Jump to content
hurricanehrndz

Requesting IPV6 in unRAID kernel.

116 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

Adding my +1, the router provided by my ISP doesn't support IPV4 forwarding, and I've got a hunch this is only going to become more and more common as time goes on

Share this post


Link to post

@Limetech can this please be scheduled as one of the first items for the 6.4 dev series of unraid?

Share this post


Link to post

@Limetech can this please be scheduled as one of the first items for the 6.4 dev series of unraid?

 

Is this the absolute number one feature to add to unRAID, such that the market would explode with new users if only we added IPv6 support?

Share this post


Link to post

@Limetech can this please be scheduled as one of the first items for the 6.4 dev series of unraid?

 

Is this the absolute number one feature to add to unRAID, such that the market would explode with new users if only we added IPv6 support?

No, but the longer it is put off, the more issues will crop up that require workarounds.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the general answer is still going to involve testing it against the existing configuration. It will probably also require rewriting portions of the network scripts to support IPv6, including all of the Docker scripts for network forwarding, unless that's already supported upstream in Docker itself.

Share this post


Link to post

Those of us in the USA don't understand the need. But in China, where I am about half time, you see the limitations of CG Nat and other schemes to extend ipv4. Ugly ugly...

 

 

 

via Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this request due to an update to Emby Beta requiring IPV6 to function.

 

Emby is currently planning to fix this issue by (likely) adjusting their Docker release for UnRAID back to assigning a socket using IPv4.

This is unfortunate considering they just made changes to their packages, which was for 10 or so Linux distro's, and the only one that had this issue reported was me trying to use this on UnRAID (I also now realize this request/thread was started by an Emby dev 1.5 years ago).

In my (admittedly) limited research, IPv6 was formalized in 1998, included in Linux kernel 2.2 (experimental), and removed from experimental status as of 2.6 and has been included since.

 

So, what needs to be done to support this?

It's not exactly going away.  :P

Share this post


Link to post

This will require IPv6 support throughout the user interface, not just compiling in kernel support.

Share this post


Link to post

We've been asking for IPv6 for a while now (even as an unsupported module that power users and tinkerers can plugin and play with) with out traction. That said IPv6 is supported by Docker upstream for a while now.

 

Share this post


Link to post

It is odd that this is not supported. I've had some issues with OpenVPN and a server pushing ipv6 options to my unraid docker causing OpenVPN client to crash when trying to set ipv6 options on the tun adapter.

 

The tl;dr is, this is an issue but it can be fixed by telling OpenVPN to filter the following options by adding the following config to the config file.

pull-filter ignore "route-ipv6 "
pull-filter ignore "ifconfig-ipv6 "

Share this post


Link to post

@Limetech can this please be scheduled as one of the first items for the 6.4 dev series of unraid? It's been requested for nearly 2 years now. I think it's time it gets on the list for the next series.

Share this post


Link to post

@Limetech can this please be scheduled as one of the first items for the 6.4 dev series of unraid? It's been requested for nearly 2 years now. I think it's time it gets on the list for the next series.

+1

Share this post


Link to post

There is more to this than just enabling it in the kernel.  We have ipv6 support on the roadmap, but it is still not a priority item.  I don't understand why so many folks are so adamant about this right now.  I can't even name a single person I've met in my professional life that makes use of ipv6 in their home or office environments.  I realize that it would be convenient for some community developers / advanced users, but what these folks don't consider is the amount of effort that we would have to put into officially supporting this.  Making this seem like a no-brainer / critical component for the advancement of unRAID is the only way to get us to prioritize it.  Show us what you cannot do today that ipv6 will enable you to do and how that feature/function will substantially improve the product for all who use it.  That is the best way to get our attention and get the feature prioritized for inclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, jonp said:

Show us what you cannot do today that ipv6 will enable you to do and how that feature/function will substantially improve the product for all who use it. 

 

In my case, the router that I have doesn't support port forwarding by default since it's all about IPv6 - I have to get my ISP to roll back the firmware to a previous version which exclusively supports IPv4 each time it updates

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, jonp said:

There is more to this than just enabling it in the kernel.  We have ipv6 support on the roadmap, but it is still not a priority item.  I don't understand why so many folks are so adamant about this right now.  I can't even name a single person I've met in my professional life that makes use of ipv6 in their home or office environments.  I realize that it would be convenient for some community developers / advanced users, but what these folks don't consider is the amount of effort that we would have to put into officially supporting this.  Making this seem like a no-brainer / critical component for the advancement of unRAID is the only way to get us to prioritize it.  Show us what you cannot do today that ipv6 will enable you to do and how that feature/function will substantially improve the product for all who use it.  That is the best way to get our attention and get the feature prioritized for inclusion.

 

Reasons for ipv6:

  • Makes several of the apps mentioned here function correctly.
  • Gives a predictable unchanging address (useful for intermittent connections or ones that lack ipv4 DHCP, I actually have used it for this.)
  • Ability for true end to end connections without NAT garbage.
  • Various security improvements.
  • Numerous ISPs already support this technology for customer use.
  • Some customers do not have ipv4 NAT available.

 

Here's a list of reasons why staff should just relent and put it in sooner rather than later:

  • Customers are asking for it.
  • Customers need it for certain stuff to function.
  • It's already fully supported (as far as I know) in Slackware.
  • You will eventually have to put it in anyway.
  • The amount of effort that goes into supporting it argument looks like total baloney. You guys are honestly worried about editing the scripts, UI and etc...???

Ultimately you cannot believe why people are so adamant for ipv6? Because right now I think ipv6 has been available for around 10 years, pretty much every other operating system supports it, ipv4 exhaustion has already started etc... The real question here isn't why do we desperately want it, it is why is the unraid team seemingly desperate to avoid putting it in. ipv6 is effectively the standard now.
 

Want a happy medium for now? Just make ipv6 available, those who want it can turn it on manually and configure it manually via the terminal.

Share this post


Link to post

Admittedly I'm likely to fall into your developer/advance user cagetories, and have some peculiar things I'm trying to do.

I have 2 connections, and I balance them with primary ipv4 on one and primary ipv6 on the other, with the alternate lines acting as backup for each.  Utilising IPv6 on the unRAID server gives me ability to use both lines more readily.

 

I've dual stack IPv4+IPv6 at home currently on all equipment possible, but would like to progress towards IPv6 only.  This has been covered as being done already by a bunch of companies within the Internet industry at various events such as UKNOF, NANOG etc.

Most large UK providers offer native IPv6 to all of their consumer connections nowadays so it's available for the majority of consumers who won't even necessarily know they're using IPv6 for a lot of things already.  As IPv4 addresses get more expensive, the trend will be to either bury connections in more layers of NAT or use native IPv6 for true end to end connectivity.  The double layers of IPv4 NAT involved in going from the internet to my docker applications isn't ideal.

 

As a compromise, how about enabling it in the kernel as a module, then if you really don't want it firing up to unwary folks, blacklist the module from loading which would suffice to protect those that don't want/know about it and those of us wanting IPv6 could simply unblacklist and configure manually as we need, rather than having to go through the hassle of building our own kernels each time unRAID kernel version bumps, purely to enable the IPv6 module.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm getting deja-vu. This discussion is progressing in much the same way as the migration from 32 to 64bit a few years ago.

 

Long discussion with no progress until the pitchforks came out.

 

Please consider moving forward sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post

Aterfax, let's try to calm down a bit.  This is a forum discussion.  Statements like these...

 

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

The amount of effort that goes into supporting it argument looks like total baloney. You guys are honestly worried about editing the scripts, UI and etc...???

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

why is the unraid team seemingly desperate to avoid putting it in.

 

...aren't helpful to your cause.  Want to win this debate?  Focus on making your case for something instead of making it about us being against something.

 

And again, let me be clear here:  ipv6 is on our roadmap.

 

The discussion here now is shifting to why it needs to be prioritized.  I would argue that encryption is a far more useful and valuable feature that deserves to be put in front of ipv6 support.  Furthermore, just look at the feature request board and argue for why ipv6 should be #1 above all the rest.  I could name 10 things on that list that are more deserving of prioritization than ipv6.

 

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

ipv6 is effectively the standard now.

 

...really?

 

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

Makes several of the apps mentioned here function correctly.

 

Anecdotal.  If you can cite specific examples of apps that flat out won't work without ipv6 support, I would be interested in reviewing that list.

 

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

Gives a predictable unchanging address (useful for intermittent connections or ones that lack ipv4 DHCP, I actually have used it for this.)

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

Ability for true end to end connections without NAT garbage.

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

Various security improvements.

 

Please provide concrete examples that would apply to unRAID (applications would be best).  Citing general benefits in this manner isn't useful to the discussion.

 

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

Numerous ISPs already support this technology for customer use.

 

This isn't a reason to support the technology.  There are numerous gas stations that have power recharge options for electric cars; doesn't mean that all cars should come with electric motors.

 

7 hours ago, aterfax said:

Some customers do not have ipv4 NAT available.

 

This may be the most reasonable case you've presented, but I don't know how to quantify it.  I have seen someone in this thread state this, but how many are actually affected by it, I don't know.

 

2 hours ago, biwhite said:

As a compromise, how about enabling it in the kernel as a module, then if you really don't want it firing up to unwary folks, blacklist the module from loading which would suffice to protect those that don't want/know about it and those of us wanting IPv6 could simply unblacklist and configure manually as we need, rather than having to go through the hassle of building our own kernels each time unRAID kernel version bumps, purely to enable the IPv6 module.

 

I will take this idea up with the dev team for feedback.  Thank you for the suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, jonp said:

This may be the most reasonable case you've presented, but I don't know how to quantify it.  I have seen someone in this thread state this, but how many are actually affected by it, I don't know.

 

It's hard to be anything but anecdotal in this regard, and I can appreciate that it's difficult to guage where it lies between "it'd be nice to have" and "I can't operate without this" for all users.

 

To elaborate and provide context for my own needs - I have a Virgin Media SuperHub 3 that was provided by my ISP, which is the standard model given out to new customers, as well as free of charge to existing customers that either ask for one, or opt into packages above 240Mbps, as their previous generation can't handle more than that. Currently, it's possible to get the firmware rolled back to a version that supported NAT and didn't have IPv6 support as I mentioned previously, but as that specific router is plagued by the latency issue with the Intel Puma 6 SoC, as well as any other based on the same chip, I imagine that rolling back won't be an option beyond a certain point

 

Good to have a concrete confirmation that it's on the roadmap, at least

Edited by Kelarik
Fixing typo

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Kelarik said:

 

It's hard to be anything but anecdotal in this regard, and I can appreciate that it's difficult to guage where it lies between "it'd be nice to have" and "I can't operate without this" for all users.

 

That is the crux of this whole discussion.  ipv6 support doesn't really enable us to do anything with the OS that we couldn't do before (or at least that is our impression at the current moment).  Again, we are purely looking for someone to show us what enabling ipv6 will enable them to do that they can't do today.  For users that have no option for ipv4 support in their equipment, well, that is honestly surprising to hear.  Maybe in certain areas around the world, that's happening faster than here in the US, because I haven't seen any provider here move to 100% ipv6 support only.  But that might be because we own the majority of ipv4 addresses in the US (the US DoD alone has 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them; no, that's not an exaggerated figure).

 

So if the case is "we're seeing a dramatic increase in the abandoning of ipv4 by Internet service providers in consumer and business markets across the globe, so supporting ipv6 in unRAID is a requirement for customers in those scenarios," then you have a case, but only if those providers also abandon it for local NAT purposes as well.  If CPE (customer premise equipment) can't support unRAID because unRAID lacks ipv6 support, that is a problem we absolutely care about.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.