Linksys WET-54G not IPv6 capable

I just discovered that mtr has some problems with IPv6 enabled hosts when using the GUI. Try the following:

1) enter “mtr ipv6-host” in shell -> works
2) enter then an IPv4 only host in Hostname input line -> doesn’t work

3) quit mtr

4) enter “mtr ipv4-host” in shell -> works
5) enter then an IPv6 enabled host in Hostname input line -> tracing IPv4 part of IPv6 enabled host

So, something is broken, at least for 2). One could argue if 5) might be OK or the expected behaviour, but I believe that mtr should query the AAAA records and trace for the IPv6 hostname, regardless of whether you started with an IPv4 only host first.

Is there already someone tracking IPv6 related bugs in Debian? A tag in BTS maybe? Anyway, the above is reported as #521415.

UPDATE: added blog title ­čśë


8 thoughts on “Linksys WET-54G not IPv6 capable

  1. FYI, I have the WET200 which is advertised as “Business bridge” and it doesn't seem to handle IPv6 either.

  2. Uhm?! Ok, I can understand that IPv6 is not top priority for consumer products, but I would *expect* IPv6 compliance in business products.

    So, after all Linksys says: don't buy our products!
    Well, next time I'll follow their recommendation and choose another vendor… ­čśë

  3. The only “consumer” level wireless access point I've actually had success with is Apple's Airport Extreme.

    Be it Linksys, Netgear, Netcomm, or D-Link (brands I can recall trying), I've had numerous issues from freezing and requiring a power cycle (some of them still let you into the web interface via ethernet, but rebooting there doesn't help), nonsensical dropping of packets when in bridge mode (certain hosts on the same subnet inaccessible, DHCP not forwarding). These issues reproduce at multiple locations on different network architectures.

    Enough's enough. Sure the Airport doesn't have a web interface (you use their closed source software for Mac and Windows), but I haven't had their gear fail yet.

    Picking individual models to deploy may work but what then when they change chipsets behind your back or discontinue the model? I've had a very similar issue to this post with Netgear products (multiple models). It's a culture issue within the company. If a company doesn't have decent quality control on [some of] their products, I don't want any of them.

  4. Well, the WET-54G works quite well – for IPv4 that is. So I can't complain. As I have neither OSX nor Windows I won't be able to use Airpot Extreme then.
    I think another low cost solution would be to operate a WRT-54G with OpenWRT or DD-WRT in client mode as a bridge. But I haven't tested this yet. As far I could remember, my old laptop wasn't able to bridge with the Atheros PCMCIA card, though…

    My choice for a higher priced hardware vendor would be Lancom, but I wasn't able to get experience with those boxes yet…

    For those companies that are ignoring Linux for support I think it's a mistake. Usually those guys with those Linux boxes are the people for are being asked by other people what hardware to buy. So they are multipliers in some kind. A company will not only loose one (Linux) customer, but a whole bunch of Linux, Windows, OSX customers in the end…

  5. Regarding ignoring Linux, I completely agree. They are losing far more than just the immediate sales. I'm often asked for recommendations on hardware purchases.

    Companies that support Mac, Linux, IPv6, have open source models, etc immediately rank much higher when I'm looking for a vendor, even if it's for use in a Windows desktop environment. You don't know what's going to happen next week.

    I don't know how they are implementing these bridges (consumer gear in general), but how do you screw up layer 3 comms so bad? Sometimes it feels like they are going out of their way to annoy me.

    Anyway, enough preaching to the choir ­čÖé

  6. Could you please elaborate a little bit more on “doesn't seem to handle IPv6 either” ?

    Does that mean, although the WET200 is only in layer 2 bridge mode operation, it drops IPv6 and neighbor discovery packets?


  7. I don't know about the WET200, but my WET54G seems to not be able to forward the neighbor discovery packets. Either that or the Speedport W701V causes this. I might try to test whether the Speedport is guilty with a second WET54G and a WRT54GL. Will try that in the next days…

Comments are closed.