@ChristianEb: Thank you, you’re really warming up to us! Not cynically, but meant to be praiseworthy! What does the debug instruction do on the Cisco router? Generate more V6 traffic for analysis or generate more debug information for the Cisco frontend so that you can possibly do without the WAN analysis?

😉

Beautiful Aabig öi all!

🙋🏻‍♂️

Dear community! I spent a morning now tapping and looking at the WAN traffic from my Fritz!Box. By the way, I tried back and forth again with my V6 settings, tried to find out which setting caused which difference and tried to understand how DHCPv6 in ([rfc8415](https ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8415)) works. I’m not saying I’ve understood every option now. I definitely had the impression that the process was absolutely correct. The difference between Native V4 and Native V6 is definitely the order of whether V4 or V6 is negotiated first. My procedure is this:

1. IPv6 settings checked/changed. 2. The Fritzbox support pages opened (bottom left: content, then middle bottom: Fritz!Box support)
2. Packet sniffing switched on for the WAN port. 4. Press the [Resynchronize DSL connection] button. 5. Waited a few minutes. 6. Packet sniffing disabled for the WAN port. This generates a Wireshark compatible.ETH file. 7. Opened the file with Wireshark Portable and filtered it. The connection setup looks like this:

There are a few other DHCPv6 requests happening. First in 2.5s intervals, later in larger intervals (₁.5min). The switch to longer intervals happens after the missing response from the DHCPv6 server is logged in System/Events:

The theory would actually expect an RA (ADVERTISE) package here. For the sake of completeness, you can get the anonymized DHCPv6 package here:

Frame 12194: 185 bytes on wire (1480 bits), 185 bytes captured (1480 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: AVMAudio_23:a4:f8 (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff), Dst: IPv6mcast_01:00:02 (33:33:00:01:00:02)
Internet Protocol Version 6, Src: fe80::wwww:xxxx:yyyy:zzzz, Dst: ff02::1:2
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: 546, Dst Port: 547
DHCPv6
    Message type: Solicit (1)
    Transaction ID: 0x114267
    Elapsed time
        Option: Elapsed time (8)
        Length: 2
        Elapsed time: 1070ms
    Client identifier
        Option: Client Identifier (1)
        Length: 10
        DUID: 000300015c497923a4f8
        DUID Type: link-layer address (3)
        Hardware type: Ethernet (1)
        Link layer address: aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff
    Rapid commit
        Option: Rapid Commit (14)
        Length: 0
    Identity Association for Non-temporary Address
        Option: Identity Association for Non-temporary Address (3)
        Length: 12
        IAID: 7923a4f8
        T1: 0
        T2: 0
    Identity Association for Prefix Delegation
        Option: Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (25)
        Length: 41
        IAID: 7923a4f8
        T1: 0
        T2: 0
        IA prefix
            Option: IA Prefix (26)
            Length: 25
            Preferred lifetime: 0
            Valid lifetime: 0
            Prefix length: 0
            Prefix address:::
    Reconfigure Accept
        Option: Reconfigure Accept (20)
        Length: 0
    Request option
        Option: Option Request (6)
        Length: 18
        Requested Option code: DNS recursive name server (23)
        Requested Option code: NTP Server (56)
        Requested Option code: Simple Network Time Protocol Server (31)
        Requested Option code: Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (25)
        Requested Option code: Identity Association for Non-temporary Address (3)
        Requested Option code: Vendor-specific Information (17)
        Requested option code: SOL_MAX_RT (82)
        Requested option code: INF_MAX_RT (83)
        Requested Option code: PCP Server (86)
    Vendor Class
        Option: Vendor Class (16)
        Length: 4
        Enterprise ID: AVM GmbH (872)

I still can’t figure out why I don’t get any router advertisements. I currently have 3 hypotheses for this:

1. There is still a “switch” for V6 on/off, which is on off on my Anschluss. (Ok, ok, I don’t want to join in on the trolling here myself, I’ve heard and read that this doesn’t exist! 😉)

2. A variation of this would be if my Anschluss has not been fully authorized. (https://www.swisscom.ch/access) Opened it, played it through, no problems. (Sure, I also get a V4 address, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do that?) But that would be a possible reason why the RAs were deliberately/intentionally not sent. Otherwise Anschluss V6 could be activated/used on every device. Even if the customer doesn’t pay for internet. 3. My frit still has a nasty configuration error. But I don’t believe it anymore. There aren’t that many options. If you find it in the SOLICIT package recording: Find the one difference. I can’t get any further on my own and need your help. Maybe someone can make this recording for the I-Büxe. I am particularly interested in:

3. The temporal behavior. (How quickly will the ADVERTISE be added to the SOLICIT package?)

4. The differences in content of the SOLICIT package. (I could use them to knock on AVM’s door again.)

I hope I can motivate one or two nerds. But you must have access to the WAN traffic. Either via a media converter or with the magic described above. It could also be a Fritzbox recording from a Anschluss that has already worked with IPv6. Challenge Accepted!?

🙋‍♂️

---

ChristianEb wrote:

Hi @andiroid two questions, am I correct in assuming that you have captured the soucre of your box here in the capture? (Since source AVM)

Thank you, @ChristianEb for thinking and encouraging us. You actually don’t find any information on which port you get which information. You have to interpret something. There are three tubes that I can listen to:

The traffic from “1st Internet connection” and “Interface 0” is identical. The DHCPv4 traffic is also visible and should under no circumstances appear on the LAN ports.

By the way, the “routing interface” is pure IP traffic, I haven’t looked at it yet.

---

@ChristianEb wrote:

So I suspect that the log message is what is expected and what is not coming. I would focus on what you receive from the network and how your box has to use this.

Greetings and have fun crafting

---

Correctly assumed, the log message is also consistent. My focus is exactly where you put it. I can’t get a single V6 package from the network. Zero. Nada. Just “my” SOLICIT inquiries. Hence my confused hypotheses regarding “Schälterli” “Activation” “Proprietary TR-069 communication”. I really don’t want to create a mood, but I actually don’t understand the silence of the routers at this point…

😟

---

Tux0ne wrote:

When you visit www.swisscom.ch/access, is there the blue start page with the Swisscom logo where you can register with the serial number or Swisscom logo? Play through this again.

Thank you too for thinking along. I just did it for the second time. Here comes relatively quickly:

Everything is very strange. 😉

---

ChristianEb wrote:

@andiroid You misunderstood me here, I’m not talking about the port (lan, wan, etc…) I see that it shows that the src of the capture was avm, from my point of view this should be the huawei bng be, this one speaks to you.

Please don’t let me know your ac number via DM, thanks

Yes, not the port. 😉 SRC/DST is all a matter of definition - at least the ip.src and ip.dst from the log files have the “correct” reference arrow:

I don’t see any major blunders yet…

@5018

I can’t imagine that IPv6 native should only work with a Swisscom router or requires activation from a Swisscom router.

I can’t imagine how you come up with that statement without any facts.

1. Peeler.
2. Authorization.
3. Frit configuration.
4. (or another hypothesis that we have not yet developed)

@5018

Small update: I would stop all attempts. Doesn’t do anything. It’s the holidays and I can imagine that the topic will be looked at internally at SC at the beginning of 2023.

Would you like to tell us how you came to this turnaround?

@5018

Since IPv4 works, the 10 FRITZ!Box customers will continue to be able to surf the Internet.

This evening I spent some time thinking about what to do with this statement. Correct. V4 was already working in May when I started this thread. That’s not the point. I want to get V6 working. Since May 2022 and not just at the beginning of 2023. But apparently I’m a little impatient?

I don’t know how their super users work. I’m just a simple engineer who wants to improve the world. Part of my job is to program errors, find them and fix them. And I’m still interested in a win-win situation. Together with my customers.

So and the counter-argument would be:

“It would be nice to hear something relevant from the operator, I’m hardly the only one with a third-party router on the network!? I’ll also do a nice know-how article - like that in return / win-win situation. ”

You can forget about the deal, Swisscom understandably does not provide support for third-party routers.

It is foreign to me to change your worldview here. Mine has changed a lot over the course of this discussion/thread. Maybe I didn’t always write the right words. Was tendentious or impatient. However, tonight I am one step further away from a cemented attitude towards knowledge, insight, progress. (Goes to bed shaking his head.)

I hope we can focus on the technical topics again tomorrow.

Goodnight community.

---

@wwe wrote:

but the Wireshark trace showed an exciting difference: the first solicitation without RC got an advertisement from the DHCP server (but FB didn’t use it) and further solicitations are not successful (probably because the DHCP server thinks - “it already has everything, leave me alone”).

@wwe: Thanks for the info! 🤩If you like, you can copy/send the SOLICIT request(s) to me in a PM. I would like to look at them and examine them for differences. Or just post it here anonymously, as I did. Then we find out:

• Whether the frit sent a different DHCP request due to a different configuration.
• Or whether the backend behaved differently.

I think we’re getting further in this puzzle game step by step.

Goodnight.

🙋‍♂️