Hi, does anyone know if there is a plan to implement the “action=mark-routing” and "new-connection-mark= in IPv6, firewall, mangle rules.
Our IP services are served by multiple links so we round robin packets up the links to the ISP who provide us with native IPv6 addresses. It’s just a bit of a shame that I cannot implement IPv6 at the moment without foregoing the resilience provided by our multiple links as I cannot get the traffic balanced without using routing marks. I’m not sure if the routing marks are not in there as there is an alternative way of doing this in IPv6 or if it had been missed/is in progress.
If I implement IPv6 for our networks and then users become used to it all working fine but without resilience then if and when a link fails I’ll be left with them all moaning at me, I’d prefer just to do it once I can make it resilient and mark the routes.
any news … this is a really important feature that gives us increased bandwidth and resilience over our ADSL circuits, was it just missed from the IPv6 implementation, is it removed for good reason or is it planned to be done in the future.
no real way to achieve this without this functionality. I’m going to use an L2TP tunnel over my IPv4 bonded link to tunnel my IPv6 in for the time being until this can be sorted.
It’s a shame, was hoping to be live for World IPv6 day today but alas, no joy.
I actually per packet round robin my IPv4 traffic up my three ADSL lines to Andrew and Arnold, equally they per packet round robin the data down to me in the same way. To achieve this I have to use mangle to mark each packet per block of 3 with router1, route2 and route3 then the routing table picks up the right packet and sends it up the correct line.
I think if you just wanted to do per connection balancing it will support that by just specifying two gateways in the routing configuration for IPv6 but I’ve never tested this.
When I trialled this I setup an L2TP tunnel to A&A over IPv4 so the tunnel IPv4 traffic was marked and thus round robin balanced up multiple lines then I routed my IPv6 traffic through this L2TP tunnel hence by the nature of going through the tunnel operated the same way and was load balanced. Obviously there is some overhead for the tunnel etc.
It’s all such a shame given A&A support IPv6 so effectively and we’re all scratching around trying to find a way to make RouterOS do something it’s always done. Anyone with resilience/bonded lines on IPv4 using this method basically has to accept they cannot move to native IPv6 without a load of hassle.
So when are Mikrotik going to realise that IPv6 is not just an awkward bolt-on, but a wholesale replacement for IPv4? Coz I can’t mass deploy IPv6 on Mikrotik routers at the moment…
I can’t move any of our clients that are currently using bonded ADSL lines over to IPv6 for this very reason, the lack of routing marks on IPv6 Plus, time is running out.
Yeah, it’s such a shame that something this important has been missed from IPv6 with no real acceptance or indication by Mikrotik of this being any sort of problem or issue they plan to address. Ignorance doesn’t make problems go away, it just annoys people. They should indicate their plans and why they are not addressing this as an urgent issue.
We’re not going to do it - we can buy something else or accept IPv6 isn’t an option for us.
We’re going to do it by X we can buy something else or choose to wait for X
Keep quiet and hope that this IPv6 thing is simply a fad which before too long will stop being so talked about and the problem might just go away … is this even an option, it’s certainly something that will reduce the customer base if nothing else.
Your reply is gratefully received, this topic commenced in March 2012 and I think there are some earlier posts on the topic as well. There are obviously a lot of frustrated users left wondering how/what they were going to do to implement IPv6 but this now gives some clarity.
Are you stating that the IPv6 implementation of the new routing does have routing marks included in it from the outset?
