Hi Marty,
Understand that Kenny has worked with you and problem was solved with hot fix applied. We will provide a special firmware shortly.
Thanks for your efforts to work with us to get this solved! 
1 Like
Are there any updates on this? I have a Balance 20 on TWC exhibiting the same behavior.
1 Like
Hi,
The problem was solved. Please help to open ticket and turn on Remote Assistance on the unit.
Thank you.
1 Like
It’s been more than two years since this topic was open and still no proper IPv6 support.
2 Likes
It is indeed disappointing not to have IPv6 support as standard in 2017. Is there any timescale for this planned?
3 Likes
Although I am still okay right now, it’s been a very long time since I got assistance with this and have been awaiting any word in the firmware release notes to say that even just the hot fix made with my help was now included. I have not seen any such thing so I’m still running the same firmware I was way back then… not wanting to upgrade only to find that I have to request the same work again and do without the basic IPv6 support that I currently do have until I’m helped.
TK_Liew said above that I would but to my knowledge, I never got a special firmware if that’s something different than the hot fix. So if I ever had to reinstall the standard firmware I downloaded from back then I would not have the hot fix.
/Marty
1 Like
Hi all,
This is a very old thread, and I hope you don’t mind me updating it a bit. 
Bothe the IETF and RIPE have a clear set of requirments for what constitutes an IPv6 CPE router. Considering that in the RIPE portal there are currently requests for 50 million IPv4 addresses and only 500 thousand IPv4 addresses on offer we are looking at IPv6 CPE as an immediate requirement.
From RIPE - Requirements for IPv6 in ICT Equipment — RIPE Network Coordination Centre
At the risk of making a very obvious staement, the reason is so that we can have a device that will function with IPv6 natively and not require IPv4.
Please check out the IETF community consensus on this topic, rfc7084: “Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers” (In Nov this year it will be 5 years since its writing)
Also, please consider these subsections of section 4 as they are a minimum to create an IPv6 router with basic functionality.
4.1. General Requirements
4.2. WAN-Side Configuration
4.3. LAN-Side Configuration
Note that rfc7084 references rfc6092: “Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service”.
Please see section 4. Summary of Recommendations
And in the case of Peplinks, which are very special devices indeed, SIM interfaces, outbound policy, and DNS forwarding need to support IPv6.
Can you update us all on the plans for that?
Many thanks
Dana
4 Likes
Yes… any news on this!!!
1 Like
+1 on this. Getting public IPs on mobile network is getting more difficult and I have to reboot the modems and hope to get a public IP. Our network is purely mobile and hence unable to get a static, public IP to create the VPN.
4 Likes
I would love to have this corrected. Bump!
2 Likes
+1
It’s time to join the modern world.
3 Likes
C’mon Peplink. I don’t even need load balance on IPv6, just a DHCP-PD client to get the prefix from a single ISP and a DHCPv6 server to distribute them.
5 Likes
How is the timeline coming? I would really love to have my peplink support dhcp ipv6. Spectrum will support one ipv4 and one ipv6 address at the same time. The pass through is not a working solution. In my perfect world Peplink would grab the ipv4 and the ipv6 and serve the the rest of the clients with a local dhcp ip. Tp-Link is able to do this.
3 Likes
Here we are at v8.1 and still no IPv6 support on the BR1-ENT. Where is IPv6 on the firmware roadmap, or should I start looking for alternatives?
1 Like
Agree. This is getting concerning.
3 Likes
Same here. I’m on the market for new routers, and Peplink was pretty high on the list (as in: top-1), but no support for IPv6 is a deal breaker.
I would be delighted to hear that it’s coming soon, but will otherwise have to see elsewhere.
4 Likes
This is becoming a more critical issue every day. With providers such as T-Mo and Starlink only assigning private IPs, you can’t even establish a VPN between two devices if they both only have public IPv6 addresses.
When the heck is Peplink going to wake up and deliver proper ipv6 support including DHCPv6, port forwarding, and firewall rules!!??
3 Likes
Hello Fellow Peplink Enthusiast,
We, too, are seeking the full feature support for IPv6 with various upcoming/pending projects; it is fair to expect that the latest Series-X models along with all of the SD-Switches, WAPs & virtual appliances will be able to process IPv6, though we also realise the older models may be a struggle and like when previous major firmware revisions come out, some models will be left behind.
It would be fair to expect the future major Firmware Versions to be fully IPv6 capable with all the various rich features for the models of Hardware that have suitable processing. As to when Firmware Version 9.x for routers & gateways, Version 4.x for WAPs and Version 3.x for SD-Switches will become available, that is a crystal ball question for the leadership team at Peplink.
Peplink has done well with so many features in the latest firmware versions, the next major evolution of the firmware we expect to be IPv6 feature-rich for the newer hardware models. We are looking forward to this evolution.
So +1 on IPv6 moving forward.
Happy to Help,
Marcus 
4 Likes
@mldowling: I fully agree, that IPv6 support of at least DHCV-v6 from Peplink router devices and a firewall preventing the IPv6 clients to be fully exposed (due to pass through) as they currently need to rely on a provider modem firewall should be the next mandatory step
2 Likes
The APs like AP AC One Mini should be able to pull at least a local IPv6 address from DHCPv6 and it should be possible to enable this on WAN settings
1 Like