Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    IPv6 Interface Issues

    IPv6
    3
    6
    1.4k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • V
      vc6SfV8
      last edited by

      Good Morning,

      I have been trying to deploy IPv6 but have encountered an issue.

      I have the interfaces below
      WAN1 - em0
      WAN2 - em1
      LAN1 - em3
      LAN2 - VLAN 7 on em3
      LAN3 - VLAN 8 on em3

      I have enabled DHCP6 with DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation size /56 on WAN1.
      I received an IP address and delegation.
      I enabled Track Interface on LAN2, tracking WAN1 with a prefix ID 7.
      I enabled Track Interface on LAN3, tracking WAN1 with a prefix ID 8.

      All this seems to have worked, both my LAN2 & 3 interfaces get IP addresses from the prefix.

      However, computers connected to LAN1 are also receiving IPv6 addresses from LAN2 & LAN3 (from prefixes 7 & 8).  I am baffled why this might be.

      Any ideas?

      Thanks!
      Ryan

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DerelictD
        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
        last edited by

        Mixing tagged and untagged traffic on an interface/trunk is unwise. See if changing LAN1 to tagged and leaving em3 unassigned changes the behavior.

        Not that you should be seeing what you're seeing, but everyone seems to handle mixing tagged/untagged traffic a little differently.

        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • awebsterA
          awebster
          last edited by

          I suspect you have a logical short-circuit between LAN 1, LAN 2 and LAN 3 somewhere downstream from pfSense.
          For example, an umanaged switch will fold all the VLANs together, in which case the broadcast domain is the same for all 3 LANs.

          –A.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DerelictD
            Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
            last edited by

            I've also seen some switches that didn't quite handle IPv6 multicasts right.

            OP what switch is it?

            Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
            A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
            DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
            Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • awebsterA
              awebster
              last edited by

              @Derelict:

              I've also seen some switches that didn't quite handle IPv6 multicasts right.

              Yeech…got any names I should steer clear of?

              –A.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DerelictD
                Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                last edited by

                No. Not really. It was a while ago. Any current managed switch ought to be ok.

                Still don't like the mixing of tagged and untagged traffic through.

                Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • First post
                  Last post
                Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.