Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6

Ulysses_

It boils down to the following rules, is the equivalent functionality available in the web interface somewhere? In a package somewhere? In ipfilter?

-A PREROUTING -d 2001:470:4a71:f170::/64 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to-destination fdde:ad00:beef:0:91f5:6dd4:e66f:cf5b
-A POSTROUTING -s fdde:ad00:beef::/64 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
-A POSTROUTING -s fd11:22::/64 -o eth0 -p udp -j MASQUERADE
-A POSTROUTING -s fd11:22::/64 -o eth0 -p tcp -j MASQUERADE
-A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

dotdash

@JKnott said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

As for that link, that's about iptables, not ipfilter, which FreeBSD uses.

It's also not for pf, which pfSense uses.

OP- I'd expect you could use NPT, which is covered in the Netgate docs.
What exactly is the reason for needing ipv6? Your setup seems complicated enough, what with the virtualized firewall on the workstation and the double nat.

JKnott

@dotdash said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

As for that link, that's about iptables, not ipfilter, which FreeBSD uses.

It's also not for pf, which pfSense uses.

Sorry my mistake. Either way, it doesn't use iptables. I used to use iptables, when I had a Linux based firewall and ipchains before that. However, I never really got into the rules for iptables, as the firewall configuration in SUSE Linux handled most of my needs.

Ulysses_

What exactly is the reason for needing ipv6? Your setup seems complicated enough, what with the virtualized firewall on the workstation and the double nat.

So far it is just that a Windows VM that had to be worked with a while ago required access to something by Microsoft that was IPv6-only, but sooner or later there will be more and more instances of such in ordinary use of a browser, so better get this sorted once and for all.

Actually it would be nicer if IPv6 was completely missing in all devices except the pfsense VM. And the modem. IPv6 in them is an unnecessary human-unfriendly complexity if STUN is not needed, NAT could be from IPv4 to IPv6 and should be one of the jobs of the pfsense firewall to keep the user's life simpler and a little more private. You'd visit ipv6.google.com and your browser would think it is an IPv4 site.

Gertjan

@Ulysses_ said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

IPv6 in them is an unnecessary human-unfriendly complexity

Strange.
That was very valid for IPv4, a couple of decades ago.
Stuff like NAT was invented, people are still having huge problems with that, just check out this forum alone.

Anyway.
There are no more IPv4 left. It's done.

Ulysses_

If IP's have run out it means support for more IP's is needed, it does not mean everyone with a browser needs them.

JKnott

@dotdash said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

What exactly is the reason for needing ipv6?

That's where the world is heading. There are nowhere near enough IPv4 addresses to meet the need. I recently posted a link to an article that tells about how there are no longer any IPv4 addresses available in Europe & Middle Easy, unless someone sells some surplus. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't be moving to IPv6 is head in sand stupid.

JKnott

@Ulysses_ said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

If IP's have run out it means support for more IP's is needed, it does not mean everyone with a browser needs them.

No, the world has to move to IPv6 and that means everyone. Otherwise we'll wind up in a situation where some people are on IPv4 and others on IPv6, with some means to translate between them. Sticking with IPv4 means sticking with NAT, STUN servers, trying to stretch IPv4 addresses more and more, with more things breaking. Even Vint Cerf, one of the developers of TCP/IP said 32 bits was only used for proof on concept and the plan was to go with much longer addresses. IPv4 is a dead end and it's long past time to move to IPv6. I've been using it for almost 10 years.

Ulysses_

It wouldn't be half the world sticking with IPv4 and NAT or NAT46, it would be guys in particular situations, such as wanting to keep that old wifi up and running while using pfsense as a firewall. If pfsense's job is to act in the middle, NAT or NAT46 or NAT64 or DNS46 or DNS64 are all legitimate pfsense functionalities for particular scenarios. And quoting someone from a link given above:

"And for the "IPv6 doesn't need NAT!" brigade - sometimes you DO need it, for example if you want to run Docker containers on AWS. It doesn't support DHCP PD so you're stuck with NAT."

JKnott

@Ulysses_

WiFi should be transparent to the protocol. You should be able to run IPv4, IPv6, Appletalk, IPX and DECNet without issue, as WiFi is a layer 2 transport, not layer 3 where IPv4 & 6 are.

Why is NAT needed with Docker on AWS? What would you do if NAT wasn't available?

Gertjan

@JKnott said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

WiFi should be transparent to the protocol. You should be able to run IPv4, IPv6, Appletalk, IPX and DECNet without issue, as WiFi is a layer 2 transport, not layer 3 where IPv4 & 6 are

Exact.
My close-to-a-decade-old Wifi AP's transport just fine IPv4 and IPv6 used by iPhone and other devices.

dotdash

@JKnott said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

That's where the world is heading. There are nowhere near enough IPv4 addresses to meet the need. I recently posted a link to an article that tells about how there are no longer any IPv4 addresses available in Europe & Middle Easy, unless someone sells some surplus. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't be moving to IPv6 is head in sand stupid.

Putting that aside for the moment, I was asking why a home user, running pfSense in a VM, already double natting and unwilling to change that, needs to bother with ipv6. Maybe if he had a firewall that the whole network was using, not just him and his vms, or if it wasn't behind the isp's nat box...

Ulysses_

My close-to-a-decade-old Wifi AP's transport just fine IPv4 and IPv6 used by iPhone and other devices.

I think you may have missed the point. The wifi AP here fully supports IPv6. But we are asked to remove the router function from the modem/router which I believe will stop wifi working but I may be wrong, maybe the modem can be used simultaneously by 4 ethernet devices and lots of wifi ones without a router function.

JKnott

@dotdash said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

already double natting and unwilling to change that,

Perhaps we should be asking why they're unwilling to change. NAT is a curse on networks, caused by the inadequate IPv4 address space.

In my own network, I get a single IPv4 address, which I have to NAT to handle all my devices. I have no choice in the matter. On IPv6, I have a block of 4.72236648287 x 10²¹ addresses, so no NAT needed. Every IPv6 capable device gets global unique addresses. This means I can directly access any of those devices from elsewhere, without having to worry about port forwarding, etc..

JKnott

@Ulysses_ said in Need some instructions for getting started with IPv6:

But we are asked to remove the router function from the modem/router

We are here because we use pfSense. Most people running pfSense will put their modem into bridge mode and let pfSense handle everything for routing and firewall. The WiFi is a secondary issue and you're likely better off with a proper AP anyway. It is not IPv6 that's causing this issue, it's your sticking with the modem in gateway mode.

BTW, I live in a condo. If I relied on the modem WiFi, I would have a great signal at one end, but poor at the other. By using a PoE AP, I was able to put it roughly in the middle of my unit and so get a good signal throughout. My AP is high up on the wall in my laundry room. Very often, sticking with the WiFi on the modem results in a poorer signal. Also, the firewall that's built into my modem is crap that's nowhere near as capable as pfSense. So, considering WiFi signal, IPv6 and firewall, I'm far better off with the modem in bridge mode.

johnpoz

What jknott is trying to tell you is your not going to get IPv6 to work as it designed when your isp device in front of pfsense is doing nat.. While it might hand out and IPv6 address to pfsense wan... Its not going to be able to do correct delegation of the prefix(es) that would allow pfsense to put an IPv6 prefix on its lan..

So you can either go the hacky way of doing it and do some sort of nat on the ipv6 address pfsense gets on its wan... This can work sure - but is not how ipv6 is meant to be used.

The correct solution would be to use your isp device as bridge.. So it doesn't do nat, and then hopefully pfsense can get a delegated prefix or prefixes that it can use for network on its lan side. But this would depend again on your ISP - many of them do ipv6 all F'd up and only hand out 1 /64 anyway... Its freaking moronic at best ;)

While this will pretty much break the isp devices use as wifi AP... Normally you would want wifi behind pfsense as well, this would be done with either some wifi router being used as just AP, or an actual AP or multiples... I have 3 myself in my little sub 1500 sq ft house ;) Expecting to get "good" wifi from 1 AP located the 1 router is problematic to say the least.. Unless your in some small studio setup or something...

Another work around if you do not want to put your isp device into bridge mode, would be to setup a Hurricane Electric tunnel (FREE BTW) so you could get a /48 and break that up into your /64s to put behind pfsense.

And while jknott doesn't like this point of view - there is also the point well made by Ulysses_ that do you really need IPv6.. It is just plain fact currently that it is not an actual requirement at this time... There is not one actual resource that you would actually need to get to that is not available via IPv4.. So there is no actual "need" for IPv6 for the end user at this time... And to be honest I do not see that changing for many many many years!!! All the devices that were sucking up IPv4 space - ie phones!! are being migrated to IPv6 and then an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway run by the company to allow these IPv6 devices to talk to the IPv4 space..

So my advice is if you do not want to take the time to learn what is required to properly deploy, use, troubleshoot and secure IPv6 - its quite often a better and easier option to just not enable its use on "YOUR" network... Until such time that want to put in the work to do it correctly.

I would love nothing more for a massive push to get everyone on ipv6.. It for sure the future - but that future is not actually now no matter how many people want to believe it is.. I too have been using it for 10 some years... And while I love playing with it, and learning about it, and experimenting with it - just have yet to run into anything be it personal or professional that actually truely requires that it be available to the end user. Now if worked in the say the mobile phone business that might be a different story ;)

Ulysses_

Another issue is privacy. Have you ever thought if the designers of IPv6 are so keen with giving a unique IP to every single device in the world, for reasons other than neatness?

For example, pretty much everyone has plenty of 192.168.0.0/16 and 10.0.0.0/8 IP's for their devices in their LAN. If the designers wanted simplicity they would just leave this alone and ISP's would just give out a single IPv6 IP to each customer. But no, Big Brother wants it all, every single device in the world must be tracked.

Ulysses_

By the way, why are there two IPv6 IP's here?

johnpoz

That second one (fe80...) is link local.. There could also be more actual global addresses as well.. IPv6 uses out of the box will have many privacy address in the same prefix.. unless that feature is turned off..

If you think IPv6 for each device is for tracking purposes? From Big Brother? Think maybe someone been reading some conspiracy sites ;) Do they also cause autism? ;)

You understand when IPv4 was first started, the idea was every address was to be globally reachable - NAT came latter as after thought to when hey there is going to be more devices on this network than we ever imagined ;)

Such questions are clear examples of someone needing to understand IPv6 more before attempting to actually use it ;)

That first one there is owned by OTE, so your in Greece..

Link-Local addresses are like their IPv4 cousins the 169.254 range which is meant as L2 only address.. They don't route but serve a huge function in IPv6 use.. Every device that uses IPv6 will have a link local address.

Ulysses_

IPv6 for each device is for tracking purposes? From Big Brother? Think maybe someone been reading some conspiracy sites ;) Do they also cause autism? ;)

What's for sure, 10.0.0.3 is more readable than 2a02:587:220d:8b00:bafb:6402:b954:9ae5.

A sound design would insulate the end user from this, and only the infrastructure people would need to learn IPv6.

By the way, I hope you realise Big Brother is a metaphor, not a literal person. How do you feel about the Russian government dumping Windows 10 from all their public sector and armed forces systems, in favour of a debian derivative of their own build with added strong encryption? I think Microsoft trying to be Big Brother is a major part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_Linux