Unable to connect to a single IPv6 host

jm7
jm7 Posts: 2 Spectator
edited September 12 in Internet 2023 Archive

I am unable to connect to a single IPv6 system. It is up. I can ping it from numerous looking glass services like https://lg.he.net/ so it seems to be just here. To compound my confusion I can access ipv6.google.com, and numerous other ipv6 sites; it seems to be just this one as far as I can tell.

Is anyone else with IPv6 enabled able to reach this system via spectrum service? If the answer is no and there really may be a problem outside my house how do I reach someone at Spectrum with enough skill to look into resolving the problem?


$ ping -c 3 -6 pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com

PING pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com(2610:160:11:18::207) 56 data bytes


--- pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com ping statistics ---

3 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2027ms




With an IPv6 traceroute things seem to stop at ae-11.edge5.WashintonDC12.Level3.net. In the IPv4 trace below it proceeds onto a Dalas L3 system.


$ traceroute6 pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com

traceroute to pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com (2610:160:11:18::207), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets

 1 router.montleon.net (2603:6080:9601:9300:92ec:77ff:fe34:d2d8) 3.585 ms 3.468 ms 3.374 ms

 2 * * *

 3 lag-54.grnrnc0711h.netops.charter.com (2606:a000:0:4::8:1a8) 81.706 ms 81.658 ms 81.579 ms

 4 * * *

 5 * * *

 6 lag-15.asbnva1611w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (2001:1998:0:8::14) 26.665 ms lag-12.asbnva1611w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (2001:1998:0:8::100) 33.332 ms *

 7 lag-32.vinnva0510w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (2001:1998:56::8f) 33.127 ms lag-22.vinnva0510w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (2001:1998:0:4::57a) 21.624 ms lag-32.vinnva0510w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (2001:1998:56::8f) 23.610 ms

 8 ae-11.edge5.WashintonDC12.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:3::769) 27.474 ms 23.528 ms 29.860 ms



Traceroute via IPv4 makes it to what looks like their colocation firewall just fine

$ traceroute pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com

traceroute to pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com (208.123.73.207), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets

 1 _gateway (192.168.15.1) 3.628 ms 3.432 ms 3.282 ms

 2 066-026-064-001.inf.spectrum.com (66.26.64.1) 25.084 ms 25.010 ms 24.939 ms

 3 lag-54.grnrnc0711h.netops.charter.com (174.111.103.36) 42.478 ms 42.408 ms 42.337 ms

 4 lag-24.drhmncev02r.netops.charter.com (24.25.62.132) 24.771 ms 24.701 ms 24.628 ms

 5 lag-31.rcr01drhmncev.netops.charter.com (24.93.64.184) 24.557 ms 24.487 ms 24.412 ms

 6 lag-415.asbnva1611w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (107.14.18.106) 29.866 ms lag-412.asbnva1611w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (66.109.6.224) 25.439 ms lag-15.asbnva1611w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (66.109.6.80) 25.277 ms

 7 lag-12.vinnva0510w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (66.109.6.31) 25.168 ms lag-32.vinnva0510w-bcr00.netops.charter.com (107.14.18.83) 23.755 ms 29.483 ms

 8 ae-11.edge5.WashintonDC12.Level3.net (4.68.37.213) 33.260 ms 29.193 ms 33.064 ms

 9 * * *

10 ZAYO-BANDWI.ear5.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.14.49.2) 67.848 ms 68.947 ms 68.821 ms

11 ae0.aus01-mls-dc-core-b.infr.zcolo.com (64.20.229.166) 67.531 ms 68.637 ms ae0.aus01-mls-dc-core-a.infr.zcolo.com (64.20.229.158) 67.311 ms

12 net66-219-34-198.static-customer.corenap.com (66.219.34.198) 67.204 ms 68.306 ms net66-219-34-194.static-customer.corenap.com (66.219.34.194) 57.981 ms

13 fw1-zcolo.netgate.com (208.123.73.4) 65.737 ms 67.671 ms 67.570 ms


and I can ping the host.

$ ping -c 3 -4 pfsense-plus-pkg00.atx.netgate.com

PING (208.123.73.207) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from 208.123.73.207 (208.123.73.207): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=61.8 ms

64 bytes from 208.123.73.207 (208.123.73.207): icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=61.8 ms

64 bytes from 208.123.73.207 (208.123.73.207): icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=65.3 ms

Best Answer

  • HT_Greenfield
    HT_Greenfield Posts: 539 Contributor
    Answer ✓

    The question was “Is anyone else with IPv6 enabled able to reach this system via spectrum service?” and the answer is “yes” as far as i’m concerned. 

    In answer to your subsequent questions, i can ping6 it, no problem, so give that another try in case something has since changed but i can’t traceroute6 it any better than i can traceroute it which, in either case, is no better than you can. 

    Whatever your bag is and whatever netgate pfSense host it’s with, hit the netgate pfSense IPv6 forum and see if the answer lies within: https://forum.netgate.com/category/46/ipv6

Answers

  • RAIST5150
    RAIST5150 Posts: 918 Contributor
    edited April 26

    Are you using Spectrum's DNS?

    If so, have you tried an alternative?

    Recursive lookups have been a bit funky for a while now... much work still needed across all providers.

    Could simply be stale data returned with the next hop lookup coming from the routeserver in play (HE's gateway selections may differ considerably from what Spectrum's routeserver chooses, same with google, cloudflare, etc.).

    Bad metric entries could be resulting in a stalling/timedout route because things got all out of whack somewhere along the line and the system hasn't updated the entries yet.

    May want to look into how your browser is doing recursive dns lookups... see if you can change to a different provider to see if it can find a better IPv6 route. There is likely a timeout for that secondary query as well, which can prevent a v6 link being used, reverting back to using v4.

  • HT_Greenfield
    HT_Greenfield Posts: 539 Contributor

    I'm able to access that Netgate pfSense HTTP host via Spectrum Internet with no problem at all and i do have IPv6 enabled and working fine but i don't have IPv4 disabled and neither does the host.

  • jm7
    jm7 Posts: 2 Spectator

    I am aware it has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

    So you can ping and successfully run a traceroute to the host by its IPv6 address 2610:160:11:18::207? Saying you have IPv4 enabled as does the server doesn't inspire confidence that you actually tried via IPv6. Pinging it via 208.123.73.207 doesn't help illuminate anything. I can do that too, the output is at the bottom of my post above.

This discussion has been closed.