"Routing Table" Parameter for IPv6 Routes Not in Effect (v7.5)
detail see#4

still not fixed (v7.7)

If something doesn't work for you, it's usually good idea to post more details. Someone might want to try to reproduce it. Or they might point some possible mistake of yours. In any case, if you're looking for any useful feedback, it can't hurt.

I have dual ISP, both NAT6 configed, I want specific website(such aswww.cloudflare.com) use ISP_1 and others use ISP_2

here is my config:


but all traffic go out by PPPoE_ISP_2

same config works fine for ipv4

Hi,

7.8, not corrected. Same use case as the OP. Work great in ipv4, but ipv6 doesn't use a custom route table, just the main one.

7.9 rc3still not work.

Hi,

7.8, not corrected. Same use case as the OP. Work great in ipv4, but ipv6 doesn't use a custom route table, just the main one.

Works great on ipv4............... just sayin

A very similar setup works for me on IPv6... Are the rules hit, so do the counters increase?

我想有更多的规则。你给任何机会your complete firewall ruleset? Chance are that they interact in a way you do not expect.

A very similar setup works for me on IPv6... Are the rules hit, so do the counters increase?

我想有更多的规则。你给任何机会your complete firewall ruleset? Chance are that they interact in a way you do not expect.

yes, i can see counters increase
my filter rules is very simple, accept all
and no other rule in mangle table

Ok, let me test to verify...
That is an address from from provider's prefix. Now we want to route via another gateway:
... and test again:
So it does work and something is missing or wrong with your configuration. I have this:
Perhaps you need to adopt that for your case?

So it does work and something is missing or wrong with your configuration. I have this:

Code:Select all

/routing/rule/add action=lookup-only-in-table routing-mark=via-vpn table=via-vpn

Perhaps you need to adopt that for your case?

This one make my config works!
Thank you so much for your help!

Great, so have fun!

Wondering why this is required for IPv6 though, but IPv4 works without.

Great, so have fun!

Wondering why this is required for IPv6 though, but IPv4 works without.

Thx you, I had the same problem.

It would be better when this was the same in IPv4 as it is now in IPv6. You can then put the rule at a desired place in a list of rules, so you can define the priority of routing marks.

I'm not sure if this thread should be marked as solved yet. The routing rule works, yes, but it's at best a workaround.
ipv6 policy routing should be configured exactly the way it is done with v4, without the need of adding any additional rules.
Since this is still not fixed in 7.10betaX, has anyone reported this problem using the official channels?
btw, thanks eworm for sharing how to get it working! In my case, I additionally needed to add all source networks to the custom routing table for it to work.

Well, routing rules are always a bit troublesome. One would want either a "destination is connected route" matcher in routing rules (so one can lookup in main table) or even better some feature to "automatically copy connected routes to this table" in routing tables.
我明白using the "VRF" feature provides this, but as a whole it is too inflexible for me to use. I do not want services to be available in only a single VRF.
When the behavior of routing mark is the same for IPv4 and IPv6 (which it should be), I prefer the behavior as it is now for IPv6. But of course that will have to be clearly announced when implemented.
(well, there already are several changes in this area so anyone using the policy routing feature and is tracking v7 releases already is well aware that they have to be careful when upgrading)