IPv6 and nameservers during IPv6 packet loss
-
@JKnott said in IPv6 and nameservers during IPv6 packet loss:
There is a need for it in that we have to move from IPv4 to IPv6 and the sooner the better.
Yeah no sorry, while it is down the road, its not sooner the better.. For starters its seems one of the largest IPv6 isp in the US, has all kinds of issues with actual deployment of it. STILL, years and years into their deployment of it. They started this back in 2011... How is it not rock solid stable and just work, with all kinds of flexibility of this and that method.. Because its not a freaking sprint but a marathon. And companies are not going to spend money on something they don't actually have too.. We are going to be running in this dual stack mode for many years to come.. I will for sure be retired from the biz before it ever close to being mainstream... Sorry.. but that is the reality of it, no matter how much you think or want IPv6 to become mainstream..
When you get some major player to say, hey you have to have IPv6 to use this resource is when you will see drive towards actual use.. Where ipv6 is king is mobile devices - because there is a freaking billions of cell phones, etc..
There is Zero resources that are needed to get to from this network that are only IPv6.. So I have and the users here have ZERO use for it at this time.. Zero!! All it does is cause issues and pain and added work and complexity.. While its the future, its not any time soon that should have to do anything with.
You seem to think that business and non tech people should for some reason have to get this up and running on their networks... While sure if your int a region of the world where the ISPs have a shortage of IPv4 address space, or its too costly for you at this time.. That has zero to do with the current situation in this part of the world..
Here is what would happen if I enabled IPv6 on this guest network - where all kinds of different devices connect to get to the internet.. Its not working right, its slow, etc. Sorry but not going to deal with that just so can say running ipv6 to cause myself and my users more grief..
So - as stated, no need for it... Which more than likely is the same boat this guy is in.. So if he as the desire to work through it on his home network.. Sure lets figure it out and get it working.. But there is zero requirement at this point in time..
So can your client query pfsense IPv6 address for a local fqdn ipv6 address, say pfsense IP? What client is doing the query has zero to do with being able to resolve something upstream - ZERO... not like windows asks the client differently then linux client.. A dns query is a dns query.
-
Almost right -- I agree, certain ISPs seem to be struggling, and, at least some would suggest, they like charging a higher and higher price per static IPv4, but to be fair, IPv6 isn't implemented exactly the same everywhere. Ever try to use IPv6 with android phones or devices? It simply won't work because Google just decided, on its own, it didn't need a DHCP client. Works other places... but not there, and end users have no way to find it, or fix it. The network is just broken and that's it.
I agree, someday, we'll have actually implement this thing, and I mean all of it, correctly, but ISPs have no incentive and their routers, until they catch fire, are never replaced or updated.
So, back to the original thread -- why does Pfsnese stop answering DNS queries?
-
I don't think it is, I can shut down my IPv6 HE tunnel and I can still query via IPv6 to unbound and get answers, etc. So what your saying is happening doesn't make any sense at all.. So there is a piece of the puzzle missing..
Yes resolving stuff upstream from pfsense via a connection that has packet loss on it can and could be sporadic... But that has zero to do with the client talking to unbound be it windows or linux..
Lets see the query your doing from client on windows and then on linux where one works and the other doesn't... I can turn off my HE tunnel right now and show you resolving still works.. Since unbound could just query for the dns via ipv4 anyway.. Do you have unbound set to only be able to use your HE interface for outbound?
-
@jantypas said in IPv6 and nameservers during IPv6 packet loss:
Ever try to use IPv6 with android phones or devices? It simply won't work because Google just decided, on its own, it didn't need a DHCP client.
I am aware of that issue, but it doesn't stop my phone and tablet from working with IPv6 here. However, I do know that it causes some problems for certain businesses that want to use DHCPv6 to assign addresses. I completely fail to understand the reasons given by that guy at Google, as the issues he mention happen with both DHCPv6 and SLAAC. Given that a lot of businesses are going to iPhone for that reason, I think maybe Google should put some pressure on that guy. Perhaps let him know that if he's not capable of making it work, they'll find someone who can. Of course, Android is based on Linux, which has no problem working with DHCPv6.
-
@johnpoz said in IPv6 and nameservers during IPv6 packet loss:
When you get some major player to say, hey you have to have IPv6 to use this resource is when you will see drive towards actual use.. Where ipv6 is king is mobile devices - because there is a freaking billions of cell phones, etc..
There is Zero resources that are needed to get to from this network that are only IPv6.. So I have and the users here have ZERO use for it at this time.. Zero!! All it does is cause issues and pain and added work and complexity.. While its the future, its not any time soon that should have to do anything with.What about all those who cannot VPN or otherwise connect to their own network, because they can't get a public address from their ISP? There are a lot of those, even in North America. Are they supposed to wait because you don't need IPv6? As for mobile devices, there are more of them in use than there are IPv4 addresses. My carrier uses 464XLAT to provide IPv4 service when needed. Otherwise, it's entirely IPv6.
As for Comcast, I don't know what their problem is, as so many other ISPs have managed to provide IPv6. Maybe we need to get to the point where failing to properly provide IPv6 support will cost them business.
BTW, it took a while for IPv4 to get straightened out too. I recall having to use SLIP and 576 MTU with my first ISP. However, I did have a static address back then.
-
I hate to start another thread, but I know.... I still have public ARIN blocks that belong to me, but I can't use them because they're non-contiguous /24s and no ISP will route them. I understand why, but here I have address space I can't use and can't give back or sell.
-
They should route /24s for you.
-
Sadly no.... first my fault, I should have said announce. My /24s have to be BGP announced from somewhere. And, lots of 24s are bad for the routing tables. I do get that. Also, Big ISPs like Comcast don't actually have to do anything -- they'll tell you that. "You're going to use who else?"
-
Well, yeah, you'll need BGP. I didn't say they have to, I said they should. I have never had any trouble getting /24s added to ISP BGP filters. Don't expect it on anything short of a dedicated circuit though.
-
Yeah I wouldn't see as an issue if you had actual connection with them... They prob not going to do it if you have the 200 a month "business" connection ;)
You should also be able to leverage that a colo somewhere, etc.
While yes selling bigger chunks is easier we just sold off some space - and pretty sure they were would go as low as /24s - how many /24s do you have total? And are you looking to sell all of them off.. I could send you contact I have... We did 3 different deals with them for 3 different chunks of space over the last year.. Went real smooth. Our smallest block was a /19