IPv6 / PPP diagnostic question

I bought a new router a few weeks back. I've been trying to get the IPv6 support to work without success. I know that my ISP (IDNet) supports IPv6 because I got it working with my old DLink router. I did that by telling it to share the existing IPv4 PPP session.

The new router (TPLINK WDR3600) doesn't seem to have that option and appears to expect to initiate separate PPP sessions for each protocol. I was wondering if there were any PPP experts on here who could make sense of the diagnostics I'm getting.

####################################################################
# TL-WDR3600 System Log
# Time = 2013-09-01 9:03:01 483407s
# H-Ver = WDR3600 v1 00000000 : S-Ver = 3.13.31 Build 130320 Rel.55761n
# L = 192.168.0.1 : M = 255.255.255.0
# W1 = PPPoE : W = 0.0.0.0 : M = 0.0.0.0 : G = 0.0.0.0
####################################################################

Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP WARNING LCP down
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x4
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000004
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO sent [LCP Req mru=1480 magic=0x7837cbc5]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO sent [LCP Rej mrru=1524]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO rcvd [LCP Nak mru=1500]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO sent [LCP Req magic=0x7837cbc5]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO rcvd [LCP Req auth=chap-MD5 magic=0xf12b439a endpoint]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO sent [LCP Ack auth=chap-MD5 magic=0xf12b439a endpoint]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO rcvd [LCP Ack magic=0x7837cbc5]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x5
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000005
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO rcvd [CHAP Challenge (ddbffd67f22559028e7e26a3c3a1c190), name = "IDNetLNS"]
Sep 1 09:02:10 PPP INFO sent [CHAP Response (154e50f0bdff6cadde756e1f5e3c4893), name = "xxxxxx"]
Sep 1 09:02:11 PPP NOTICE call pppoeFormatCmd
Sep 1 09:02:11 PPP NOTICE Standard authentication.
Sep 1 09:02:11 PPP NOTICE g_cmdBuf:pppd pppoe eth0.2 defaultroute unit 0 noaccomp nopcomp httpd-pid 666 user_len 17

passwd_len 8 special-flag 100 mru 1480 mtu 1480 usepeerdns
Sep 1 09:02:11 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x2
Sep 1 09:02:11 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x2
Sep 1 09:02:11 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x000002a1)]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x00000287)]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x0000028e)]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO rcvd [CHAP Success ""]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x7
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000007
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO sent [IPCP Req addr=0.0.0.0]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO sent [IPV6CP ConfReq local Peer Ipv6 Address = fe80::3cb4:8539:c800:8b97]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO rcvd [IPCP Req addr=212.69.63.98]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO sent [IPCP Ack addr=212.69.63.98]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO rcvd [IPV6CP ConfReq remote Peer Ipv6 Address = fe80::523d:e5ff:feb7:e718

ip=fe80::3cb4:8539:c800:8b97 fe80::523d:e5ff:feb7:e718]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO sent [IPV6CP ConfAck ip=fe80::3cb4:8539:c800:8b97 fe80::523d:e5ff:feb7:e718]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO rcvd [IPCP Nak addr=xx.xx.xx.xx]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO sent [IPCP Req addr=xx.xx.xx.xx]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO rcvd [IPV6CP ConfAck ip=fe80::3cb4:8539:c800:8b97 fe80::523d:e5ff:feb7:e718]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x8
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000008
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO rcvd [IPCP Ack addr=xx.xx.xx.xx]
Sep 1 09:02:15 PPP INFO ipcpup : ipcp_wantoptions[0].default_route = 1^M
Sep 1 09:02:16 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x000002a1)]
Sep 1 09:02:20 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x00000280)]
Sep 1 09:02:20 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x00000279)]
Sep 1 09:02:20 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x00000272)]
Sep 1 09:02:20 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x0000026b)]
Sep 1 09:02:21 PPP NOTICE call pppoeCmdReqIPv4
Sep 1 09:02:23 PPP NOTICE call pppoeFormatCmd
Sep 1 09:02:23 PPP NOTICE Standard authentication.
Sep 1 09:02:23 PPP NOTICE g_cmdBuf:pppd pppoe eth0.2 defaultroute unit 0 noaccomp nopcomp httpd-pid 666 user_len 17

passwd_len 8 special-flag 100 mru 1480 mtu 1480 usepeerdns
Sep 1 09:02:23 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x2
Sep 1 09:02:23 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x2
Sep 1 09:02:23 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x000002dc)]
Sep 1 09:02:25 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x00000287)]
Sep 1 09:02:25 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x0000028e)]
Sep 1 09:02:26 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x000002a1)]
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP ERROR User request
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x9
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000009
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP ERROR LCP down
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x7
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000007
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP WARNING LCP down
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x4
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000004
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO sent [LCP TermReq]
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO rcvd [LCP TermAck]
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0xa
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x8000000a
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO send_phase 2098 pppd_phase = 0x0
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO In pppd the httpd-id is 666, set link phase is 0x80000000
Sep 1 09:02:28 PPP INFO sent [PADI Host-Uniq(0x000002dc)]
Sep 1 09:02:31 PPP NOTICE call pppoeCmdReqIPv6
Sep 1 09:02:31 PPP NOTICE Standard authentication.

The new router (TPLINK WDR3600) doesn't seem to have that option and appears to expect to initiate separate PPP sessions for each protocol.

Not a PPP expert myself, but I don't believe that's how it works. It will initiate a single PPP session (after going through the usual authentication process etc) and then requests config for both IPv4 and IPv6. On Linux PPP, I had to turn on a flag for it to do the IPv6 stuff, but either way, my log now looks like this:

Text

1 23 45 67 8

Aug 27 10:28:54 * pppd[14691]: Using interface ppp0 Aug 27 10:28:54 * pppd[14691]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/0Aug 27 10:29:09 * pppd[14691]: CHAP authentication succeeded: BBEU**** Aug 27 10:29:09 * pppd[14691]: CHAP authentication succeededAug 27 10:29:09 * pppd[14691]: local  IP address X.X.X.X Aug 27 10:29:09 * pppd[14691]: remote IP address 81.X.81.XAug 27 10:29:09 * pppd[14691]: local  LL address fe80::f504:6091:83cb:4f2c Aug 27 10:29:09 * pppd[14691]: remote LL address fe80::0203:97ff:fe16:c000

Have you requested an /48 IPv6 netblock from IDNet? If not, I doubt it is being served up an IPv6 link-level address and so the PPP interface isn't being IPv6 enabled. Note from your logs that you seem to have a local link-level IPv6 address (your router) but not a remote link-level one (supplied from IDNet), so I recommend confirming with them you have IPv6 enabled on your account.

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed you do have a remote LL address from IDNet, so I'm now out of ideas as to what the problem is.

Edited by deleted (Sun 01-Sep-13 23:24:56)

In reply to a post by mixt:

The new router (TPLINK WDR3600) doesn't seem to have that option and appears to expect to initiate separate PPP sessions for each protocol.

Not a PPP expert myself, but I don't believe that's how it works. It will initiate a single PPP session (after going through the usual authentication process etc) and then requests config for both IPv4 and IPv6.

Yeah that's what I'd like it to do but I'm not sure if it is. My DLink has a specific drop down option for IPv6 which hides the login details fields. This router doesn't seem to have an equivalent. The choices are:

� DHCPv6 - Connections which use dynamic IPv6 address assignment.
� Static IPv6 - Connections which use static IPv6 address assignment.
� PPPoEv6 - Connections which use PPPoEV6 that requires a user name and password.
� Tunnel 6to4 - Connections which use 6to4 address assignment

But if you select PPPOEv6 you have to enter login details implying that it will try and establish a new PPP session.

Sigh.

Not that it's a huge deal - I don't need IPv6. It's just that since my ISP offers it I'd like to have it running.

Things are looking up. I've been contacted by one of their engineers asking for the logs from my DLink (which supports IPv6 natively with IDNet) and a wireshark dump from my computer using it as the PPP initiator. The latter could be problematic because it seems to hang these days but still - nice to see TPLink taking it that seriously.

Had an email from TPLink's senior engineer. He asked me to send him a Wireshark dump while logging on using my computer instead of a router.

Anyway the long and short seems to be that IDNet are using RADVD and their router doesn't support it. His email suggested they will be looking into adding support but between his slightly mangled English (considerably better than my Chinese, lol) it could just be the obvious response when "Change your settings to this.." isn't possible.

What I will say though from looking at the Wireshark trace is that if I was them I'd be wanting to support it to spare my embarrassment. Compared to the faffing around their router logs show Windows got a working dual-stack connection with ease. All Windows does in addition to the IPv4 stuff is negotiate an IPv6 interface (it suggests one and gets told to go ahead). It all reads like an off-hand exchange:

My laptop: "Oh by the way, can I use this interface?"
Response: "Yeah that's fine"

After that it just uses stateless configuration to get what it needs.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 04-Sep-13 10:09:41)

Glad to see they've admitted there's a problem.

Another tick in the box for using a dedicated Linux box that "just works" (my setup). Not sure if I could go back to a non-bridged setup now as I read too many stories like this were vendors kit just does not work, either because... they're rubbish, or they just haven't been able to properly test their kit.

ISPs like AAISP and IDNet are leading edge providers in that respect (for providing IPv6 support) - I'm surprised more of these router manufactures do not approach them to enquire about using their services for testing purposes, so they can at least chuck out routers which are "fit for purpose" and are able to deliver what they are supposed to.

In reply to a post by mixt:

Another tick in the box for using a dedicated Linux box that "just works" (my setup).

That's an interesting idea actually. I've got my old Fit-PC2 lying around and it'll take Linux so it could be an interesting project. Probably not appropriate for permanent use though. It only has 1GB of RAM and a single core 1GHz Atom. I think my 61Mb (67Mb at the moment because DLM has relented) might suffer a bit if it has to go through it.

Edit: Drat. I think my model only has one Ethernet port.

Edit again: Ah but it has free USB 2.0 ports so I can stick an adapter on there.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 04-Sep-13 10:57:05)

My Linux router is a dual core Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz (32-bit, Mini-ITX) with only 1 GB of RAM, with a 8Gb flash card as a "hard disk". Low power, and silent, running CentOS 6.

Yup, it's not the fastest, but it doesn't need to be. The 2 network interfaces are probably its down fall (Realtek rather than Intel) - if I was to buy all this again, I would probably seek a board with Intel NICs for sure as they are just all round better performance (so forum reviews tell me).

But I have no problems with the little unit. Been running fine for 4 to 5 years solid 24/7 usage, both on Virgin Media (Cable), back on ADSL and now on FTTC. The only thing I will say is that if using PPP (which is the case with FTTC or ADSL), that is a persistent user-space process when ever the connection is up and so can chomp through a fair bit of CPU if there's a serious amount of traffic being shuffled through it, but even on a 40Mb FTTC connection, that tops out at about 10-15% of CPU. So 80Mb FTTC would be double that (35%-ish CPU if being hammered). Anything beyond that probably needs a faster CPU to handle the traffic rate.

Edited by deleted (Wed 04-Sep-13 11:16:32)

Can you put WRT firmware on the TP-Link?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Can you put WRT firmware on the TP-Link?

Yup. If my old server isn't up to the job I might go that route.