[pfSense] IPv6 Routing in pfSense

[Nick Buraglio]

I've worked pretty extensively with pfSense since it's early alpha
days and have had private builds with IPv6 for years and years. It
works well under 2.1-BETA and has supported DHCPv6-PD for a while on
the WAN side.    I've been using the 2.1-BETA train in production for
a very long time with good results but I don't believe the IPv6 DNS is
assigned via IPv4, it doesn't exist in the IPv4 lease tracking file
and hacking through the interface code briefly it looks like there is
mechanism for obtaining the DNS via DHCPv6 on the WAN side.  This is
further strengthened by the fact that I have correct ISP assigned IPv6
name servers assigned to me and they exist in the places I expect
based on that code.

nb


On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> -----
>
> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:39:13 +0200
> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
> To: list at lists.pfsense.org
> Subject: Re: [pfSense] IPv6 Routing in pfSense
> Organization: SEACOM
> User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-24-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; i686; ; )
> Reply-To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu, pfSense support and discussion <list at lists.pfsense.org>
>
> On Monday, July 01, 2013 06:23:03 PM Jim Pingle wrote:
>
>> Sure. A purely routed IPv6 setup was one of the first
>> things to work well on 2.1.
>>
>> We do not do any NAT on IPv6 by default, there is NPt if
>> someone really needs to do that, but it's all manual.
>>
>> And the settings for IPv4 and IPv6 are independent, you
>> can do NAT on IPv4 while routing IPv6.
>
> Excellent, Jim!
>
> Looking forward to 2.1.
>
> I suppose the other thing I'll then be thinking about is how
> end-users are assigned IPv6 address information.
>
> Typical deployments have tended to use SLAAC with DHCPv4 for
> the DNS. I've previously done SLAAC with DHCPv6 for DNS.
> >From what I can see on doc.pfsense.org, I see pfSense will
> support stateful address assignments using DHCPv6, in
> addition to SLAAC.
>
> Would you be able to confirm whether 2.1 or later will
> support DNS via DHCPv6 as well, as well as DHCP-PD?
>
> I suppose, for now, the default gateway will need to be
> assigned via SLAAC, the one thing about DHCPv6 I still don't
> find amusing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B  47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5