Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?
-
@mattlach I suggest if you want to use private addresses use ULAs, however, keep in mind ULA address preference is lower on the source address selection - meaning if you use ULAs you may never use v6 at all because it's low on the source slection table.. If you want private, just do better on your firewalls and routing. Honestly, nothing is stopping the internet-community from routing 10/8 addresses on the internet except best common operating practices. There's no magic special sauce in 1918 addresses - just norms and rules.
-
@mattlach said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
When creating IPV6, the IETF made erroneous assumptions about how people want to use their networks that might work well for some, but certainly is not the solution for all.
I have been running IPv6 on my LAN for over 12 years. Works fine so far.
-
@jeremy-duncan said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
I suggest if you want to use private addresses use ULAs, however, keep in mind ULA address preference is lower on the source address selection - meaning if you use ULAs you may never use v6 at all because it's low on the source slection table.
???
I have both ULA and GUA on my LAN. No issues at all.
-
My CO supposedly went live a few weeks ago. A scrip to detect RAs did briefly show something.
Last night, there was an outage that I hoped was some further progress.Today, my LAN interface as a 2600:4040 IP, but my WAN only has fe80s. LAN devices have
I can ping 2600:: from LAN devices and from the pfSense WAN interface.
Is this normal? Should I expect the 2600:4040 address on the firewall to be on the LAN interface and not the WAN and to have the one without the 2600:4040 address to be able to ping 260::?
-
@sophware said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
but my WAN only has fe80s.
Depending on your ISP, that may be normal. On IPv6, link local addresses (fe80) are often used for routing.
-
@jknott Thank you. That makes setting up HAProxy to handle inbound internet traffic interesting (or not possible).
-
@nolaquen said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
For the folks that have had IPv6 up and running for a while, has anyone had the /56 prefix change on them?
I've only had mine for a week and yes, the /56 has already changed twice. I'm hoping that's just because they're still monkeying around during the rollout.
-
Have you enabled Do not allow PD/Address release?
-
@jknott Yes, I have that enabled. It's possible over the last week of lots and lots of config changes and testing, that I may have briefly had it off. I also changed the seed number in my DHCP6 DUID once, which could have caused it.
-
M MaxK 0 referenced this topic on
-
M MaxK 0 referenced this topic on
-
@mikev7896 if I've used the settings you are suggesting and I'm not passing ipv6 traffic, is that an indication that my area isn't using it yet, or is there a better way to confirm that?
Thanks!
-
@mkomar Hard to say. As far as their "standard" GPON service area (which I believe should be nearly all of their footprint), they should have IPv6 rolled out completely. I've heard of no new areas from other users... Verizon doesn't share info on where IPv6 is available or not. But since it's been almost a year since they started rolling it out, I think they should be done by now.
I've seen some posts from people in NYC that have been upgraded to NG-PON2 (for multi-gig) that don't seem to be able to get IPv6 working... so it's possible that Verizon hasn't enabled it on that infrastructure yet. But I'm pretty sure that in most other areas where Fios is available, IPv6 should be working.
There have been some issues that seem to have arisen lately regarding IPv6 on pfSense, especially pfSense Plus 23.01, but I'm running it right now and don't seem to have any IPv6 issues... so not sure if related or not.
-
@mikev7896 I apprecaite it. I appear to be getting an an assignment, but ping6 is reporting:
ping6: UDP connect: No route to host
-
@mkomar I think my brother had the same thing last week - he got IPv6 addresses, but no routing. My parents had it happen a few months ago too. (Both are in Montgomery County, MD. I'm a few miles north of them in a different CO area, and it's been working for me for many months, so I'm guessing some of the CO's don't have routing set up properly.)
-
@kohenkatz sounds good. I'm in Culpeper, VA.
-
Hi everyone,
Just adding my 2 cents to this discussion to report that I was able to get IPv6 working with Verizon FIOS out of New York City today (Manhattan, Battery Park City). The settings I used were pretty much the ones that have already been discussed here at length, but it took quite a bit of toiling, turning them off and back on a few times, and even a reboot at one point, before my test VLAN's DHCP6 server started successfully assigning v6 IPs to its clients.
And, even after that, my clients were still unable to route any traffic on that VLAN, they were essentially cut off. So at first I made sure the DNS resolver was properly listening on the VLAN's interface, that no firewall rules were blocking traffic, and finally the change that tipped the balance was setting router mode to Assisted in Router Advertisements.
I think the only other thing I did, that probably deviates from the general guidance here, is setting the DHCP6 DUID to "DUID-LL: Based on Link-layer Address" in System -> Advanced -> Networking -> IPv6 Options, using my WAN's MAC address (with my WAN interface being the one connected directly to the FIOS ONT).
Hope that helps people here still struggling with FIOS and IPv6!
PS: Needless to say, I'm all ears if anyone here more knowledgable on IPv6 than me (just about anyone) has some strong advice against how I set up my connection, thanks!
-
A little extra info I learned today when tweaking my IPv6 settings that might be of interest to this forum.
When trying to get IPv6 working on my LAN interface, I made the cardinal sin of disabling it in an attempt to avoid rebooting the router for the config to take, and of course locked myself out of the GUI. That forced me to reassign interfaces on the console to regain access, which in turn caused me to spend the entire day restoring my configuration to a working state (interface assignments, VLANs, firewall rules, etc.).
That, of course, broke my fledgling IPv6 setup completely, and at some point attempting to restore it (and after checking everything else was configured as expected, e.g. interface assignments, firewall rules, DCHP6 settings, DNS Forwarder, etc.) I enabled the "Advanced Configuration" option for the DHCP6 client on my WAN interface, to make sure the correct Prefix Interface was selected, but without configuring any other advanced option. Well, until I disabled that (and without changing anything else), none of my LAN clients were getting any IPv6 assignments, and I was back almost to square 1; but when I did disable it, in desperation, all my LAN clients immediately got their IPv6 addresses!
Hope that helps at least some desperate, IPv6 neophytes souls such as myself!
-
@jmpalacios said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
I think the only other thing I did, that probably deviates from the general guidance here, is setting the DHCP6 DUID to "DUID-LL: Based on Link-layer Address" in System -> Advanced -> Networking -> IPv6 Options, using my WAN's MAC address (with my WAN interface being the one connected directly to the FIOS ONT).
I agree, I've had to set this as well, although I think I used DUID-LLT instead. In fact I've found that the DUID needs to be updated for IPv6 every time the WAN interface MAC address changes (for instance by changing the WAN interface to a different network port on the firewall), otherwise no new IPv6 prefix would be assigned.
-
@tman222 Well, if I'm not mistaken, the intention is precisely for the prefix to change as little as possible, hence my use of a fixed identifier.
Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of DUID, and/or the way it should be used?
-
@jmpalacios said in Verizon Fios and IPV6, Which Settings Work?:
Well, if I'm not mistaken, the intention is precisely for the prefix to change as little as possible, hence my use of a fixed identifier
That's my understanding too.
-
@JKnott Well, in that case, using a time-based component would cause it to change every time it's renewed. I can of course see several cases in which that would be desirable, but my use-case is not one of those, hence leaving out the time-based component from the DUID.
