IPv6 Roll Out

Afrigirl said:
Is it a mesh system you have set up at home with both routers, or your main router is the Mikrotik?
Click to expand...
Mikrotik is the main router, no mesh.

Anyway, the question was, does FrogFoot CPT have IPv6 enabled or not? Router shouldn't determine that.
 
Gimli_ said:
Hi @Afrigirl @AfriNatic
Can you explain the sudden jump in ipv6 percentage on your network around 23 January? Would be interesting to know.
View attachment 1465841
Click to expand...

We pushed an update to force enable Ipv6 on our D-link and Huawei routers as clients tend to reset or switch it off.

We are trying to avoid rolling out firmware that force enable it and removes the option for clients to switch it off but it seems like we might need to go that route.
 
AfriNatic said:
We pushed an update to force enable Ipv6 on our D-link and Huawei routers as clients tend to reset or switch it off.

We are trying to avoid rolling out firmware that force enable it and removes the option for clients to switch it off but it seems like we might need to go that route.
Click to expand...
I see the same spike at WebAfrica, any coincidence?
 
Hi afrihost peeps,

Has anyone successfully implemented the IPv6 dual stack mechanism on a Netgate router which uses pfsense?
I finally got it working using this guide if anyone else needs it.

moerbst.wordpress.com

Dualstack IPv6 + IPv4 mit pfSense an DSL der Telekom

Ich habe derzeit noch einen ADSL-Anschluss der Telekom (sollte aber auch für VDSL etc. funktionieren, Feedback dazu willkommen ;-)), möchte aber statt eines Telekom Routers, mein über die Jahre lie…
moerbst.wordpress.com moerbst.wordpress.com

The only thing missing was the firewall NAT rule which would allow IPv6 + v4.
 
Atti2de said:
Has anyone successfully implemented the IPv6 dual stack mechanism on a Netgate router which uses pfsense?
Click to expand...
Not on a Netgate router, but a custom pfsense router. All I did was set "IPv6 Configuration Type" in the WAN interface to DHCPv6 (I use a local DHCPv6 service for my LAN, so didn't want to use Trace Interface) and then added a NAT rule to allow outgoing IPv6 traffic. I also added a floating rule to allow IPv6 ICMP, because apparently IPv6 heavily relies on ICMP.

1675333649770.png
 
AfriNatic said:
We pushed an update to force enable Ipv6 on our D-link and Huawei routers as clients tend to reset or switch it off.

We are trying to avoid rolling out firmware that force enable it and removes the option for clients to switch it off but it seems like we might need to go that route.
Click to expand...

This interests me, is there an appetite to "force" people towards IPv6 on your network?
I'd be interested to know why, since you seem to have a decent enough CGNAT setup anyway?
 
P
Packet-Kollector said:
This interests me, is there an appetite to "force" people towards IPv6 on your network?
I'd be interested to know why, since you seem to have a decent enough CGNAT setup anyway?
Click to expand...
Please let them get rid of CGNAT. It is evil ti be double natted. NAT should never have been invented in the first place
 
P
Packet-Kollector said:
This interests me, is there an appetite to "force" people towards IPv6 on your network?
I'd be interested to know why, since you seem to have a decent enough CGNAT setup anyway?
Click to expand...
Please let them get rid of CGNAT. It is evil ti be double natted. NAT should never have been invented in the first place
 
The problem with IPv6 is that while a lot of routers support IPv6, not a lot of routers, even prosumer routers, support ULAs for IPV6, which essentially makes it impossible to provide local services on your network over IPv6.
 
Gimli_ said:
P
Please let them get rid of CGNAT. It is evil ti be double natted. NAT should never have been invented in the first place
Click to expand...
That's a rather large can of worms you can open with all of these questions and statements. Without CGNat users would be paying quite a bit more for an internet connection and we would have ran out of v4 IP's longggg ago. There are a ton of arguments as to why CGNAT is good and why the majority of ISP's will be using it now.

IPV6 is great, has its cases but like most people said is not exactly easy to implement on a device/network level right now with standard routers/home gear. Heck I fought for a whole week with a gigabit Mikrotik hAP just to get RouterOS to assign the right ranges.
 
ghostRgg said:
That's a rather large can of worms you can open with all of these questions and statements. Without CGNat users would be paying quite a bit more for an internet connection and we would have ran out of v4 IP's longggg ago. There are a ton of arguments as to why CGNAT is good and why the majority of ISP's will be using it now.

IPV6 is great, has its cases but like most people said is not exactly easy to implement on a device/network level right now with standard routers/home gear. Heck I fought for a whole week with a gigabit Mikrotik hAP just to get RouterOS to assign the right ranges.
Click to expand...

Mikrotik is hard to figure out but once you do it has the best IPv6 support I've seen of any router available for home use. Ubiquiti, specifically Unifi, sucks though. If you want to implement ULAs you have to go into the CLI and manually set it up with a script.
 
Gimli_ said:
P
Please let them get rid of CGNAT. It is evil ti be double natted. NAT should never have been invented in the first place
Click to expand...
While normally I'd agree, an end user shouldn't notice especially if they get a IPv6 IP.

For us techies, sure, there is a bit more room to complain for now.
 
ghostRgg said:
Most techies (with the ISP's I know of) will just ask for a public/static IP and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Not in the mood to pay for it thanks, and then you still have to route individual services via different ports. It's just a mess. With IPV6 each service can have it's own address which is reachable if you allow. Granted, you still need to find a way go know your dynamic IPv6 prefix, but dynu.com or similar can help with that.
 
ghostRgg said:
That's a rather large can of worms you can open with all of these questions and statements. Without CGNat users would be paying quite a bit more for an internet connection and we would have ran out of v4 IP's longggg ago. There are a ton of arguments as to why CGNAT is good and why the majority of ISP's will be using it now.

IPV6 is great, has its cases but like most people said is not exactly easy to implement on a device/network level right now with standard routers/home gear. Heck I fought for a whole week with a gigabit Mikrotik hAP just to get RouterOS to assign the right ranges.
Click to expand...
Your choice to use a Mikrotik, with standard home routers it is pretty easy. IPv6 should have been adopted years ago and NAT should not have seen the light of day.

'Without CGNat users would' all be on IPv6... for cheaper. It's all a matter of will. And it is being adopted the world over. Just do it already.
 
deweyzeph said:
The problem with IPv6 is that while a lot of routers support IPv6, not a lot of routers, even prosumer routers, support ULAs for IPV6, which essentially makes it impossible to provide local services on your network over IPv6.
Click to expand...
You can always use link local address or assign a static ULA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X