Does the RV180W support DHCPv6-PD?

[RobertHessenauer]

Hopefully a simple question.  Comcast has indicated that this is required for IPv6 to work, and since it means gatting a /64 address space for my network I am understandably eager to tak advantage of this new functionality when it is available in my area.

Thanks,

Robert Hessenauer                  

[Tom Watts]

Hi Richard and Robert, as my previous post indicated, I did speak with Richard about the IPV6, namely the DHCPV6-PD. This feature is unsupported at this time. The router does not support the -PD extension.

The product documentation, it is complete and accruate, as it does support dynamic IPV6 on the WAN. It is also accurate, that you may assign a /64 bit for the LAN. However, this proposes a challenge, when the dynamic WAN changes, how to update the LAN in an efficient manner.

Richard, per our conversation, I will make a feature request to have the router support DHCPV6-PD. To my knowledge, the RFC does not state DHCPV6-PD is mandatory. However, if a major ISP deployment will require this functionality, I would imagine it may become a mandatory extension to support. However, since it is an emerging technology and not widely deployed, at this time it is not mandated on the RFC.

I hope this helps your inquiry.

Regards,

-Tom
Please rate helpful posts

[RobertHessenauer]

Tom,

Thank you for taking ownership and getting on the line with Richard.  It is my understanding that he works on the ISP side of the house, and therefore can help with explaining what is going on from that side of the interface.  As I have stated earlier in this string, I included several Linksys Home series routers that have been reported by Comcast customers across the US as supporting the DHCPv6-PD fully.  If this listing is helpful as a starting point for obtaining the code necessary, then at least I have contributed more than a question and some complaints.

In any event, I look forward to working with both you and Richard in the future to see this feature implemented (and yes that means I volunteer to help beta test if helpful).

Thanks again for taking ownership and getting the confusion cleared up.

Robert Hessenauer

Richard - Thanks for giving the insight from the headend side of the equation and helping with this issue, you ROCK!

[greenall]

Glad to be of help.

Richard

[greenall]

Robert

     Enhancement request received and refused in less than 3 hours.

      I'll probably be returning mine.  

       'Nuff said

Richard

[greenall]

I should correct that.  Email said "currently no plans to support dhcpv6-pd".  Maybe they will, but its not in the roadmap

[RobertHessenauer]

Richard,

I have passed the return period for my devices, so I guess I am stuck with them - I doubt that Cisco will buy back and replace these devices with ones that have ALL the features (VPN, Wireless N, WDS, AND DHCPv6-PD) even though I would gladly pay the differential from the $400 that I already have invested in these 2 devices. I do find this troubling that there is support in a number of the Linksys Home devices, but not in the Small Busines Series. I know that these are Linux devices across the board, so "borrowing" the code from devices that are proven to work should be a minimal retrofit (I am a Network Admin, DBA, and Programmer for hire - so I know it happens all the time.

Thanks for joining in and trying to get this resolved, if Cisco doesn't step up to the plate it will be the last purchase I will be making or recommending to any of my clients in the future - even D-Link has this support baked into their products, I (until now) have remained steadfastly loyal to Cisco as the cover the entire spectrum from Home to Enterprise class devices.

Good luck to you in your return efforts.

Robert Hessenauer

[RobertHessenauer]

Richard,

This may be totally out of left field, but since I have a Windows Server on
the inside of the RV180W, is there any way that I can forward the LAN side
information to this server to handle the Internal Addressing and DHCPv6 of the
LAN side?

Just a thought,

Bob

[greenall]

Bob.

    Not really..  that won't work.

    what I am thinking of doing is running another router that is capable of handling dhcpv6-pd in parallel with the rv180w to handle just the ipv6 traffic.   I'm stuck in much the same boat as you.   I'm loathe to give up the rv180w because i really need the ipsec vpn tunnelling capability  and it works well in this router.  

Rich

[RobertHessenauer]

Thomas,

In my efforts to find a workaround I came across the following information that (I have been told by a CNE) shows PD IS part of the RFC

The terminology used in RFC 3633 ["IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6"] indicates this: the client requesting an IPv6 prefix is called the "requesting router", and the server which leases the IPv6 prefix is termed the "delegating router". 

                     With this in mind I ask that the request for this feature (which as I have previously stated, exists in your HOME equipment) be added to this new equipment.  I cannot return my 2 devices as we have gone outside of the return policy, nor do I wish to spend another $400-$600 getting new hardware that MIGHT have these features. The urgency for my request is due to the fact that Comcast is one of the largest Cable ISPs in the nation and they are committed to a nationwide rollout of IPv6 by mid 2013. 

The devices I mentioned earlier (that HAVE DHCPv6-PD) are all in use, working correctly, and verified by Comcast customers from Seattle to Philly.

If it would be helpful, I am willing to talk to someone further up the food chain to help facilitate either a resolution through feature addition, or a poossible hardware swap-out at reasonable upcharge (the 2 RV180Ws in question are less than 2 months old, but only useful as a matched pair - and bought under the recommendation of Cisco Small Business Sales as I knew that this feature was going to be needed in addition to VPN, WDS, Wireless N, etc.). 

Whatever will help, just let me know...

 Robert Hessenauer

[Tom Watts]

DHCPV6-PD is not mandatory for implementation

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt

The listed RFC 3633 is the guideline for the DHCPV6-PD and would be pertinent if the router supports the feature and deviates from the behavior.

FYI, there was a report filed to provide visibility for engineering.

CSCuc89348

-Tom
Please rate helpful posts

[RobertHessenauer]

Tom,

Just so the engineers are aware that this is not a small or liited implementation, here is the latest update from Comcast's IPv6 Blog (http://www.comcast6.net/ )

Deployment Update

Details

Published on Tuesday, October 23, 2012

IPv6 has been launched on all Arris DOCSIS 3.0 C4 CMTSes, covering over 50% our network.  We are targeting completion of the rest of the network by mid-2013. Our progress has led to nearly 2.5% of our Xfinity Internet customers  actively using native dual stack. Additionally, IPv6 traffic has increased 375% since World IPv6 Day in June 2011.  Following World IPv6 Launch in June 2012 Comcast also observed that approximately 6% of the 2012 Olympics served over YouTube to Comcast customers was over IPv6.

With the market share and business adoption that Comcast serves, it would a good business decision to get this feature out to the SB community as sooon as possible.  Additionally, I have indicated the Home devices where you already have this successfully implemented-good programmers write code, GREAT programmers steal code (just ask Bill Gates !/4.5.4/images/emoticons/wink.gif|_mce_src=/4.5.4/images/tiny_mce3/plugins/jiveemoticons/images/spacer.gif|___jive_emoticon_name=wink|jivemacro=emoticon|class=jive_macro jive_emote|src=/4.5.4/images/emoticons/wink.gif|mce_src=/4.5.4/images/emoticons/wink.gif!).

Here's  hoping that the engineers are the great programmers they have shown themselves to be already and take what works to retrofit into this device. 

Thanks again for all your help and continued communicaation - your dedication and ownership of this issue are a testament to your fellow engineers,

Robert Hessenauer

[Tom Watts]

Hi Rob, I sent Richard an email late last night with some info. Me, personally, I see there is a point here. The first step has been completed by creating a report to give visibility to engineering. Also, on the behind-the-scenes, I provided Richard a contact that may give the cause a push along.

Obviously this does not insinuate anything will happen. However, from a front-end view, we made a push to get visibility and a few whispers to see if there may be some progression in the future.

Unfortunately, that is all my ability is limited to. However, hopefully, the bit of extra effort will help out the idea.

-Tom
Please rate helpful posts

[greenall]

I agree Tom.  I was a tad more pessimistic than I should have been.   My bad..   We do greatly appreciate your help in pushing this.

Robert.  The fat lady hasn't quite started singing on this one quite yet thankfully.

Rich

[RobertHessenauer]

Tom,

Thanks for the update.  As I previously posted, Comcast is expecting 100% completion by 2Q2013, so this is a potentially HUGE market of Small Businesses and SOHOs that would be forced to look elsewhere for hardware.  I figured giving you links to the information it could eventually filter up and nothing spurs development more than potential lost revenue.  Thanks for continuing to ride this one in as we all see the benefits.

Richard - I agree, and have not yet given up hope on this. You come at the issue from the headend, and I exist in the SB and SOHO setup side of things.  I think it is just a matter of Engineering and Sales realizing the potential of lost $$ to their competitors.

No large women singing here yet...

Robert Hessenauer

[Denver_Tuska]

Tom,

Is this the correct bug ID? CSCuc89348  I would like to keep en eye on it.

Chris Tuska

Comcast Network Engineer, IPv6 Project