Hi,

I have a PPPoE session established with my ISP that provides an IPv4 address. IPv6 is also enabled on the ISP side. They allocate the WAN IPv6 address from a /64 using ND / SLAAC via the same PPPoE session.

- IPv6 is enabled on the PPPoE session and a default route appears in the routing table when enabled
- Accept router advertisements is on
- ND is configured on the PPPoE session

Does anyone know if ND is supported on the PPPoE session? Lots of people saying that RouterOS doesn't support the correct RFC for this, but plenty of others running ND over non PPPoE sessions.

Thanks

My own case is probably not exactly the same as yours, but anyway: my ISP runs dualstack (IPv4 and IPv6) over PPPoE. IPv6 addressing gets setup natively by PPPoE client, while IPv6 seems to be somehow piggy-backed ... in order to have IPv6 working, I have to run DHCPv6 client running:

Note request=prefix ... which means that PPPoE interface only has link-local address, which is completely fine. For LAN interfaces I have then addressing done like this:
If you have more than one LAN subnet, you use similar address assignment construct on all LAN interfaces (I actually have 3) and router automatically selects different /64 prefix (out of pool-ipv6, hopefully ISP assigns prefix which is shorter than /64). Just make sure /ipv6 nd is enabled (default config is fine).

Thanks mkx,

Very similar setup I think. The only difference is that the IPv6 address for the WAN interface is not being allocated by the PPPoE but is done by ND (or not as is the case!). I too have to run the DHCP client to pickup the /48 for internal use (which works perfectly) but i am lacking the WAN address. I have tried the default ND and a custom ND setup but nothing works. I think this is a RouterOS bug/missing feature..

Thanks again

I have experience with this. PPPoE over IPv6 via SLAAC aka true IPv6 aka stateless aka your ISP did their IPv6 101 right.

Run the DHCPv6 client to request prefix, add that to a pool, then advertise a /64 in IPv6>Address on a per-interface/VLAN basis (since you get a true /48 unlike my useless ISP with idiots in their NOC) from the /48 pool, I'm sure you can do the IPv6 math on this. Then in IPv6>ND, you will need to create ND for separate VLANs/Interface, that's it.

You will now have a true end-to-end IPv6 principle on all your VLANs/interfaces, with proper RFC compliant stateless IPv6 for all your interfaces.

For the "WAN" interface, IPv6 doesn't work like that, it's not IPv4. If you want to give the router itself an IPv6 address that's routable from the pool, you go to IPv6 Address and inside the prefix, use the "::1/64" notation, as for interface select "bridge" or whatever interface the router's RFC1918 main IP address is located in. That's it. It will show you the currently allocated IPv6 address with the notation, you can ping from external sources and it will reach your router.

RouterOS fully supports IPv6 stateless and stateful, excluding NPTv6/NAT66.

I envy you dude, a true proper IPv6 from your ISP. Unlike mine, I dropped IPv6 from my setup because on top of a stupid /64, my ISP decided to block ICMPv6 + break MTU/packet fragmentation among other things.

If you still have issues you can reach me on Telegram: https://t.me/dark_nate

So heard back from Mikrotik on this one. There is a known bug (unresolved as of 6.48) which means that addresses learned over ND are not reported back into RouterOS. Interestingly the ND is working underneath the RouterOS interface/shell as the kernel has learnt the address and packets can be passed however there is no indication of it doing this to the user. Unfortunately there is no bug reference or timeline for a fix. Am i right in thinking that Mikrotik doesn't have a public bug list? So no ISP issue just a RouterOS bug. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

So heard back from Mikrotik on this one. There is a known bug (unresolved as of 6.48) which means that addresses learned over ND are not reported back into RouterOS. Interestingly the ND is working underneath the RouterOS interface/shell as the kernel has learnt the address and packets can be passed however there is no indication of it doing this to the user. Unfortunately there is no bug reference or timeline for a fix. Am i right in thinking that Mikrotik doesn't have a public bug list? So no ISP issue just a RouterOS bug. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

I guess this still hasn't been resolved on 7.1rc4 as I've been troubleshooting my link to the ISP for at least a month now. Glad that I'm not the only one.