driesm
Developer
I've been digging into IPv6 lately and have been successful in setting up a working dual-stack network.
Altough I'm not pleased with my current setup; that is when it comes down to where the IPv6 address of my gateway box is assigned.
I use the isc-dhclient to get a prefix delegation, and
Then I assign the first address in that prefix to my LAN interface.
So far everything all works fine...
Now I'd like to set my IPv6 address on my WAN interface instead of on my LAN interface.
This way my dynamic dns client, NO-IP can both update my IPv4 and IPv6 address record.
When I do this,
Even more so, my LAN clients can't reach the internet (even when I create rtadvd.conf and my LAN clients receive a correct IPv6 addresses).
I think this is because the packets arrive at my LAN and want to reach the internet from there but they can't as only a link-local address is assigned.
Packets don't "hop" interfaces anymore as with IPv4 NAT. Is this statement correct? Can I achieve the above by for example using a forward rule with IPFW?
Altough I'm not pleased with my current setup; that is when it comes down to where the IPv6 address of my gateway box is assigned.
I use the isc-dhclient to get a prefix delegation, and
rtsold
to get my default gateway though my WAN interface.Then I assign the first address in that prefix to my LAN interface.
rtadvd
picks that up and starts to distribute IPv6 addresses.So far everything all works fine...
Now I'd like to set my IPv6 address on my WAN interface instead of on my LAN interface.
This way my dynamic dns client, NO-IP can both update my IPv4 and IPv6 address record.
When I do this,
rtadvd
doesn't pick up the prefix on my WAN interface dynamically.Even more so, my LAN clients can't reach the internet (even when I create rtadvd.conf and my LAN clients receive a correct IPv6 addresses).
I think this is because the packets arrive at my LAN and want to reach the internet from there but they can't as only a link-local address is assigned.
Packets don't "hop" interfaces anymore as with IPv4 NAT. Is this statement correct? Can I achieve the above by for example using a forward rule with IPFW?