In reply to a post by Pheasant:

In reply to a post by JESC77:

I've had had extensive support from Ubiquiti and Daisy, Ubiquiti say that my ISP must support prefix delegation and Daisy are unable to provide it.

https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005868927-U...
I find it hard to believe that the UDMP has this limitation when the help article above says:

"Depending on the configuration of the ISP, the UDM/USG can either use DHCPv6-PD (Prefix Delegation) or Static IPv6 addresses to provide IPv6 connectivity to the clients on the LAN. In both setups, the information regarding the connection type and its values is provided by the ISP."

Has anyone managed to get this to work?

I do have an Edgerouter 12P and a Mikotik Hex S I can use but are no expert at setting those up.

Thanks for any help!

Just circling back to your opening post here, and highlighting what you were told above by Ubiquiti. This is rather concerning that they insist you must use PD. There are other reports online (though admittedly now about 6 months old, perhaps fixed in most recent firmware...??) that complain about the 'flakiness' of parts of the IPv6 implementation in the UDM Pro's. Like this blog post. I find it hard to believe thet the UDMP doesn't support static IPv6, I've read about it working with PPPoE but I assume that is different to my leased line.

From some other articles I've now read, most folks that have gotten IPv6 working with a UDMP have done so using Prefix Delegation, not using static routing as you must do with Daisy.

Therefore there may be some merit in attempting to get IPv6 working using the second port on the Cisco to another of the routers that you have available above. I believe Daisy have said they mapped your IPv6 allocation to use both of the Cisco user ports? I have attempted with both ports with the same results.

In this way you should be able to keep the rest of your existing network running on the first Cisco port via your UDM and create a test IPv6 network using the second Cisco port and test using either the EdgeRouter or the MikroTik. I'm willing to use a different router, I'll buy another if it means it works properly, but the UDMP needs to be in the mix as it's the controller for nearly 80 switches and APs that I've adopted to it.

Edit:
Links to further articles complaining about broken IPv6 routing on the UDM Pro. Where there's smoke and all that...

https://www.reddit.com/r/UNIFI/comments/hbf49z/love_...

https://www.sysadmins.lv/blog-en/ubiquiti-udm-pro-an...

So I've bought a cheapish TP-Link router that supports static IPv6 and I still have the same problem. With my laptop connected to the new router, it gets an IPv6 address and I can ping the router from the LAN (and from the web) but I can't ping past the TP-link router, in either direction.

Surely this proves that Daisy has messed up?

Although I think I probably won't need this, can anyone advise which of the below would best suit my requirements on the TP-link router? Considering I intend to plug my UDMP into it if I do get it working. I've tried all without success with just my laptop connected.

ND Proxy
DHCPv6
SLAAC+Stateless DHCP
SLAAC+RDNSS

Just to be sure my config is correct, is the following LAN ok?

Daisy's Cisco router 2001:b98:xxx:2300::1
My router 2001:b98:xxx:2300::2
LAN 2001:b98:xxx:2301::/64

The Daisy engineer phoned me again still insisting their config is correct. He thinks my LAN is wrong and should be 2001:b98:xxx:2300::/64 on the same network as the WAN, I tried this initially and again today turning DHCP off and set a static address on my laptop as advised it still didn't work. I couldn't even ping the UDMP. Strangely, I could with these settings on the TP-link (ping the TP-link). I couldn't ping the cisco with any setup.

If the WAN is 2001:b98:xxx:2300::1 and the LAN 2001:b98:xxx:2301::/64, does a static route need to be added? There only seems to be the option of adding IPv4 static routes on the UDMP.

He is now willing to add some config to theirs if anyone knows it should be?

Thanks.

Delete

ipv6 route 2001:xxx:xxx:2300::/56 Vlan100

Add

ipv6 route 2001:xxx:xxx:2300::/56 2001:xxx:xxx:2300::2

Thanks jpm,

That's been actioned by Daisy. I'm unable to test until tomorrow.

FWIW this is all pretty much the same as IPv4 routing, but there's huge chunks of people's knowledge missing in that area because NAT has ruined everything.

If your IPv4 allocation from your ISP was 167.98.0.0/16 then it would be immediately obvious that the WAN side of your UDM couldn't be 167.98.0.2/24 and then LAN 167.98.0.1/24 - you'd have to go for 167.98.1.1/24 - but IPv6 is just making this seem a lot more complicated than it really is.

Edited by jpm (Mon 02-Aug-21 23:39:53)

It worked!!!

jpm, you are a legend!

I'm so thankful to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

Thanks again,
Jay.

Good to hear. Since you now don't have the 'security' of NAT it's vital that you have IPv6 firewall rules. I'd allow unsolicited inbound ICMP but make sure everything else is blocked unless you have a good reason for it.

Result .

So the Daisy people were wrong. Which is a bit scary.