pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result
-
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong file. Is fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 your firewall or the ISP? I see requests for that address coming from the unknown address source.
-
@JKnott said in pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result:
fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3
That is my firewall. (ac:16:2d:94:bb:d3)
Not really sure why pfSense is sending NS for it self.
Those first 4 packages with unknown source seems to be origin from the firewall's NIC (src MAC matches).
-
Then that 1st line would be duplicate address detection (DAD) and when there's no response it assumes the address is free. Later you see the multicast listener reports initially have the unknown source and then 1 with your address. Then there are DHCPv6 solicits, but no response. There should be advertisements from the DHCPv6 server, they're not there.
-
This post is deleted! -
@JKnott said in pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result:
Then there are DHCPv6 solicits, but no response. There should be advertisements from the DHCPv6 server, they're not there.
@JKnott I know it's been some time, but I got my ISP to fix their problem with sending out RA, so now it makes sense to try to fix this.
The problem here is that the DHCPv6 server have no idea about where to send the response, as pfSense is not responding to the NS: "Neighbor Solicitation for fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 from fe:33:42:10:c8:6b", so it has no idea about where fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 is.
The response should have been: "Neighbor Advertisement fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 (sol, ovr) is at ac:16:2d:94:bb:d3"
If pfSense had send that response, then the DHCPv6 server would have replied with a lease.
I'm pretty sure that the DHCPv6 server is not required to multicast the reply, so for unicast it needs to know the mac of the local-link IP requesting a lease.
-
@cnrd said in pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result:
The problem here is that the DHCPv6 server have no idea about where to send the response, as pfSense is not responding to the NS: "Neighbor Solicitation for fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 from fe:33:42:10:c8:6b", so it has no idea about where fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 is.
Is that NS being sent to the correct address? Also, is it possible to do a packet capture? You can use Packet Capture in pfSense and download the capture file to post here.
-
@JKnott said in pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result:
Is that NS being sent to the correct address?
Yes it's being sent to ff02::1:ff94:bbd3, pfSense' local-link address is fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3
Also, is it possible to do a packet capture? You can use Packet Capture in pfSense and download the capture file to post here.
Here is a cap from pfSense, that is captured while reloading the WAN interface, to force it to send a DHCP request.
It is captured by pfSense with Interface set to WAN and Address Family set to IPv6
As before:
WAN: ac:16:2d:94:bb:d3
ISP DHCP servers: fe:33:42:10:c8:6b, e6:5d:37:84:53:17Also I'm not seeing any NS being blocked in the firewall log.
-
@cnrd said in pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result:
Yes it's being sent to ff02::1:ff94:bbd3, pfSense' local-link address is fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3
That ff02 address is a solicited node multicast, which is the other end trying to determine your MAC address. However, I don't know why it's doing that, as it should be able to find that in the solicit XID. Regardless, your system should be responding.
-
@JKnott Yeah, I'm not sure why they need that, but I don't think it's out of spec.
Regardless, your system should be responding.
Yeah this it the whole problem, it seems like the NS arrives at pfSense WAN interface, and running
pfctl -vvsrindicates that it is even allowed through the firewall?@11(1000000107) pass quick inet6 proto ipv6-icmp all icmp6-type neighbrsol keep state [ Evaluations: 3509019 Packets: 554001 Bytes: 53687917 States: 0 ] [ Inserted: pid 72478 State Creations: 683 ]Do you have any idea about what I could try to figure this out?
Also thanks for the help you have already provided :-)
EDIT: Could it be related to the fact that the NS sent by the ISP DHCP server is sent from 2a00:7660::249, which is not a private address, therefor pfSense refuses to reply?
28 9.708786 2a00:7660::249 ff02::1:ff94:bbd3 ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Solicitation for fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 from fe:33:42:10:c8:6bAs you can see here the source is 2a00:7660::249 and the dest is ff02::1:ff94:bbd3 at this point in time pfSense only knows the address fe80::ae16:2dff:fe94:bbd3 which is not in the same space as 2a00:7660::249
-
@cnrd said in pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result:
EDIT: Could it be related to the fact that the NS sent by the ISP DHCP server is sent from 2a00:7660::249, which is not a private address, therefor pfSense refuses to reply?
I wouldn't think so. While you can enable Unique Local Addresses (ULA) they're not needed. Normally, you have public addresses, at least 18.4 billion, billion of 'em.
ULA == the IPv6 equivalent of RFC 1918 addresses. -
@JKnott I'm simply lost at what to try, to get this to work at this point. I know what the root cause is, namely that there is no reply from pfSense for the NS, I know that the package arrives at the pfSense firewall, I know that it is passed through the firewall, but something behind the firewall simply isn't sending out a reply.
I even tried running with
pfctl -dto verify that it was not the firewall that caused the problem. -
Perhaps you can try an experiment. Connect another computer to the WAN port and try pinging the link local address and see what happens. Do a packet capture of it.
-
@JKnott I just connected my desktop directly to pfSense WAN port, pinging the WAN local-link address worked just fine, and the package-capture showed an NS sent from my desktop and an NA reply from pfSense.
Both machines here used local-link addresses, so I still suspect that the problem lies somewhere with the public address used by my ISP's dhcp servers.
Here is the capture (I only saved the relevant parts): NS-NA.pcapng
-
I also just tested it out on a totally clean install of both pfSense 2.4.5-RELEASE-p1 and a clean install of the latest 2.5-SNAPSHOT, no difference, pfSense is simply not replying.
-
Ping obviously works.
I just did a packet capture with Wireshark and a managed switch, configured as a data tap.
Here's what I see
neighbour solicitation for duplicate address detection
router solicitation
router advertisement
solicit XID
advertise XID
request XID
reply XIDI have attached the packet capture. How does yours compare? I've been using pfsense for almost 4 years and haven't seen it fail. It just works. In fact IPv6 was the reason I moved to pfsense, as the Linux firewall I was running didn't support DHCPv6-PD.
-
@JKnott Everything here is captured in the same way, Wireshark with a port mirror.
Here is the order:
duplicate address detection
solicit XID (x5)
neighbor solicit from 2a00:7660::248 and 2a00:7660::249This pattern repeats, as pfSense is waiting for a reply to the solicit XID and ISP routers are waiting for a reply to the neighbor solicits before sending a reply to the XID.
Interestingly I also tried setting up a pure FreeBSD 12.2 machine, just to see if that would reply to the NS, but no dice, so it seems that the problem lies somewhere below pfSense.
Here is a capture of that NS-no-response.pcapng
As you can see, same pattern, the ISP routers refuses to do anything before they get a reply to the NS they are sending out, while FreeBSD refuses to reply.
I know that everything will work, if I can just get pfSense/FreeBSD to reply to that NS, as I have experimented with Linux, which replies to the NS after which everything runs smoothly:
10 5.677136 2a00:7660::248 ff02::1:ffc9:11ee ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Solicitation for fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee from e6:5d:37:84:53:17 11 5.677141 fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee 2a00:7660::248 ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Advertisement fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee (sol, ovr) is at ac:16:2d:94:bb:d3 12 5.677527 2a00:7660::249 ff02::1:ffc9:11ee ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Solicitation for fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee from fe:33:42:10:c8:6b 13 5.677724 fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee 2a00:7660::249 ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Advertisement fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee (sol, ovr) is at ac:16:2d:94:bb:d3 14 5.678332 fe80::e65d:37ff:fe84:5317 fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee ICMPv6 78 Router Advertisement from e6:5d:37:84:53:17 15 5.678687 fe80::fe33:42ff:fe10:c86b fe80::541e:337d:38c9:11ee ICMPv6 78 Router Advertisement from fe:33:42:10:c8:6b -
@cnrd said in pfSense does not reply to NS sent by ISP router, ISP does not respond to DHCPv6 request as a result:
This pattern repeats, as pfSense is waiting for a reply to the solicit XID and ISP routers are waiting for a reply to the neighbor solicits before sending a reply to the XID.
pfsense startup.pcapng
Interestingly I also tried setting up a pure FreeBSD 12.2 machine, just to see if that would reply to the NS, but no dice, so it seems that the problem lies somewhere below pfSense.It looks to me like the problem is with the ISP, given the lack of responses. I assume your modem is in bridge mode, not gateway.
-
@JKnott I'm using a fiber modem, so there is no other routers in between.
I don't think it's a problem on my ISP's side, as everything works as soon as the client on my side replies to the NS send by the ISP router.
Booting into another OS that will reply to the ISP router NS and then back into pfSense results in pfSense getting both an IPv6 and a PD. The problem is that this only works for a couple of hours until the ISP router's cache run out and pfSense does not reply to the new NS send out at that time.
I'm starting to suspect that this may actually be a bug in the ND implementation of FreeBSD.
-
If whatever device is in gateway mode, pfsense will not work properly. Do you get NAT addresses on IPv4? If so, the modem is likely in gateway mode. I don't know what you have, but around here, the phone company provides fibre connections through the exact same device as they use for ADSL. It has connectors for both a phone line and Ethernet. If the customer is on fibre, then the Ethernet port connects to the fibre interface. I have a cable modem and the first thing I did when I got it, was to put it in bridge mode.
-
@JKnott there is no router function in the modem I have it is literally a fiber modem. I have a public IPv4 and in other OS'es than pfSense I get an IPv6-PD/NA.
