Rogers IPv6 Status

[foodgodessto]

Hello,

I'm wondering what the current IPv6 status is within Rogers.  A search on the forums only shows 10 topics over the past year that even mention IPv6, and there doesn't appear to be any official communications from Rogers since IPv6 day last year.

I know that Rogers (supposedly) supports IPv6 tunneling (although the only person to ask about it did not get any responses).

[JKnott]

@RogersDave

One thing I've noticed is my IPv6 prefix changes, even if I do nothing more than briefly disconnect the modem.  I thought the DUID was supposed to prevent this.  I'm running pfSense  2.3.1-RELEASE-p5 for my firewall/router.

BTW, any idea on when larger prefixes will be available?  And IPv6 on cell phones?

tnx jk

[gcerullo]

---

@JKnott wrote:

@RogersDave

One thing I've noticed is my IPv6 prefix changes, even if I do nothing more than briefly disconnect the modem.  I thought the DUID was supposed to prevent this.  I'm running pfSense  2.3.1-RELEASE-p5 for my firewall/router. 

---

You're the second person to mention that their IPv6 prefix is changing. There was an earlier post from someone named Raji in which he also mention his prefix changing after restarting his modem.

For the record, mine has stayed the same since IPv6 went active.

[JKnott]

Have your modem & firewall been up continuously?  My prefix changed when I did nothing more than put in a longer Ethernet patch cord.

[gcerullo]

I haven't made any physical changes but I have restarted it a number of times since going IPv6.

[JKnott]

I just did some testing, by disconnecting my modem from my firewall/router.  I noticed the WAN IPv6 address is changing, but the LAN prefix remains the same.  The WAN IPv4 address also remains the same.  I don't know why the WAN IPv6 is changing as it's assigned via DHCP and should have a lease time.

I wish I could run Wireshark on pfSense, as I did when my firewall was built on Linux.  Then I could examping the DHCPv6 packets to see what's happening.

[nl2]

Simplest way to run Wireshark on pfSense is if your switch supports port mirroring. If not then try remote port monitoring over ssh with tcpdump.

[JKnott]

I am aware of using port mirroring.  However, that requires a managed switch between the modem and firewall and I don't have one.  With Wireshark it's very easy to capture what you want, with both capture and display filters.  It was possible to add Wireshark to an earlier version of pfSense, but I haven't been able to determine how with the current one.

[nl2]

I would not install wireshark on my pfSense. Just do remote port capture

 wireshark -k -i <(ssh root@192.168.x.x tcpdump -i em0 -U -w - not tcp port 22)

[JKnott]

That requires a password, which I can't pass with that command.  If it was a linux box, I'd be able to set up passwordless ssh, using a key pair.  pfSense seems to want an X.509 certificate for that.  The ssh -f option, which is normally used for proving a password doesn't seem to work.

[nl2]

OK. This is going off topic. You may get better help over at the pfSense forum.

For ssh key authentication, I just paste my id_rsa.pub into SSH Authorized Keys in System-> User Manager.

[JKnott]

I have been using the tcpdump capture in pfSense and downloading to my computer for Wireshark.  It's tedious, but works.  It's clearly showing a new address each time I disconnect/reconnect.  However, though I'm not certain, pfSense appears to be requesting a bogus address "ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:40:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00" in the solicit.

[FM-Neo]

Hi there,

I've been reading this thread and was wondering if the cgn3acr (v4.2.8.12) was getting the update. The same issue of not having ipv6 in gateway mode is still an issue with my modem.

Thanks

[JKnott]

That modem in gateway mode is garbage.  My suggestion is to get a separate firewall/router that supports dhcpv6-pd.  I'm running pfSense, which does.

[RogersDave]

FM-Neo,

This modem supports IPv6 but not on the version of firmware you are currently running. If you want IPv6, you can follow the instruction in the port post of this thread in order to request to be part of the firmware trial.

After the firmware upgrade on your modem is completed, you will need to perform a factory reset and IPv6 will be enabled on your modem.

Dave

[JKnott]

Hi RogersDave

Any idea when more than 1 /64 prefix will be available?  Also, when will IPv6 be availalble on the cell network?

tnx jk

[RogersDave]

---

@JKnott wrote:

Hi RogersDave

Any idea when more than 1 /64 prefix will be available?  Also, when will IPv6 be availalble on the cell network?

tnx jk

---

JKnott,

I can’t provide specific dates as schedules are constantly changing but I can tell you that we are working on this sequence at the moment:

1. Dual-Stack on cellular
2. IPv6 enablement on all supported cable modems (currently a one-time factory reset is needed, this would enable all remaining devices)
3. IPv6-only (using 464XLAT translation for IPv4 service) on certain mobile devices
4. Larger prefix delegation for cable modems (up to /54)

Items 2 and 3 may occur in a reverse order.

Stay tuned however because things are moving faster than you may think....

[JKnott]

I trust you'll annnounce the changes here.

tnx agn

[busterb]

---

RogersDave wrote:

JKnott,

I can’t provide specific dates as schedules are constantly changing but I can tell you that we are working on this sequence at the moment:

1. Dual-Stack on cellular
2. IPv6 enablement on all supported cable modems (currently a one-time factory reset is needed, this would enable all remaining devices)
3. IPv6-only (using 464XLAT translation for IPv4 service) on certain mobile devices
4. Larger prefix delegation for cable modems (up to /54)

Items 2 and 3 may occur in a reverse order.

Stay tuned however because things are moving faster than you may think....

---

I really hope this happens at a much quicker pace and these steps don't have to happen in sequental order so that this service is actually usable on the wired side of the house. Hey, let's do a half baked roll out and still not fix the long standing issue with protocol 41 traffic that no other provider has. I'm happy to hear that the wireless side is close and you'll be using 464XLAT + NAT64.

[JKnott]

What protocol 41 issue?  I ran a 6in4 tunnel for about 6 years.  It worked fine.

[busterb]

---

@JKnott wrote:

What protocol 41 issue?  I ran a 6in4 tunnel for about 6 years.  It worked fine.

---

The tunnels being artificially limited to 25 Mbps. Doesn't happen with TPIA based service or elsewhere.

[JKnott]

I didn't experience that.  I found a speed test site that showed similar performance to speedtest on IPv6.  It was a bit slower, but not a lot, as to be expected with 1280 byte MTU,  What tunnel provider were you using?  I was with gogonet/freenet6.