Hurricane Electric's IPv6 Tunnel Broker Forums

General IPv6 Topics => IPv6 Software Applications & Hardware Appliances => Topic started by: broquea on December 09, 2008, 04:51:58 PM

Title: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on December 09, 2008, 04:51:58 PM
So I checked Fry's again today because my order with D-Link directly is in infinite backorder. They had 3 returns of this, and I picked up 2 (1 for work testing, 1 for home upgrade).

Here are some images of the interface and setting up the IPv6 connections (native static, 6in4, 6to4): http://deus-exmachina.net/~broquea/615/

When using the 6in4 for our tunnels with this appliance (which I've tested, and seen working) follow the example in http://deus-exmachina.net/~broquea/615/615-HE-tunnel.PNG. Just use your tunnel information available under the Tunnel Details page. There is even an option in this model, to let external hosts IPv4 ping the router (simple check-box, and should make our system be able to ping you).

In my example screen shot, I was testing the appliance behind another firewall appliance that hands out RFC IPV4 addresses, and passes Protocol41 already, so that was an ugly double-NAT like test that still worked. So when YOU fill out local IPv4, make sure it is the IP address your ISP assigns the appliance's WAN interface.

(EDIT) - An important note about this, is there are no provisions for IPv6 firewall rules. Whereas with a Linux machine or something, you at least had ip6tables, this has nothing. It will function as an IPv6 router with no filtering. So make sure hosts are secure themselves, etc etc.

(EDIT 2) - The unit will also take that /64 and announce it over the wireless with any additional configuration. Plop in that /64 and its available over wired and wireless.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: ericj on December 09, 2008, 08:17:50 PM
Are all of the DIR-615's at Fry's the correct hardware revision? I'd love to get one to try out, but I don't want to buy it only to find that it is the wrong one.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on December 09, 2008, 09:40:54 PM
Are all of the DIR-615's at Fry's the correct hardware revision? I'd love to get one to try out, but I don't want to buy it only to find that it is the wrong one.

So the DIR-615-SWs at Fry's were all rev B2

Look for the not "SW" model just the DIR-615, all the ones there were all opened, and returned, they had nothing wrong with the 2 I bought.

The revision is on the bottom of the box with the S/N etc.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: RoundSparrow on January 26, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
This exact router, the C1 version, is now able to run full Linux distribution via OpenWRT project.  I am now running it with Linux Kernel 2.6.28.  That's always a new option if you can't get the D-Link firmware working properly with ipv6.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jucs on December 28, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
Hey,

I've got exactly that router (DIR-615) today, but do not have the IPv6 menu. Does anyone know why?

//edit: Nevermind, I've got the wrong revision :-(

Thanks!
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on December 28, 2009, 10:16:13 AM
Hey,

I've got exactly that router (DIR-615) today, but do not have the IPv6 menu. Does anyone know why?

Thanks!

What hardware rev? Needs to be Hardware revision "C".
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jucs on December 28, 2009, 10:22:28 AM
Yes, thanks, I've got D... :-(
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jimb on December 28, 2009, 10:59:40 AM
!?  They removed the support from a newer revision?!

Well, I 'spose you can always use OpenWRT.

BTW, does D-Link support DHCPv6 w/ prefix delegation?
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jucs on December 28, 2009, 03:57:50 PM
!?  They removed the support from a newer revision?!

I'm not sure if it's the newer one or just the German one ;-)
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: snarked on December 28, 2009, 05:56:06 PM
This "versioning crap" is why I in general avoid D-link.  Different versions and revisions of the same "model" use different hardware - which to me means it should be a completely different product complete with a different model ID.

There's no mention of the removal of IPv6 on D-link's web site for the DIR-615 (which declares it as "IPv6 ready").  If there truly is a version/revision D which removes IPv6, then the company is engaging in dishonest advertising.  I checked this product's page on their site in the past 24 hours.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on December 28, 2009, 06:07:50 PM
Guess I should do a Fry's run then ebay all the rev Cs :D
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jucs on December 29, 2009, 02:45:47 AM
There's no mention of the removal of IPv6 on D-link's web site for the DIR-615 (which declares it as "IPv6 ready").  If there truly is a version/revision D which removes IPv6, then the company is engaging in dishonest advertising.  I checked this product's page on their site in the past 24 hours.

Did you also check the german web site? If it tells you about IPv6 readyness? I think they sell the RevC in the USA and RevD in Germany or Europe. Anyway - I'm sad, it would have been great to configure IPv6 there to use it on my whole network :-(
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: snarked on December 29, 2009, 12:28:52 PM
I looked at the North American site.  Now, looking at the German site (dlink.de), I do see a difference:  There's NO IPv6 icon at the bottom of the page among the 4 images that do appear, nor does IPv6 appear among the specifications.  (IPv6 icon = http://images.dlink.com/products/techprovider/IPv6Ready_phase2.gif )  It does appear to be a different version or revision.

I also looked at the DIR-825, which in the U.S. also supports IPv6.  There's no IPv6 icon either, but it does say "compatible with IPv4 and IPv6" under highlights (on the German page).  Strangely enough, they claim that the USB port can be connected to a printer as well as storage - while the North American model is apparently USB storage only (if I remember correctly).


PS:  BTW, any site that requires javascript or flash and won't work without such is a BROKEN web site.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jimb on December 29, 2009, 01:37:32 PM
Hrm.  One wonder if there's some sort of IP (Intellectual Property) issue for the DE version which made them remove the IPv6 support...
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jucs on December 31, 2009, 03:25:14 AM
It may even be the same hardware; it could be that they just didn't have the time (or better, didn't want to spend the money) to translate the IPv6 things.

However, I think I will not have the heart to actually try to flash the american version, as it might result in buying a new router :-D
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on February 13, 2010, 03:20:40 PM
I looked at the product manual for the D-Link DIR-825, and the IPv6 setup screens match with the IPv6 configuration screen shots for the -615 that I found through a Google search.

Then I noticed the difference in the prices between the two.

As nefarious as this may sound, could IPv6 support in the -615 have been dropped in order to get people to spend an additional $100 for the -825?

Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: snarked on February 14, 2010, 07:04:43 PM
The 825 also does the 5GHz band, while the 615 is a 2.4GHz band only device.  There's also the "shared storage" USB port ("shared" - in that it may be accessed from only one source at a time) for thumbdrives.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jimb on February 15, 2010, 01:44:54 PM
Sounds like the WRT-610N that I bought.  I'm not using any of the routing or "media" functionality it has.  Using it as a simple access point.  I bought it 'cause it's the only Linksys which has the simultaneous dual bands + GB enet ports on its switch.  I probably should have shopped around a bit more.

5ghz is nice.  Like I have the air to myself.   :)
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on March 02, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
Well, after deciding that I like the GUI interface of dd-wrt, I also gave up on my Linksys 54GL and bought a DIR-615.

Turns out the dd-wrt that does v6 only comes with the 2.6 kernel, and that requires seriously messing with the 54GL, far more than I'm comfortable with.

I made sure the DIR-615 was the hardware C1, much to the interest of the drone at Office Depot but at least it was printed on the OUTSIDE of the box, and set it up as per other people's comments here. "Stateful" rather than "Stateless" was the final straw that made everything work.

The most surprising thing was using one /64 for both the WAN and LAN, doing what I would call "bridging" rather than routing. It's fine by me, and a much better use of address space than having every circuit be its own network block.

Anyway, it works and I'm glad. Now to sell a perfectly good WRT-54GL with dd-wrt on it, and a Belkin "Wireless G" that I was using before it.

Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on March 02, 2010, 04:14:44 PM
It shouldn't be using the same /64. Looking at my screenshots of the webUI, I can clearly put in the routed /64 for the LAN
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jimb on March 02, 2010, 05:03:12 PM
@bob:  Are you saying you're bridging the LAN and the WAN, or the LAN and the WLAN?

First is kind of silly since you automatically get a routed /64 with your tunnel, but I can see how it might work unless HE has ACLs blocking anything other that host 1 and 2.

Second is just fine.  :)

EDIT: OK I read another post where you seem to confirm that you actually bridged the HE tunnel /64 to your LAN.  There really is no point in doing that since you have a perfectly good /64 routed to you already.  Doing something like that is what I call an "unnatural act" (actually borrowed that term from a old CTO friend of mine) and will only wind up getting you into trouble in the future.  :P
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on March 03, 2010, 06:19:30 PM
Oh, I agree it's an un-natural act, but I only have one /64 defined, not two.

Or rather, if I have two, where do I find the second one? I didn't ask for a /48, hardly needing a /64. A /96 would have been just fine. Being profligate with addresses from the start seems to be a violation of what we learned from IPv4.

Personally, I'd rather see the link defined from a standard pool of /126's, the same way an ISP I worked for used a /30 for each link, since "all 0" and "all 1" are reserved for broadcast. That was before un-numbered interfaces, a development that was long overdue in my humble opinion. I also tried the "un-numbered" technique on this DIR-615 at first, but that didn't work. Numbering the LAN interface with ::3 was just a shot in the dark, and it did work.

The Tunnelbroker.net/main shows me just the one /64 and no deligated /48.

Here's the DIR-615 IPv6 config page, so you can see what I did:

(http://priss.com/BobRobIPv6config.jpg)

I can smudge the addresses if anyone thinks it's wise, I wanted the addressing to be unequivocal. Please let me know.

I call that a bridge. Which is fine, since it works.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: mtindle on March 03, 2010, 06:49:42 PM
Being profligate with addresses from the start seems to be a violation of what we learned from IPv4.

Many years ago when I was first setting up IPv6 on our network, I had the same mental hurdle to get over.  Initially tunnel endpoints were created as /127s but it ended up causing more problems than it was worth. A lot of devices will not work correctly without having a /64 for EUI-64. 

The scale of available v6 addresses is actually difficult to grasp.  There is no reason to be stingy with them.  So far this is the best example I've run across that describes just how much address space we are dealing with in v6 land as opposed to v4.

Quote
To make this diagram to scale, imagine the IPv4 address space is the 1.6-inch square above. In that case, the IPv6 address space would be represented by a square the size of the solar system.

http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6AddressSizeandAddressSpace-2.htm

Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jimb on March 03, 2010, 06:50:21 PM
LOL.  OK.  It isn't bridged.  It's routed.  You are using your routed /64 on the LAN.  You made it sound like you were using your /64 tunnel IPv6 and bridging it to the LAN.  Bridging is when you connect two physical segments using layer-2 (link layer) networking.  In other words, in this case, your 6in4 interface and LAN interface would appear to be the same LAN.

Since you're using separate /64s (2001:470:1f06:72a::/64, 2001:470:1f07:72a::/64), you are actually routing, not bridging.   :D

Quote
Or rather, if I have two, where do I find the second one? I didn't ask for a /48, hardly needing a /64. A /96 would have been just fine. Being profligate with addresses from the start seems to be a violation of what we learned from IPv4.

Personally, I'd rather see the link defined from a standard pool of /126's, the same way an ISP I worked for used a /30 for each link, since "all 0" and "all 1" are reserved for broadcast. That was before un-numbered interfaces, a development that was long overdue in my humble opinion. I also tried the "un-numbered" technique on this DIR-615 at first, but that didn't work. Numbering the LAN interface with ::3 was just a shot in the dark, and it did work.

You didn't have to use ::3, ::1 would have worked fine, since it's a different network address.

I used to worry about IPv6 address conservation too, but a saying goes like this:  "When you live in a rain forest, you don't worry about water."  Coming from the IPv4 "desert", where extreme conservation strategies are the norm and desirable, it's hard to transition your thinking to the IPv6 mode, where address space is so abundant we don't have to worry about running out of space.  

Allow me to quote myself:

Quote from: Another Post (http://www.tunnelbroker.net/forums/index.php?topic=712.msg3773#msg3773)
Addressing plans will depend largely on the ISP's own policies.  But the IAB outlines recommendations in RFC3177.  Basically it says that end users should get either a /64 if they have a single LAN, or a /48 if they have multiple LANs.  Businesses will also get /48s (one or multiple).  ISPs get /32s.  Also, just the currently assigned global unicast range, 2000::/3 (2000:: - 3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff) contains ~537 million /32s (2^29 /32s).  So running out of /32s for ISPs won't happen any time soon.  And every /32 has 64Ki /48s, which in turn has 64Ki /64s, each of which have 2^64 - 1 interface addresses.

Realize this isn't the entire IPv6 space, just the current 2000::/3 which is what that ICANN has currently assigned for global unicast IPv6.  There are a bunch of other like sized ranges (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml) reserved which can be rolled out later, perhaps with different address plan standards.

And here's a snippet from RFC3177 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177), a guideline put out by the IAB on IPv6 address assignment:


 In particular, we recommend:

      -  Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
         always-on connections should receive a /48.
      -  Small and large enterprises should receive a /48.
      -  Very large subscribers could receive a /47 or slightly shorter
         prefix, or multiple /48's.
      -  Mobile networks, such as vehicles or mobile phones with an
         additional network interface (such as bluetooth or 802.11b)
         should receive a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of
         multiple devices through one subnet.
      -  A single PC, with no additional need to subnet, dialing-up from
         a hotel room may receive its /128 IPv6 address for a PPP style
         connection as part of a /64 prefix.

   Note that there seems to be little benefit in not giving a /48 if
   future growth is anticipated.  In the following, we give the
   arguments for a uniform use of /48 and then demonstrate that it is
   entirely compatible with responsible stewardship of the total IPv6
   address space.


So don't worry about waste.  I've been admonished about this myself and told it was "IPv4 thinking."

Also, you may want to take a look at:  RFC4291 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291) (info about IPv6 addresses), RFC3177 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177) (IPv6 address plan recommendations), and RFC3627 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627) (recommendation against using /127s).

Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on March 04, 2010, 05:59:07 AM
1f06, 1f07

This is one of those "aww poop" moments. Seriously, I looked at that and looked at that and just didn't see it. I sat there dumbfounded as to why the LAN address was the same as the link, seriously. As is obvious from my earlier, which I will leave as an object lesson in silliness.

I bow to the gods of Cut and Paste, which is the only reason it worked at all.

Quote
You didn't have to use ::3, ::1 would have worked fine, since it's a different network address.

Yeah, like I said, right there with ya. Lots of excuses, only one reason: I just didn't see it.

In a firefight, I'd be dead.

Quote
Coming from the IPv4 "desert", where extreme conservation strategies are the norm and desirable, it's hard to transition your thinking to the IPv6 mode, where address space is so abundant we don't have to worry about running out of space.
 

While I agree as things are, things will not always be this way. Interstate highways have traffic jams, OC3 circuits get filled, 16MB Token Ring seemed fast. It happens, it will happen.

Ok, a /126 is completely absurd.  :D

I am reminded of John D. Rockefeller, who lived in a single rented room with little more than a nightstand and a bed, to the end of his days. But then, not spending what he didn't need to was how he got rich in the first place.

Quote
Realize this isn't the entire IPv6 space, just the current 2000::/3 which is what that ICANN has currently assigned for global unicast IPv6.  There are a bunch of other like sized ranges (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml) reserved which can be rolled out later, perhaps with different address plan standards.

Or different planets.

Quote
So don't worry about waste.  I've been admonished about this myself and told it was "IPv4 thinking."

Shows where I cut my teeth, certainly.

Thanks for the pointers, and for not laughing too hard.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jimb on March 04, 2010, 02:24:34 PM
1f06, 1f07

This is one of those "aww poop" moments. Seriously, I looked at that and looked at that and just didn't see it. I sat there dumbfounded as to why the LAN address was the same as the link, seriously. As is obvious from my earlier, which I will leave as an object lesson in silliness.

I bow to the gods of Cut and Paste, which is the only reason it worked at all.

Quote
You didn't have to use ::3, ::1 would have worked fine, since it's a different network address.

Yeah, like I said, right there with ya. Lots of excuses, only one reason: I just didn't see it.

In a firefight, I'd be dead.
This is not even close to the first time this has happened.  A lot of people got caught out by this, including myself!  When I first set up my tunnel, I "missed" the routed /64, and in my haste figured that they only gave you the /64 for the tunnel, and requested a /48 for my LAN.  Only later did I realize that the two addresses were not the same and go "doh!" like Homer Simpson.   :-[

The main reason for the confusion is that that tunnel and routed /64 pair are only different by a single character in the 3rd quad, the tunnel being even and the routed being odd.  This makes it hard to spot.  I even annoyed (http://www.tunnelbroker.net/forums/index.php?topic=693.msg3247#msg3247) (likely) kcochran into doing something to make the differences more apparent on the web page, and he bolded the 3rd quad.  But obviously it still catches people out.  Maybe it's because from IPv4 we're used to looking at the trailing bytes of the address for subnets?  Although that's not true of a /24, which matches up with a IPv6 /48 well as far as "positional aspects" (both change in the 3rd section of the address).  Who knows.  I should ask my human factors engineering psychology friend perhaps.  :)

The HE address plan for the TB stuff seems to be to reserve one /47 per tunnel server, giving two consecutive /48s for the tunnel and routed /64 networks assigned to each user.  It could actually be shorter prefixes but I haven't seen enough address/router associations to guess this.  

But my guess is one /47 per tunnel server, allowing them to provision 65,536 tunnels per server (which is probably more than one can handle).  The fourth quad is always the same per tunnel for the tunnel/routed /64, and is treated as the "local tunnel ID" (if you convert the hex to decimal, you'll see it matches the "local tunnel ID" on the info page for your tunnel).  This is why the addresses look like they do.

With this scheme, they can advertise one /47 per tunnel server into their routing protocols, and it also makes the route table on each server easy to interpret.  They can easily tell the tunnel /64 from the routed /64 based on even/odd, and identify each user's networks based on the 4th quad (local tunnel ID).  (correct me if I'm wrong about any of this HE)

Anyway, this is why the addresses presented to the user for their two networks are only different by one character!

Quote
Quote
Coming from the IPv4 "desert", where extreme conservation strategies are the norm and desirable, it's hard to transition your thinking to the IPv6 mode, where address space is so abundant we don't have to worry about running out of space.
 

While I agree as things are, things will not always be this way. Interstate highways have traffic jams, OC3 circuits get filled, 16MB Token Ring seemed fast. It happens, it will happen.

Ok, a /126 is completely absurd.  :D

I am reminded of John D. Rockefeller, who lived in a single rented room with little more than a nightstand and a bed, to the end of his days. But then, not spending what he didn't need to was how he got rich in the first place.
True, nothing is for forever, but by the time we need more, we'll probably be on IPv10 which will address special requirements for quantum entanglement ansibles and FTL communication or something.   :D

Quote
Quote
Realize this isn't the entire IPv6 space, just the current 2000::/3 which is what that ICANN has currently assigned for global unicast IPv6.  There are a bunch of other like sized ranges (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml) reserved which can be rolled out later, perhaps with different address plan standards.

Or different planets.

Quote
So don't worry about waste.  I've been admonished about this myself and told it was "IPv4 thinking."

Shows where I cut my teeth, certainly.

Thanks for the pointers, and for not laughing too hard.
Heh yeh.  But at the rate we're going with space exploration (compare the movie "2010" with "reality 2010" :lol: ) we'll probably be using "IPv10" or something (as I joked earlier) by the time we're on different planets.  :P

I certainly wasn't laughing, since I (and a bunch of others) were also caught out by this, and I've been a sys/net admin since 1988.  :)
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on March 09, 2010, 05:48:51 PM
Maybe it's because from IPv4 we're used to looking at the trailing bytes of the address for subnets?

I would say that is exactly what is happening. "We" learn short-cuts over time, and looking at the least significant digits for the difference in network numbers "always" saved brain cycles before. New habits.

I know of no reason why the 3rd quad "should" be changed, since the same numbering schemes could be used and change by even/odd the 4th quad to accomplish a consecutive allocation of /64s for link and premise. It would fit the pyramid of number allocation more clearly, in my mind, but it's not my mind that designed the HE scheme.

Quote
I should ask my human factors engineering psychology friend perhaps.  :)

Oh No! Not more academics to "explain" why engineers do what they do to make things work.

I have an unofficial minor in economics, it is so frustrating watching those well paid stuffed shirt "economists" pontificate and pronounce on subjects about which it is obvious they have no clue.

With all the grand lecturing on the present economic problems going on endlessly, watching CNN or FNC has become so painful I locked those channels out of my cable selection.

Quote
Anyway, this is why the addresses presented to the user for their two networks are only different by one character!

I couldn't agree more that having the two /64 allocations for a single customer different by only one digit is a GoodThing (tm, reg us pat off).

And there is no doubt the person who decided which digit that would be even/odd makes far more than I do right now. I think I have perfectly good reasons for how I would have done it, I'm sure they do too.  ;D

Quote
I certainly wasn't laughing, since I (and a bunch of others) were also caught out by this, and I've been a sys/net admin since 1988.  :)

Hey! I was clearing out some boxes over the weekend, and found the job offer letter for my first Network Engineer job, July 1988! That was IBM mainframe SNA, which makes any version of IP look like a heaven of simplicity. Oh, and DECnet, which actually is a heaven of simplicity, and as obsolete as the 16MB TokenRing SNA cluster controllers we spent huge quantities of money installing in 1992.

Once in a while I indulge in a "if only I knew then what I know now" fantasy. Now I get to do it about events that happened only last week! Hahaha!
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: bassin on March 23, 2010, 06:30:10 PM
Guys,

I'm new to ipv6, and I'm triing to set up my first home tunnel, first I updated my dir-615 firmware to version 3.11NA, then I followed all the posts I finded in the forrum but without sucess my configuration is this one:

Server IPv4 address:     216.66.22.2
Server IPv6 address:    2001:470:7:5c6::1/64
Client IPv4 address:    189.xxx.xxx.21
Client IPv6 address:    2001:470:7:5c6::2/64

inside dlink ipv6 setup I did the configuration in the picture attached, I'm using windows seven with an wireless adapter, in the details page I can see the ipv6 ip and the gateway that is the same as the Server IPv6 address, the dns I had to setup it manualy and used the one provided by tunnelbroker. when I trie to access the internet windows report that there is no connection and when I ping some ipv6 adress inside the router I can do it.

Any advice? I'm almost giving up...

Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on March 23, 2010, 06:35:38 PM
Your D-Link is behind something that assigns it 192.168.0.1 as it's Local IPv4 Address?

If not, you should be putting the IPv4 address you get from the provider for your v4 side of the tunnel.

If so, then it sounds like you are double-natted, and need the first NAT to make sure Protocol 41 is being passed through.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: bassin on March 23, 2010, 08:39:00 PM
Broquea, you are right, my dir-615 ip address is provided by my adsl modem, but that ip is 10.1.1.2 so I think I understand where the wrong configuration is, I must use the ip that the modem assigns to the router not the local network ipv4 address. I will try it and check the Nat of the modem. ;D ;D

I will post the results thanks for the help
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on May 18, 2010, 07:59:04 AM
Broquea, you are right, my dir-615 ip address is provided by my adsl modem, but that ip is 10.1.1.2 so I think I understand where the wrong configuration is, I must use the ip that the modem assigns to the router not the local network ipv4 address. I will try it and check the Nat of the modem. ;D ;D

I will post the results thanks for the help

Since the WAN interface of the router must be pingable by the tunnel server, using 1918 addressing would break that. What an interesting twist!

One of the things I had to do with the 615 was to put in a filter to allow the tunnel server to ping the WAN interface, since by default response to ping is disabled.

So Bassin, please do post back what your results were.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: snarked on May 19, 2010, 12:31:03 PM
I found that putting my DSL modem into "bridge mode" (thus turning off its router and DHCP functions) was what was necessary to pass through the offered IP to the 615's WAN port.  Maybe that's what you need to do as well.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: jimb on May 19, 2010, 01:36:19 PM
Probably the best bet for anyone who has a decent router, since it'll likely be better than the one in your DSL modem.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: andersman on June 21, 2010, 09:14:00 AM
Just wanted to add that I have a DIR-825 B1 (EU fw), while it doesn't display any IPv6 logos on the box there is IPv6 support. I currently have IPv6 over wired and wireless :D
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: ericisshort on July 10, 2010, 07:59:52 PM
So the DIR-615-SWs at Fry's were all rev B2

Look for the not "SW" model just the DIR-615, all the ones there were all opened, and returned, they had nothing wrong with the 2 I bought.

The revision is on the bottom of the box with the S/N etc.

Are the DIR-615-SW's not the same hardware as the  DIR-615? I have an SW that has hardware ver C1, so I think DD-WRT will work on it. But just to make sure, I googled it, and this is the only place on the internet that might lead me to think otherwise.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on July 10, 2010, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: ericisshort
Are the DIR-615-SW's not the same hardware as the  DIR-615? I have an SW that has hardware ver C1, so I think DD-WRT will work on it. But just to make sure, I googled it, and this is the only place on the internet that might lead me to think otherwise.

I'm looking at my box right now, and there is no -sw. There isn't even an IPv6 Ready sticker on it.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: ericisshort on July 10, 2010, 09:11:12 PM
Thanks for the quick reply. My packaging does have the IPv6 ready logo on it. Is that a bad thing for the compatibility?

I finally took the router out of the box, and the device has DIR-615 (without SW) on it. That leads me to believe that they are the same base product. I can only assume that the SW must relate to the anti-virus/anti-spyware software package that is advertised on the box.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on July 31, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
That's easy, don't use 2002. Use your routed /64.
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: woosingwoo on August 01, 2010, 09:53:59 AM
Super! It works!

Many Thanks!
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: frnkblk on August 07, 2010, 09:28:38 PM
Guys,

I'm new to ipv6, and I'm triing to set up my first home tunnel, first I updated my dir-615 firmware to version 3.11NA, then I followed all the posts I finded in the forrum but without sucess my configuration is this one:

Server IPv4 address:     216.66.22.2
Server IPv6 address:    2001:470:7:5c6::1/64
Client IPv4 address:    189.xxx.xxx.21
Client IPv6 address:    2001:470:7:5c6::2/64

inside dlink ipv6 setup I did the configuration in the picture attached, I'm using windows seven with an wireless adapter, in the details page I can see the ipv6 ip and the gateway that is the same as the Server IPv6 address, the dns I had to setup it manualy and used the one provided by tunnelbroker. when I trie to access the internet windows report that there is no connection and when I ping some ipv6 adress inside the router I can do it.

Any advice? I'm almost giving up...


The reason you had to configure the DNS server manually is because the D-Links don't hand out IPv6 DNS server IPs on their LAN interface.  In a packet capture I see the WAN interface (configured for SLAAC) requesting and receiving it via stateless DHCP, but it doesn't show in the GUI.

Frank
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: netcallcenter on March 11, 2011, 10:56:39 AM
Guys, help me please...

I bought a D-LINK DIR-615 and updated with the latest firmware.
I configured the IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel to HE Tunnel Broker, but I can't connect to IPv6 web sites.

My revision is E4 and firmware 5.11.

On IPv6 setup:
My IPv6 Connection is : IPv6 over IPv4 Tunnel
Remote IPv4 Address : 209.51.161.14
Remote IPv6 Address : 2001:470:xx6x:xxxx::1 (I changed my real numbers to xxxx)
Local IPv4 Address : xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (This is my valid IP and it's fixed by d-link, I can't change)
Local IPv6 Address : 2001:470:xx6x:xxxx::2
Primary IPv6 DNS Server : 2001:470:20::2
LAN IPv6 Address : 2001:470:xx7x:xxxx::1 / 64 (The /64 is in a separated text box)
Autoconfiguration Type : SLAAC + Stateless DHCPv6
Router Advertisement Lifetime: 1440 minutes

On status:

IPv6 Connection Type :   IPv6 over IPv4 Tunnel
Network Status :   Disconnected
     
WAN IPv6 Address :   None
IPv6 Default Gateway :   none
LAN IPv6 Address :   2001:470:xx7x:xxxx::1/64
LAN IPv6 Link-Local Address :   fe80::218:e7ff:feec:3b6f/64
Primary IPv6 DNS Server :   None
Secondary IPv6 DNS Server :   None
DHCP-PD :   Disabled

Thanks

Fernando Hara
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: cholzhauer on March 12, 2011, 07:07:14 AM
We can't help you if you x out all of your ip addresses.  Please replay with the actual information
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: LAGonauta on May 01, 2011, 01:56:40 PM
Hello, I might be with the same problem as netcallcenter.

I am using one DIR-615 Rev. C1 with firmware 3.12NA (3.13NA do not work, the router is unable to connect with the tunnel. The web-interface don't save setting for the "Local IPv6 Address")

The computer receive one IPv6 address, but the internet do not work. Tested on Windows Vista and on Ubuntu 10.04.

On picture of my configuration:

(http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/3500/ipv6he.jpg)
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: broquea on May 01, 2011, 02:45:32 PM
Pretty sure :1f1e: isn't your routed /64
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: LAGonauta on May 02, 2011, 05:08:06 AM
Pretty sure :1f1e: isn't your routed /64

Oops, thanks.

I changed the "LAN IPv6 Address" to 2001:470:1f0f:b26:: (Routed IPv6 Prefix, as shown here on this site), the interface gave me one error saying it was an illegal address, tried 2001:470:1f0f:b26::0 and it accepted the address, but the internet is still not working :/

I am able to ping 2001:470:1f0e:b26::2, but if i ping 2001:470:1f0e:b26::1 I get "Destination Host Unreachable".
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on June 14, 2011, 07:41:29 AM
I am able to ping 2001:470:1f0e:b26::2, but if i ping 2001:470:1f0e:b26::1 I get "Destination Host Unreachable".

Did you make the WAN port pingable?

Ok, beyond that, I have a DIR-615 question.

I have "stateless" on the LAN interface turned on, but still get the message on all my Linux boxes, "ethx: no IPv6 routers present"

Has anyone a setting for v6 provisioning on the -615 that works?
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: snarked on June 14, 2011, 12:12:22 PM
Re - reply #42:  3.13NA?

My device has 3.12NA and tells me that's the latest version.  Are youcertain that there's a 3.13 firmware release?
Title: Re: The D-Link DIR-615 Hardware Rev.: C1
Post by: BobRobertson on June 20, 2011, 10:17:43 AM
The tunnel has been working fine since getting it established, and I have no issues with static addressing. It would be nice if there were more sites supporting IPv6, but such is life.

However, whether I set the -615 to Stateless (SLAAC) or Stateful (DHCPv6), my Linux machines always report "No IPv6 routers present." So neighbor discovery is failing.

For that matter, Comcast is now my ISP, and connecting directly rather than through the router gave the same result.

The problem I have debugging this is that I've never had it work, so I don't know what it's supposed to say if/when neighbor discovery succeeds.