coexistence between Tunnel Broker and native IPv6

RouterOS General
1

Hello!

Am I misunderstanding something or there is no way to have 2 ipv6 gateways to the same gateway, with different weights?

My ISP gives me a valid ipv6 address and I also have a Tunnel Broker 6to4 tunnel.

I would like, for test purpose, to have He as my secondary default gateway. Strange thing that when I add it with a weight equal to 2 (or any number bigger than 1) my routes does not work. It simply ignores my default gateway as if I don’t have any of them.

All works fine with only 1 gateway. After the second, no success. And only get again working when I disable the HE interface. If I only remove the route, it stills not working.

[admin@CUCA] > tool trace 2001:4860:4860::8888
 # ADDRESS                          LOSS SENT    LAST     AVG    BEST   WORST STD-DEV STATUS                                                     
 1                                  100%    2 timeout                                                                                            
 2                                  100%    2 timeout                                                                                            
 3                                  100%    2 timeout                                                                                            
 4                                  100%    2 timeout                                                                                            
 5                                  100%    2 timeout
2

i am having a simillar issue. With v4 you can mark packet and set routes accordingly. With v6 that feature is missing. There is another forum entry where this feature has been asked for about 6 years now …

if you find any solution, please let me know! (thank you!!)

3

I have exactly the same use case: I want to use a HE provided gateway with a server, and a native dynamic IPv6 subnet from my ISP for the actual LAN. A no go for the moment due to missing routing tables for IPv6 (marks are there, but of no use).

4

True, at work I use a CCR and we now have 2 independent internet connections each with native IPv6 (dual-stack).
For IPv4 I can nicely balance the traffic and make sure everything goes out the correct link, but for IPv6 this is impossible due to the lack of routing marks.

However, merely implementing routing marks would not really be sufficient as we would also need some 1:1 NAT function (like netmap) to translate the client addresses to the proper one for each link. There would be a fixed IPv6 range on the internal network (be it one of the two external ones or a private range) and it would have to be translated when it goes out the non-matching link (or both).