WDR4300 IPv6 firmware needs some work. it's half baked.
Unifi TMnet Streamyx/Unifi & IPv6, Now live!
Unifi TMnet Streamyx/Unifi & IPv6, Now live!
|
|
Oct 2 2013, 11:33 PM
Return to original view | IPv6 | Post
#1
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
WDR4300 IPv6 firmware needs some work. it's half baked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2013, 12:20 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
|
|
|
Oct 5 2013, 12:18 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
QUOTE(Anonymous34 @ Oct 4 2013, 11:55 PM) is my sig ok right now? hehe Here (and for everyone else too):btw, any IPv6 website for me to test it out? I know the speed doesn't increase, but it's still good to check it out. All I know about IPv6 is that it has a lot more bandwith than IPv4. http://look4ipv6.appspot.com/tools/random |
|
|
Oct 5 2013, 11:52 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
|
|
|
Oct 5 2013, 08:37 PM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
QUOTE(jolmy @ Oct 5 2013, 12:17 PM) I'm more interested with custom routers that support UniFi with IPv6 support. As I know the TP-Link TL-WR841ND does NOT. Hope TP-Link will come out with one soon. There is a beta firmware for the 8980 though with a working dual stack implementation. QUOTE(asellus @ Oct 5 2013, 01:23 PM) I think any routers that has the image below at TP-LINK website can use TM's dual-stack implementation. I thought to buy one too because none of the TM-supplied modems I have supports it, and Mikrotik's IPv6 implementation is iffy most of the time. ![]() QUOTE(asellus @ Oct 5 2013, 04:31 PM) Well, if the first page info about TP-Link WDR4300 being working fine, I think there should be nothing to worry about. That info is misleading. It does not work correctly at the moment. They have a seperate WANv4 and WANv6 dialer. Sent some emails to them, we'll see how it turns out. The latest WDR4300 firmware for MY, has VLAN support but no IPv6 support (although it states it does on their page). |
|
|
Oct 6 2013, 12:54 AM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
QUOTE(wKkaY @ Oct 6 2013, 12:48 AM) Oh sorry I saw that you were posting from IPv6 so I assumed that your WDR4300 is working. How were you posting at the time, were you using Windows PPPoE? It can get the WAN and LAN prefixes (separate from the standard v4 PPP). However v6 only or "prefer-v6" sites won't load. youtube videos won't load for example. kame.net, microtik - not working. Ly.net, test-ipv6 and even google v6 test shows "congrats" though. 50/50 working. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2013, 06:31 PM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
|
|
|
Oct 7 2013, 11:15 AM
Return to original view | Post
#8
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
Same problem on the WDR4300 that i faced. I think it's a firmware issue.
Just had a quick test on the Dlink 615 (on OpenWRT though) and both facebook and youtube work fine. |
|
|
Oct 7 2013, 03:43 PM
Return to original view | Post
#9
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
For those with Facebook/Youtube video issues - try reducing your MTU to 1452.
http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/ipv6 |
|
|
Oct 7 2013, 04:25 PM
Return to original view | Post
#10
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
I have a few friends with working dual stack connections. Some stock Unifi / Streamyx router/modems and some on 3rd party APs (belkin/TP Link) with either Open/DD WRT or manufacturer provided beta firmware
Friend on the OPEN WRT CPE suggested the MTU since he had that issue and was fixed after changing the MTU. We need more reports and samples actually. p/s: I'll try on mine after getting back tonight. |
|
|
Oct 21 2013, 07:29 PM
Return to original view | IPv6 | Post
#11
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
On Windows (vista/7) a quick disable and enable on the ethernet adapter gets rid of the old prefix.
This post has been edited by Eoma: Oct 21 2013, 07:29 PM |
|
|
Oct 21 2013, 07:46 PM
Return to original view | IPv6 | Post
#12
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
Not for the first time, if you redial, it seems the old prefix is not removed.
I initially thought it was due to the half baked TP Link firmware, but it seems others are experiencing the same thing too. |
|
|
Nov 9 2013, 01:02 PM
Return to original view | Post
#13
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
QUOTE(yangchee98 @ Nov 6 2013, 10:01 PM) Anyone here using tplink TL-WR1043ND router? With the current firmware available, it either goes v4 or v6. In the IPv6 section, there is anoter PPPoE dialog for you to login. If you have 2 valid logins, you can dial both v4 and v6 at the same time. The v6 is still terribly broken though. http://ipv6test.google.com/ says : No problems detected. You don’t have IPv6, but you shouldn’t have problems on websites that add IPv6 support. Anyone using this router care to teach me how to enable ipv6 ? Many emails to TP Link support but they are just "shaking legs/goyang kaki". |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2013, 04:57 PM
Return to original view | Post
#14
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
QUOTE(OKLY @ Nov 20 2013, 09:49 AM) Guys, anyone tried TP-Link TL-WDR4300? Does it fully support IPv6? Thinking of getting this to replace my previous Buffalo WHR-HP-G300N as I'm now on the stock D-Link DIR-615. Stay away. It still doesn't have Dual Stack support. |
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 07:44 PM
Return to original view | Post
#15
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
QUOTE(asellus @ Nov 28 2013, 07:17 PM) Not quite. A /64 prefix will yield 1 x IPv6 subnet, but it can host 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPv6 addresses For the typical home scenario with one gateway/RG/AP, that one subnet and 2^64 hosts is good enough. And since there is no concept of NAT in IPv6, all 2^64 hosts are globally routed. /56 will give you 2^8 IPv6 subnets. For those inclined in having several subnets around the house. IIANM, TM gives /56 for their biz packages. This post has been edited by Eoma: Nov 28 2013, 07:57 PM |
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 11:32 PM
Return to original view | Post
#16
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
QUOTE(asellus @ Nov 28 2013, 11:12 PM) With only a /64, you can only have one router in the network. Which is no different really than having only one dynamic publicly-routed IPv4 address. Subnetting is made harder because of this. The fine difference is one router, one subnet, but many publicly routed addresses VS one router, one subnet, one public address, and the rest behind NAT. As i mentioned earlier, those inclined to subnet their home network further (the kitchen, room#1, room#2, room#3, wired, wireless for example) would definitely want more than a /64. To anyone else wondering, a /64 is the smallest subnet allowable in IPv6. So a /64 will only give you one "network", whereas a /56 for example will give you 256 x /64 subnets. To which you can configure to your needs (routes/firewall rules/ACLs etc). |
|
|
Feb 25 2014, 05:28 AM
Return to original view | Post
#17
|
|
Elite
4,603 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: PJ |
|
| Change to: | 0.0242sec
0.60
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 1st December 2025 - 03:39 PM |