NDP proxy where are you
-
-
@hda -> not sure to anderstand :
You have two router in series, cascading networks. ?
If you want public IPv6 on your pfSense-LAN, then your pfSense-WAN have to request your ISP-box with DHCP6-Client for a prefix&subnet first ?, provided your ISP-box can function as a DHCP6-Server…
IPv6, no pfSense issue forya. Your ISP-box has the /56. Your pfSense is a slave with other LAN subnet-value and local prefix between /57 and /63.
Your pfSense-WAN on mask /56 doesn't look correct. (but /64 or /128).
do you suggest to have a ip by the dhcp from box for wan IPv6 pfsense?
i can try -
@hda ->dhcp give me a /128 :
inet6 2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:d96b prefixlen 128i try to use : 2a02:8428:ef:7500::10 / 64 for pfsense WAN
2a02:8428:ef:7501::10 /64 for pfsense LAN
default getway : 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1/56
2a02:8428:ef:7501::10 can't ping box (2a02:8428:ef:7500::1)have you an idea?
thank you
pra
-
@pra:
…
do you suggest to have a ip by the dhcp from box for wan IPv6 pfsense?
...Yes DHCP6, and ask for a prefix /62 to pfSense.
Then try to use Track Interface on your pfSense-LAN.
Put a host-PC on the LAN and see if that PC get response from http://ipv6-test.com/ -
@hda:
@pra:
…
do you suggest to have a ip by the dhcp from box for wan IPv6 pfsense?
...Yes DHCP6, and ask for a /62 to pfSense.
Then try to use Track Interface on your pfSense-LAN.
Put a host-PC on the LAN and see if that PC get response from http://ipv6-test.com/dhcp give me a /128, do you suggest to use a IPv6 /128 for pfsense WAN and a /62 for IPv6 pfsense LAN?
i try :
2a02:8428:ef:7500::10 / 64 for pfsense WAN
2a02:8428:ef:7501::10 /64 for pfsense LAN
default getway : 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1/56
2a02:8428:ef:7501::10 can't ping box (2a02:8428:ef:7500::1)what do you suggest ? because /128 in pfsense WAN and /62 for pfsense LAN seems strange
-
Consider: your ISP-Box supplies on request, you probably can not grab a number you like…
SO, don't do all static, but do DHCP6 from pfSense-WAN to your ISP-Box. Then read reply #19 again...
-
@hda
i try :
=> pfsense WAN IPv6 DHCP6 -> give me inet6 2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:d96b prefixlen 128
but how to configure pfsense LAN because the pfsense WAN has a /128 prefixethank you
pra
-
You may read & understand to request a prefix /62 for pfSense from ISP-box (/56) for the pfSense LAN's. The WAN address mask (/64 or /128) no problem for that, just an intermediair. The LAN's are each with a unique subnet and mask /64.
-
@hda :
sorry but i can't configure the box ….
DHCP is imposed :
2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:0000 to 2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:ffff
i tray this :
i fixe the ip on the DHCP6 on the box :
IPv6 pfsense WAN : 2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:1/128
IPv6 pfsense LAN : 2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:8001/113i test:
pfsense WAN can't ping the box (2a02:8428:ef:7500::1)
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:1 --> 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1
ping6: wrote 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 16 chars, ret=-1
ping6: wrote 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 16 chars, ret=-1
ping6: wrote 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 16 chars, ret=-1--- 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet losspfsense LAN can't ping the box (2a02:8428:ef:7500::1):
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2a02:8428:ef:7500:c9ca:8e5d:732b:8001 --> 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1
ping6: wrote 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 16 chars, ret=-1
ping6: wrote 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 16 chars, ret=-1
ping6: wrote 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 16 chars, ret=-1--- 2a02:8428:ef:7500::1 ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
thank you for your help
pra -
Why are you now trying to divide up a /64? You'll have a horrible time trying to use IPv6 with an allocation narrower than /64 on a LAN unless everything on that network supports address allocation via DHCPv6. Some devices only support SLAAC (such as Android devices, also Windows XP if you still use it and haven't installed a DHCPv6 client). SLAAC requires you to advertise a /64 (and exactly a /64) for things to work correctly.
Are you running router advertisement on your LANs (Services -> DHCPv6 Server/RA, Router Advertisements tab)?
I'd start by working out what your ISP supplied box offers. If it will allow you to delegate prefixes via DHCP-PD, your task becomes a lot easier. You've said you can't bridge this device, but does the ISP allow you to replace it with a DSL bridge and use PPPoE or similar?
-
I have a similar issue where NDP proxy would be really useful.
My colo provider gives me a /64 for my rack. I use NPt to do 1:1 NAT so I can have my pfsense firewall while still allowing machines behind it to have IPv6 connectivity. This works, but I have to manually configure a virtual IP for each machine. I'd really like to avoid that by just proxy NDPing the whole range.
-
Don't do that. NAT sucks. The main point of IPv6 is to do away with NAT. Make them give you another /64 and route it properly.
-
I can try, but I don't have much leverage over them. They're the central IT department for the university I work for.
As an aside, this is what I really don't like about IPv6. It takes away the ability for end users to do stuff on their own. NAT was invented to begin with because ISPs weren't interested in giving out extra subnets; now we're back to begging for them to give out static routes again. I remember the "bad old days" when ISPs would only allow you one computer per Internet connection…one of IPv6's goals seems to have been to enable that kind of restriction again. :/
-
IPv6 was designed to eliminate the need for any of that. Any ISP that doesn't give you multiple subnets is implementing IPv6 incorrectly. IPv4 was scarce, IPv6 is not. There is no reason (aside from pure greed) that they should not give you at least two /64's with one routed to your address in the other.
-
The response to my ticket asking for another routable block was "why don't you use NAT?" Trying to get it escalated to someone who at least understands the difference between IPv4 and IPv6. ::)
-
The response to my ticket asking for another routable block was "why don't you use NAT?"
Perhaps this might clarify the issue to them?
-
I have now come across two providers in the UK who give you a flat /48: i.e. the CPE is configured with address 2001:db8:1234::1/48, and no static routes.
It's nuts. You need to ndp proxy blocks of /64 to make routing work. We are back to the bad old days of "ip proxy-arp".
Anyway, it looks like FreeBSD ndproxy(4) can be used to implement this:
http://www.fenyo.net/newweb/ndproxy.html -
I have now come across two providers in the UK who give you a flat /48: i.e. the CPE is configured with address 2001:db8:1234::1/48, and no static routes.
Are you certain there are no routes? It's also quite common to see a /48 allocation like that with the first /64 assumed to be the interconnect and the balance of the /48 routed to the CPE.
NDP Proxy is the wrong answer though, getting the provider to fix their broken design is better. Might take significant convincing, though. A flat /48 is insane and should not be encouraged.
-
I was just searching the same for a friend who uses pfsense, when I stumbled on this post. I'd like to clarify what the OP is asking as it seems to me.
Asking how to do ndp proxying is not like asking "how to build a socks5 proxy". In fact: what OP is asking is very similar to the question "how do I do ARP proxying". FD: I am not using pfsense (not right now anyway, but I used to and might again!) but still, here's a setup I am using myself on a linux box, and shows what ndp proxying does:
This is my host:
Upstream router -> host(eth0)
host(bridge1) -> guest(eth0)As you can see, bridge1 connects the host and the guest together, without having added eth0. It's like a cable between host and guest. I know you guys probably understand this, but I'm just adding it for brevity.
On host(eth0) I have configured an IPv6 address, let's call it haddr1::1/64. On bridge1 I have configured an address, let's call it baddr1::0/127, which is inside the /64 subnet.
On the guest(eth0) I have configured the address baddr1::1/127. The host and guest can now ping each other: from the host, ping6 baddr1::1 gets a reply, and from the guest, ping6 baddr1::0 gets a reply. Next, I configure the guest to use baddr1::0 as the default route. So far so good.
Now the guest wants to connect to a host; let's say that the guest wants to ping orange.kame.net*. It does ping6 orange.kame.net and the packet with source address baddr1::1 goes out, the host receives it on bridge1, and because forwarding is enabled, the host forwards it to its default route which means via eth0 to the upstream router. No problem.
But now the reply comes. The upstream router asks something like "who has baddr1::1". Gets no reply. Packet discarded.
This is where ndp proxying comes in, cf. the following command: "ip -6 neigh add proxy baddr1::1 dev eth0" and this commmand means: "answer on behalf of baddr1::1 on eth0". This causes the host to say "I'm the one you need for baddr1::1" and the packet gets through. Full duplex connectivity, fully working!
It's the same as arp proxying: I have a route to an IP on some interface, so I answer arp requests to that IP on some other interface.
This is exactly what I have been using for a long time. It does not violate specs, it does not work around problems, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing: enable normally routed packet flows. I know people might disagree or think that other ways are better, that's fine, but to each their own: it does not mean that this way of doing things is wrong. Not at all. There are more ways to do anything and everything.
Hope this makes it clear what OP is asking with ndp proxying, or if anyone thinks I have it wrong, feel free to say so as well. Just know: this setup works for me 100% and arp/ndp proxying is a normal thing to do with virtual machines and multiple networks. It's a lot better than NAT and so forth.
- I'm being nostalgic!
-
Yes – I'm aware of what he's asking and what it does -- but it does not solve the problem of the ISP delivering him a broken configuration. He's trying to work around it and enable their awful behavior, but doing proxy NDP for billions of addresses is not the answer. Getting the ISP to deliver a proper configuration is the answer. Don't let the ISP get away with it, you're paying them for the service and they're failing to provide a proper configuration for the service.
You have a choice between an ugly, ugly hack (proxy NDP) and the ISP doing what amounts to a one or two-line change in their upstream router config for the customer to do it properly.
