPv6 interface he all of a sudden already has a gateway while adding that is dealt with after configuring the interface. And configuring the gateway gives the address not within range error like others already have reported here. Can't believe it did work for some people. They must have done something different. I'm wondering what.
That's true, I mostly slapped it together in a hurry and might have made a mistake here or there or renumberd the pictures wrong.
What's also missing is the reboot step at the end after gitsyncing.
It's also now possible to configure the updater to apply my git branch when performing a firmware update.I've attempted to fix the subnetmask issue but that didn't work. Perhaps configuring the WANv6 as a /64 might be better.I've just checked in a fix so that it always lies for gif tunnels that it's 126 bits. This way the subnet check if satisfied.
-
I've attempted to fix the subnetmask issue but that didn't work. Perhaps configuring the WANv6 as a /64 might be better.dhcpdv6 wont start now. Here is the error i've seeing:
Feb 4 07:54:07 dhcpd: subnet6 / Feb 4 07:54:07 dhcpd: subnet6 / Feb 4 07:54:07 dhcpd: /etc/dhcpdv6.conf line 14: Invalid IPv6 address. Feb 4 07:54:07 dhcpd: /etc/dhcpdv6.conf line 14: Invalid IPv6 address.Going to see if I can manually fix this when i get a chance if I can.. I noticed in the Dhcpv6 Server tab it doesn't give me the full range of the ip scope anymore.
Is anyone else having the issue? or is just my box..
-
Fixed the compressed subnet back to what it was. DHCPD6 starts again.
-
Fixed the compressed subnet back to what it was. DHCPD6 starts again.
that was quick and confirmed!! Thanks again for all your work on this!!
Quick question. Every reboot, I have to manually enter my IPv4 and IPv6 default gateways. Do you know why this is? I am using another WAN for failover, openvpn site-to-site/road warrior and ipsec.
-
I just set up a pfSense 2.0 beta 5 bridge instance on my colocated server at LeaseWeb which does have native IPv6. Where it took me days of time to get it to work with pfSense 1.2.3, it only took me about an hour with 2.0 beta 5. Great work pfSense developers!
Quick question. Every reboot, I have to manually enter my IPv4 and IPv6 default gateways. Do you know why this is? I am using another WAN for failover, openvpn site-to-site/road warrior and ipsec.
At my colocated pfSense instance, I too experience this problem. The gateways are still listed in the webGUI, but aren't applied for some reason. I now added them to my manual boot script and all works fine. There's still a bug to be fixed in that though.
Another thing I found is that after applying the smos gitsync thus enabling IPv6 functionality, I can no longer create a static IPv4 route via the webGUI since it only accepts IPv6. Via the console using route -n add it works fine.
@Databeestje, if I can assist you in your great work by providing you with a temporary pfSense 2.0 instance at native IPv6 to test with, please let me know and I'll be happy to create one for you at my colocated server at LeaseWeb.
-
Fixed the compressed subnet back to what it was. DHCPD6 starts again.
that was quick and confirmed!! Thanks again for all your work on this!!
Quick question. Every reboot, I have to manually enter my IPv4 and IPv6 default gateways. Do you know why this is? I am using another WAN for failover, openvpn site-to-site/road warrior and ipsec.
Did you select both the v4 and v6 gateway as being the default?
That's what I did@Databeestje, if I can assist you in your great work by providing you with a temporary pfSense 2.0 instance at native IPv6 to test with, please let me know and I'll be happy to create one for you at my colocated server at LeaseWeb.
I have native connectivity at the Xs4all DC so that's not a issue, and my v4 and v6 gateway stay on reboots. Must have been doing something different, I am using the same code.
Do note that the current kernels freeze or hang with ipv6 when building a carp cluster. I am still using a 18th snapshot in the Xs4all DC for my car cluster there so that failover works. -
Did you select both the v4 and v6 gateway as being the default?
That's what I didMy box will only let me select 1 gateway as default, see screenshots.
-
My box will only let me select 1 gateway as default, see screenshots.
For what its worth, same here.
-
My box will only let me select 1 gateway as default, see screenshots.
For what its worth, same here.
Perhaps we are looking in the wrong place.
Just like both of you have stated, my pfSense reports only one default gateway, even though I manually set the <defaultgw>for both gateways in config.xml.
Even so, routing works fine on my setup.This afternoon I updated to the latest version, which also gitsync'd correctly.
No issues as far as I can tell.
</defaultgw> -
I added <defaultgw>to my WANIPv6 interface via the config.xml and rebooted.. That did the trick!! Under gateways, both interfaces say (Default). I'm able to ping to the IPv6 world from my pfsense box and my clients. I'm also able to be pinged by subnetonline.com. I did try to block pinging via the firewall rules but that didn't work…Using the tools at http://www.subnetonline.com/ i'm able to see the pfsense is blocking their traceroute tool :-) Your also able to scan a port from their website...</defaultgw>
-
I still need to add code that correctly sets a single default gateway tag for single address family. e.g. One for v4 and one for v6.
So yes, I think my broken config I've been developing on is to blame here. Because I have a dhcp wan, and my he.net is set as the default it just happens to work the way it should.
On the fix list it is.
Note that you can not disable icmp6, it is required for operation of ipv6. You can't block it and I made sure of that. I can remove the icmp request type from the allow list, but other then that one I can not delete the other icmp6 allow rules.
icmp6 largely replaces arp. Do not however that ping from the internet to behind the firewall doesn't actually respond. it is specifically the firewall itself you can not block.
See filter.inc and search for icmp6 and echoreq or 128Edit: I've removed icmp6 echo requests and replies from filter.inc in current code.
If you have a static config you can now set a default gateway for IPv6 and IPv4.Below are screenshots from gateways config.
-
Thanks for the default gateway bit Databeestje.
Pretty awesome that CMB and Sullrich are now also committing to your repository.
And is the IPv6 build that SimonCPU is working on also going to be merged with your build or vice versa? -
The SimonCPU build is out of date, it was started, then promptly stopped shortly after. It's just a lot of work, and doing this thing on your own is a bit hard.
I helped Scott load my IPv6 branch on his firewall last night, a gitsync and a firmware update later he had addressing going. This prompted him to make the tinydns package IPv6 capable last night.
So in just a few hours time he both coded the support for IPv6 in the tinydns package and installed and enabled his own domain/webserver with a IPv6 address and published it. From zero to go in 4 hours.
The whole IPv6 scare mongering that it is going to cost the world trillions and that it's undoable is slightly overrated.