IPv6 on LTE/Cellular Connection

Hello,

It’s now 2022, and there’s no support for IPv6 on the max transit cat18 for cellular connectivity. I’ve had a support ticket open for almost a year now asking what the deal is.

When is this going to take place? Carriers no longer provide a native IPv4 experience. Tmobile for example is an IPv6 enabled network, and has been for years.

When are we going to get support?

1 Like

This is being addressed by Peplink Engineering now.

Thank you

This is haunting my units as well, last I heard there is no updated to be expected in the near future.

I opened a ticket, linked to this thread, and I received beta firmware from one of the engineers.

Has it not made it into mainline yet?

@Zachary_Fouts

Targeted for the Cellular WAN IPv6 passthrough mode, it will be included in the firmware 9.0.0 release. We are having 8.3.0 RC3 now and when 8.3.0 GA firmware released , we may have a new IPv6 passthrough mode beta test firmware in 8.3.0 GA firmware.

@Dustin_Betterly ,

Are you referring to the T-Mobile SA connection that only support IPv6 ?
https://forum.peplink.com/t/tmobile-apn-ip-address/63a1f54e909789cfa63f5755/

If yes, it’s not just supporting Native IPv6 network design, most of the application still need IPv4 connection which T-Mobile 5G SA connection no longer support that. Please open a ticket here and we can test the IPv6 passthrough mode whether it will able to help for your case.

Possible please let us know the IPv6 network design that you should like build as well in the ticket and support team should able to help to review on that.

2 Likes

I am not a IPv6 genius… but
At Teltonika I can see…
VIVO LTE - Quectel EC25-AU - Basic LTE MODEM
rmnet0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
inet addr:100.64.235.47 Mask:255.255.255.255
inet6 addr: fe80::18f5:f3ff:fe37:8800/64 Scope:Link
UP RUNNING MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:383049 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:405909 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:79806295 (76.1 MiB) TX bytes:56788866 (54.1 MiB)

So… Peplink must have IPv6 support for all devices for at next release of 8.4.0!

Devices capable of running 8.3.0, should be capable of IPv6, ALSO!

Hi Sitloongs,

When will there be an updated firmware to allow IPV6 passthrough on a T-mobile connection? I have the model MAX-BR1-PRO-5GN-T-PRM, with firmware 8.4.0 build 5391. T-mobile is an IPV6 network that uses 464XLAT for IPV4 for compatibility. When I try to use SA only then I receive the ip address of 192.0.0.2. Also, using NSA bands I also receive the ip address of 192.0.0.2 until I reset the cellular module.

Hi @Joey_Burford . May I briefly “butt in” here? One question and a “hint” …

The question: Not to make an argument but to better understand your requirements … You are right that TMO is a V6 operation. What is the benefit you see to including IPV6 in this product? What would you expect to achieve? (I think I know the various lines of logic but am curious as to specifically why you want this. My question should not be interpreted as a precursor to positing an argument in opposition to yours.)

The “hint”: If you “tag” the person to whom you are directing a communication, or mentioning, they’ll be notified. So, let me do this for you. :<) @sitloongs is among the very best of the Peplink support engineers and has been a huge help to us over the years. :<) [This statement is true and the “@” starts the tag.]

1 Like

Hi @Rick-DC

I would like to use SA mode only and receive an ip address. As for now if I do try to use SA mode, then I can only receive the ip address of 192.0.0.2. Would an IpV6 passthrough option not correct this? Thanks for the info.

Joey

Hi Joey. I am not certain of the answer – perhaps someone else can jump in here. It is TMO that assigns the address (obviously) and I am not sure how their network would respond as I’ve not seen it. And, perhaps the bigger point might be “would the user receive a better experience?”

1 Like

The user would receive a better experience. Using 5G SA is faster and has a much lower latency Of around 20ms.

Yes, in some cases.
The original questions was about v6 rather than SA. SA is certainly desirable when/where it can be used.

1 Like

My use case of IPv6 would be to enable SpeedFusion connections directly between endpoints that are both on CGNAT. Starlink, AT&T, Verizon, will all allow me direct peer to peer IPv6 connections, where they will not allow peer to peer CGNAT.

That I can bounce in and out of FusionHubs, adds latency and TCP window throttling.

IPv6 is a long supported protocol on many enterprise systems, and peplink needs to start on its IPv6 roadmap. There are many things that will be very difficult for them to work out, since NAT is a major part of how they manage multiple WANs, but router to router, PepVPN and internal routing of IPv6, IPv6 firewalls, and a “primary” traffic IPv6 network should not be as difficult.

3 Likes

T-Mobile’s 5G SA network is IPV6 only. In order to use 5G SA I need IPV6 passthrough.

T-Mobile’s 5G SA network is IPV6 only. In order to use 5G SA I need IPV6 passthrough.

Behind the scenes T-Mobile uses IPv6 - but it is not required for 5G SA. I have done extensive testing with the modem using 5G SA on T-Mobile - in fact, that is how I am connected right now:

Since the router lacks IPv6 support - the carrier NAT assigns an IPv4 address.

This isn’t ideal - IPv6 native would be better - but SA is not the issue here.

  • Chris
1 Like

Hi Chris,

I was not clear in my wording. I understand SA works without IPV6, as I have tried SA, but as you said this is not an ideal setup. Pepwave should have IPV6 passthrough.
Thanks,

Joey