<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Hi all!</p>
<p dir="auto">After 4 months of effort we are very happy to provide a 1st test ISO with IPv6 support in XCP-ng dom0.</p>
<p dir="auto">Read our devblog here: <a href="https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2021/02/09/ipv6-in-xcp-ng/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc">https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2021/02/09/ipv6-in-xcp-ng/</a></p>
<p dir="auto">The ISO is available <a href="https://nextcloud.vates.fr/index.php/s/rPeWaXRFwjQXwZk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc">here</a> and the corresponding SHA is: <code>177eade2efa8b6c989847c970e5cab3e6eb24de5a2eef153a0fc422071f9234b</code>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Keep in mind this is a <strong>test</strong> ISO so do NOT use it in production and please report in this thread if you encounter any issue or if your tests are going well. <img src="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f642.png?v=1d3f495298e" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--slightly_smiling_face" style="height:1.4em;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title=":)" alt="🙂" /></p>
<p dir="auto">The devblog contains the known limitation of the ISO, updates will be provided in this thread when fixes and features are available.</p>
<p dir="auto">I hope you'll have fun with it!</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/4202/ipv6-support-in-xcp-ng-for-the-management-interface-feedback-wanted</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 04:22:45 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/4202.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 09:18:04 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Thu, 25 Jun 2026 07:56:52 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">mid 2026:</p>
<ul>
<li>you can't add a ipv6 address via XOA (XOA5) because the gui lacs the field for the v6 gateway-address</li>
<li>XOA6  lacks feature to configure ips of the host</li>
<li>the configuration of ipv6 (static) vie the "gui" on the host seems not be implemented yet (or i am missing something critical)</li>
<li>command line configuration inside dom0 of the host is afaik not supported ?</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Some point looks like minor issues. it would be great to "address" <em>pun intendet</em> that as well</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/106415</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/106415</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jacob.becker]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 07:56:52 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:41:43 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/psafont" aria-label="Profile: psafont">@<bdi>psafont</bdi></a> Sounds good on point #1.  On point #2 I agree LLA shouldn't be the primary management IPv6 address on the interface, but you <em>could</em> run into trouble by not having a LLA address assigned at all.  All of the IPv6 standards assume a LLA is assigned to an interface running IPv6 for things like NDP or RA to work ergo mysterious things could break as a result of an LLA address not being assigned.</p>
<p dir="auto">Just spitballing here, but if you're concerned that only an LLA would be assigned to an interface then perhaps there could be logic to disable IPv6 for said management interface if no non-LLA address is assigned, or IPv4 could be preferred if only LLA addresses as assigned?</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98247</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98247</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[bnerickson]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:41:43 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:02:17 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/bnerickson" aria-label="Profile: bnerickson">@<bdi>bnerickson</bdi></a><br />
About 1, That's something that I'd like to support in the future, but it will take some time to get there. About 2, currently LLAs are not allowed to be the used as the management IPs, and I wouldn't like them to be used as such: it can lead to hosts not being to connect to one another if they're not in the same physical network. They still could be configured for the interfaces and shown to the user, but not as the only IP for the interface, or the main one for that matter.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98164</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98164</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[psafont]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:02:17 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Sun, 05 Oct 2025 08:00:43 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Question for <a class="plugin-mentions-group plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/groups/team-xapi-network" aria-label="Profile: Team-XAPI-Network">@<bdi>Team-XAPI-Network</bdi></a></p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98128</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98128</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[olivierlambert]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2025 08:00:43 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Sun, 05 Oct 2025 04:23:31 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">RE: <a href="https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2021/02/09/ipv6-in-xcp-ng/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc">https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2021/02/09/ipv6-in-xcp-ng/</a></p>
<p dir="auto">Couple questions regarding future IPv6 support:</p>
<ol>
<li>Is it currently on the docket to support multiple IPv6 addresses on the management interface?  In my environment I use a ULA (Unique-Local Address) and GUA (Globally-Unique Address) for private and public access respectively on all of my servers.  I would personally be OK if this supported via static assignments initially, but at present it appears only one address may be assigned.  Multiple IPv6 addresses should be supported per-interface regardless because...</li>
<li>There is no LLA (Link-Local Address) address assigned to the management interface which violates some IPv6 RFC and will be required for SLAAC in the future.  Are there plans or a bug filed to correct this issue?</li>
</ol>
<p dir="auto">Per <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291:" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291:</a></p>
<p dir="auto">"All interfaces are required to have at least one Link-Local unicast address (see Section 2.8 for additional required addresses).  A single interface may also have multiple IPv6 addresses of any type (unicast, anycast, and multicast) or scope.  Unicast addresses with a scope greater than link-scope are not needed for interfaces that are not used as the origin or destination of any IPv6 packets to or from non-neighbors."</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98121</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/98121</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[bnerickson]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2025 04:23:31 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:11:23 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/benjireis" aria-label="Profile: BenjiReis">@<bdi>BenjiReis</bdi></a> I've finally taken the time to review this again now that I've updated to 8.3-rc1 via <code>yum update</code>, so here's some follow-up on the points I brought up previously:</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">There is no way to configure IPv6 on the management interface via xsconsole, such as if one wants to switch between static configuration, autoconf via RAs, or DHCPv6.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">True but we'll soon release an new version of xsconsole adapted for IPV6 allowing to configure IPv6 for management interface <img src="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f44d.png?v=1d3f495298e" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--+1" style="height:1.4em;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title=":+1:" alt="👍" /></p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">There is apparently no support for IPv6 DNS servers, only IPv4. For example, if I try to add an IPv6 address like fd00::1 or [fd00::1] as a DNS server via xsconsole, there is apparently no change to the configuration. Editing /etc/resolv.conf works to achieve this (e.g. adding the line nameserver fd00::1), but this is known not to persist across reboots.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Should be solved by the future xsconsole release as well <img src="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f642.png?v=1d3f495298e" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--slightly_smiling_face" style="height:1.4em;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title=":)" alt="🙂" /></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Still not seeing any enhancements/changes in behaviour as of xsconsole 11.0.6-1.1.xcpng8.3.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">There is apparently no support for RDNSS (advertisement of DNS servers in RAs rather than via DHCPv6).</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">DHCPv6 is one of the major blindspot for now indeed, I'm working on it but I don't have much knowledge on this so any hints are welcome if you spot if something is missing somewhere.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Just to clarify, this isn't related to DHCPv6, but RAs (Router Advertisement packets). I personally don't have a DHCPv6 server on my network at all. RDNSS is described in RFC8106.</p>
<p dir="auto">Others may want to advertise DNS servers using DHCPv6, though, so that should still be tested as well.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">The "autoconf" option (available during installation, after choosing IPv6-only or dual-stack, and then being asked which mode to use to configure IPv6 addresses) appears to only be used at installation time to determine values such as the gateway's link-local address, the available address prefixes, and perform SLAAC and DAD, but then the resulting values are hard-coded and don't change according to changes in the environment, such as an upstream change in network prefix. (I will need to do some more testing to really confirm this, but this seems to be the case in my experience.) Compare this to when IPv4 is configured to use DHCP(v4), in which the management interface may have a different IPv4 address at different times, namely if it's assigned a different address by the DHCP server when it attempts to get or renew a lease.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I'm not aware of this issue, i'll try to reproduce in our env.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I haven't been able to reproduce this either, and my prefix has changed a couple of times since I said this was an issue. Perhaps I just imagined it, hit a weird edge case, or didn't wait for the valid lifetime of the old prefix to expire; my router doesn't reliably advertise the fact that an old prefix is no longer valid.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Some repos are unreachable in IPv6-only environments, which I'm aware is already known, and I can get around this by using NAT64 (either with CLAT to perform 464XLAT; or with DNS64), but this fact is currently a blocker for me to move to being IPv6-only.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">We contacted the mirrors many times, still trying to have'em all advertising IPv4 and 6 and also trying to find a solution that could "smartly" redirect towards a compatible mirror.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto"><em><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> said in <a href="/forum/post/72107">IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted</a>:</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">FYI, I have finally reviewed all mirrors that provide updates for XCP-ng and disabled the remaining 6 which didn't support IPv6 (and notified their owners. I'll enable them again if they enable IPv6).</p>
<p dir="auto">So, if you experience any issues installing updates via IPv6, tell us so that we investigate faulty mirrors.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I personally haven't had any issues reaching repos since then, but I haven't explicitly tested this or looked through the mirrorlist. I also don't think this is much of an issue in practice, since 464XLAT can be used; this is no longer a blocker from me, as I've reviewed the way I'm deploying IPv6-only. It's very nice to see you motivate / put pressure on mirror maintainers to make their sites accessible over IPv6 though, especially indirectly by simply removing such sites from the mirrorlist.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Speaking of NAT64, this is just a question, I haven't tested or looked into this myself: Does XCP-ng include a CLAT daemon and support for auto-configuring 464XLAT using either the "PREF64" RA option (RFC8781) or resolution of ipv4only.arpa via a DNS64 server (RFC7050)?</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Haven't tested either for now, feel free to do and report if you get here before me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I've got this working pretty easily by manually installing clatd from GitHub and its dependencies from EPEL and the other RHEL repos. It works, but isn't native. That being said, I don't know of any other Linux distros that natively support this yet. To my knowledge, there is ongoing work to implement this directly in Systemd. Clatd supports RFC7050, but doesn't support PREF64/RFC8781 as it's not particualrly feasible for it to do so, but hopefully Systemd is able to if/when it implements a CLAT.</p>
<p dir="auto">This also isn't reliable across reboots / DHCP lease renewals because I have no simple way to disable IPv4 on the management interface. I haven't tried this with an installation where I've selected "IPv6-only" in the installer.</p>
<p dir="auto">One practical issue I've experienced when using 464XLAT in this way is that XO Lite tries to contact the pool server in the frontend / client / web browser using JS fetch calls for URLs falling under <code>https://localhost/</code>, which would instead usually be under <code>https://&lt;pool server IPv4 address&gt;/</code>. These are the addresses that XO Lite will prompt the user to ensure that the browser trusts TLS certificates for if they are self-signed and no known CA has issued/signed them. As such, these don't work, since "localhost" from the XO Lite user's perspective isn't the same machine as the "localhost" that XO Lite is running on. If XO Lite supported making these calls using any of the pool servers' routable IPv6 addresses (e.g. ULAs or GUAs, but not LLAs), this would work just fine.</p>
<p dir="auto">I may find some time to test these things on an "IPv6-only" installation, but I expect that will be after 8.3 has reached general release.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/82484</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/82484</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jivanpal]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:11:23 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:37:03 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> This is the link to it: <a href="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/8459/yum-update-ipv6-issue">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/8459/yum-update-ipv6-issue</a></p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72396</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72396</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[TheFrisianClause]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:37:03 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:10:03 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/thefrisianclause" aria-label="Profile: TheFrisianClause">@<bdi>TheFrisianClause</bdi></a> What's the other thread?</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72386</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72386</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[stormi]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:10:03 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:01:47 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> I have made a different thread, but the reply you posted. Made me feel like I could put my reply here.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72384</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72384</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[TheFrisianClause]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:01:47 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:48:21 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/thefrisianclause" aria-label="Profile: TheFrisianClause">@<bdi>TheFrisianClause</bdi></a> This is not the right thread for your issue. I know it's tempting to think so because of the IPv6 address you see, but your host is not setup to use IPv6 for the management interface, right?</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72382</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72382</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[stormi]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:48:21 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 09:07:09 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a></p>
<p dir="auto">Stil having this issue:</p>
<pre><code class="language-[09:58">Failed to set locale, defaulting to C
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
Excluding mirror: updates.xcp-ng.org
 * xcp-ng-base: mirrors.xcp-ng.org
Excluding mirror: updates.xcp-ng.org
 * xcp-ng-updates: mirrors.xcp-ng.org
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.
http://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/8/8.3/base/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] curl#7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:240:ab08:2::2: Cannot assign requested address"
Trying other mirror.


 One of the configured repositories failed (XCP-ng Base Repository),
 and yum doesn't have enough cached data to continue. At this point the only
 safe thing yum can do is fail. There are a few ways to work "fix" this:

     1. Contact the upstream for the repository and get them to fix the problem.

     2. Reconfigure the baseurl/etc. for the repository, to point to a working
        upstream. This is most often useful if you are using a newer
        distribution release than is supported by the repository (and the
        packages for the previous distribution release still work).

     3. Run the command with the repository temporarily disabled
            yum --disablerepo=xcp-ng-base ...

     4. Disable the repository permanently, so yum won't use it by default. Yum
        will then just ignore the repository until you permanently enable it
        again or use --enablerepo for temporary usage:

            yum-config-manager --disable xcp-ng-base
        or
            subscription-manager repos --disable=xcp-ng-base

     5. Configure the failing repository to be skipped, if it is unavailable.
        Note that yum will try to contact the repo. when it runs most commands,
        so will have to try and fail each time (and thus. yum will be be much
        slower). If it is a very temporary problem though, this is often a nice
        compromise:

            yum-config-manager --save --setopt=xcp-ng-base.skip_if_unavailable=true</code></pre>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72278</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72278</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[TheFrisianClause]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2024 09:07:09 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:47:41 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">FYI, I have finally reviewed all mirrors that provide updates for XCP-ng and disabled the remaining 6 which didn't support IPv6 (and notified their owners. I'll enable them again if they enable IPv6).</p>
<p dir="auto">So, if you experience any issues installing updates via IPv6, tell us so that we investigate faulty mirrors.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72107</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72107</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[stormi]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:47:41 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:27:37 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/jivanpal" aria-label="Profile: jivanpal">@<bdi>jivanpal</bdi></a> you wrote in the 8.3 beta thread:</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">There is no way to configure IPv6 on the management interface via xsconsole, such as if one wants to switch between static configuration, autoconf via RAs, or DHCPv6.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">True but we'll soon release an new version of xsconsole adapted for IPV6 allowing to configure IPv6 for management interface <img src="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f44d.png?v=1d3f495298e" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--+1" style="height:1.4em;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title=":+1:" alt="👍" /></p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">There is apparently no support for IPv6 DNS servers, only IPv4. For example, if I try to add an IPv6 address like fd00::1 or [fd00::1] as a DNS server via xsconsole, there is apparently no change to the configuration. Editing /etc/resolv.conf works to achieve this (e.g. adding the line nameserver fd00::1), but this is known not to persist across reboots.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Should be solved by the future xsconsole release as well <img src="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f642.png?v=1d3f495298e" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--slightly_smiling_face" style="height:1.4em;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title=":)" alt="🙂" /></p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">There is apparently no support for RDNSS (advertisement of DNS servers in RAs rather than via DHCPv6).</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">DHCPv6 is one of the major blindspot for now indeed, I'm working on it but I don't have much knowledge on this so any hints are welcome if you spot if something is missing somewhere.</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">The "autoconf" option (available during installation, after choosing IPv6-only or dual-stack, and then being asked which mode to use to configure IPv6 addresses) appears to only be used at installation time to determine values such as the gateway's link-local address, the available address prefixes, and perform SLAAC and DAD, but then the resulting values are hard-coded and don't change according to changes in the environment, such as an upstream change in network prefix. (I will need to do some more testing to really confirm this, but this seems to be the case in my experience.) Compare this to when IPv4 is configured to use DHCP(v4), in which the management interface may have a different IPv4 address at different times, namely if it's assigned a different address by the DHCP server when it attempts to get or renew a lease.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I'm not aware of this issue, i'll try to reproduce in our env.</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Some repos are unreachable in IPv6-only environments, which I'm aware is already known, and I can get around this by using NAT64 (either with CLAT to perform 464XLAT; or with DNS64), but this fact is currently a blocker for me to move to being IPv6-only.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">We contacted the mirrors many times, still trying to have'em all advertising IPv4 and 6 and also trying to find a solution that could "smartly" redirect towards a compatible mirror.</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Speaking of NAT64, this is just a question, I haven't tested or looked into this myself: Does XCP-ng include a CLAT daemon and support for auto-configuring 464XLAT using either the "PREF64" RA option (RFC8781) or resolution of ipv4only.arpa via a DNS64 server (RFC7050)?</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Haven't tested either for now, feel free to do and report if you get here before me.</p>
<p dir="auto">Again, thank you for the report, this is <em>greatly</em> appreciated and any info about what's missing for IPv6 (and perhaps how to achieve it when possible) is welcomed.</p>
<p dir="auto">Regards!</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72056</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72056</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[BenjiReis]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:27:37 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:17:17 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">In order to upgrade an XCP-ng host and put in IPv6 what could be done also:</p>
<ul>
<li>Do the upgrade</li>
<li><code>xe host-management-disable &amp;&amp; xe pif-set-primary-address-type uuid=&lt;udid&gt; primary_address_type=IPv6 ; xe host-management-reconfigure pif-uuid=&lt;uuid&gt;</code></li>
</ul>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72055</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72055</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[BenjiReis]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:17:17 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:36:17 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/jivanpal" aria-label="Profile: jivanpal">@<bdi>jivanpal</bdi></a> It's good that that works but I can see high change for data loss if the installation changes or adjusts the partition size during the install. It could wipe the data and prevent recovery of the SR. That's also not mentioning any local modifications done to the hosts that may be required and have to be redone.</p>
<p dir="auto">As a side note, I don't need to do a migration of the management interface and was just theorizing that it looked possible to do via xAPI without reinstalling based on documentation I was reading. I ran into a situation on one of my lab servers where running an emergency reset broke v6 management interfaces. I just reinstalled but was curious of how one could recover from that state.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72036</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72036</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[lethedata]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:36:17 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:24:21 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> <a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/benjireis" aria-label="Profile: BenjiReis">@<bdi>BenjiReis</bdi></a> I thought I'd document my upgrade process here, as I did a bunch of testing this week on a spare laptop before finally doing it for real last night, and it all went very smoothly in the end. Perhaps all of this can be done by the installer as a user-friendly means of upgrading to add IPv6 support without needing any changes in XAPI:</p>
<ol>
<li>Make note of the current partition table, because it will be wiped and the SR partition will not be recreated during the installation process. Mine was as follows:</li>
</ol>
<pre><code># lsblk /dev/sda
NAME                                                                                              MAJ:MIN RM  SIZE
sda                                                                                                 8:0    0 21.8T  0 disk 
├─sda4                                                                                              8:4    0  512M  0 part /boot/efi
├─sda2                                                                                              8:2    0   18G  0 part 
├─sda5                                                                                              8:5    0    4G  0 part /var/log
├─sda3                                                                                              8:3    0 21.8T  0 part 
│ └─XSLocalEXT--d62dbe0a--b8b8--143f--6f29--3829124d35d4-d62dbe0a--b8b8--143f--6f29--3829124d35d4 253:0    0 21.8T  0 lvm  /run/sr-mount/d62dbe0a-b8b8-143f-6f29-3829124d35d4
├─sda1                                                                                              8:1    0   18G  0 part /
└─sda6                                                                                              8:6    0    1G  0
</code></pre>
<pre><code># gdisk -l /dev/sda

First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 46875541470
Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB)

Number  Start (sector)    End (sector)  Size       Code  Name
   1        46139392        83888127   18.0 GiB    0700  
   2         8390656        46139391   18.0 GiB    0700  
   3        87033856     46875541470   21.8 TiB    8E00  
   4        83888128        84936703   512.0 MiB   EF00  
   5            2048         8390655   4.0 GiB     0700  
   6        84936704        87033855   1024.0 MiB  8200  
</code></pre>
<ol start="2">
<li>
<p dir="auto">Ensure that you have an instance of XO (XenOrchestra) running on a different machine. Use that instance to create a backup of the pool metadata of the machine you'll be adding IPv6 support to.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Install XCP-ng 8.3 from scratch on the machine, overwriting the existing installation.  Ensure that no disks are selected for use as an SR. This will wipe the partition table and create new partitions for the OS, but leave unpartitioned space where the SR partition would otherwise be. Since versions 8.2 and 8.3 use the same partition layout, you should get the same partition sizes, thereby leaving the SR filesystem intact on the disk, but inaccessible. Since you opted not to create an SR partition, the partition numbers will differ slightly. Immediately after installation, mine was as follows:</p>
</li>
</ol>
<pre><code># lsblk /dev/sda
NAME     MAJ:MIN RM  SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda        8:0    0 21.8T  0 disk 
├─sda2     8:2    0   18G  0 part 
├─sda5     8:5    0    4G  0 part /var/log
├─sda3     8:3    0  512M  0 part /boot/efi
├─sda1     8:1    0   18G  0 part /
└─sda6     8:6    0    1G  0 part [SWAP]
</code></pre>
<pre><code># gdisk -l /dev/sda
[...]
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 46875541470
Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB)

Number  Start (sector)    End (sector)  Size       Code  Name
   1        46139392        83888127   18.0 GiB    0700  
   2         8390656        46139391   18.0 GiB    0700  
   3        83888128        84936703   512.0 MiB   EF00  
   5            2048         8390655   4.0 GiB     0700  
   6        84936704        87033855   1024.0 MiB  8200  
</code></pre>
<ol start="4">
<li>
<p dir="auto">Reboot into the new installation, and then recreate the SR partition using <code>gdisk</code>:</p>
<ol>
<li>Run <code>gdisk /dev/sda</code> (or other device node name as appropriate).</li>
<li>Create a new partition by entering <code>n</code>, then use the default values for the start and end sector (these should automatically match those of the SR partition as it appeared in the original partition table prior to reinstallation), and use <code>8e00</code> for the partition type.</li>
<li>Remove the partition label by entering <code>c</code>, then the partition number (should be <code>4</code>), then enter nothing for the name.</li>
<li>Check the new partition table by entering <code>p</code>; the start and end sector values should match those of the original partition table, but the partition numbers may differ.</li>
<li>Write the changes with <code>w</code>, or quit without writing changes with <code>q</code>.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Connect to the new installation using the remote XO instance, then create a new backup of this fresh installation's pool metadata.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Alter the first backup's file <code>data</code> (which is an XML file) as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p dir="auto">In the section <code>&lt;table name="PBD"&gt;</code>, replace the occurrence of the device node path for the SR with the correct path as it would be for the new installation. In particular, the disk's SCSI or other ID may have changed, and the SR partition's number in the partition table has probably changed from 3 to 4. In my case, I had to change it from <code>/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36...fa-part3</code> to <code>/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36...a9-part4</code>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">In the second backup's file <code>data</code>, find the section <code>&lt;table name="PIF"&gt;</code>. Within it, find the <code>&lt;row&gt;</code> pertaining to the management interface. Copy the values of the following <code>&lt;row&gt;</code> attributes, overwriting the corresponding attributes in the first backup's file <code>data</code> with their values, so that the new installation's values for the IPv4- and IPv6-related configuration parameters are used:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>DNS</code></li>
<li><code>IP</code></li>
<li><code>IPv6</code></li>
<li><code>gateway</code></li>
<li><code>ip_cofiguration_mode</code></li>
<li><code>ipv6_configuration_mode</code></li>
<li><code>ipv6_gateway</code></li>
<li><code>netmask</code></li>
<li><code>primary_address_type</code></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Use XO to restore the now-altered first backup to the new installation. It will automatically reboot, and all storage backends, virtual disk metadata, VMs, and VM metadata should be restored and working, along with IPv6 on the management interface.</p>
</li>
</ol>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72030</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/72030</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jivanpal]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:24:21 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:43:00 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/lethedata" aria-label="Profile: lethedata">@<bdi>lethedata</bdi></a> Hi!</p>
<p dir="auto">Yes indeed it's impossible to change the primary address type of the management interface, it's forbidden by design by XAPI for now. Maybe in the future it'll be allowed but before there still some work to do and then it'd need to be discuss with the XAPI dev team.</p>
<p dir="auto">I'll try to find a workaround  and post here if found but i'm not sure there is for now.</p>
<p dir="auto">Regards!</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/71600</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/71600</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[BenjiReis]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:43:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:35:07 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">The only way to enable IPv6 for the management interface is at boot time. It's something that can't be modified afterwards in XAPI.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> Wouldn't it possible to change afterwards by following a similar procedure to replacing an interface card that has the management interface on it? Disable host management, modify PIF with v6 as primary address type (forget/reintroduce/reconfigure), then reset the host management.</p>
<p dir="auto">It's definitely a process but seems possible</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/71572</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/71572</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[lethedata]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:35:07 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:51:16 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> Thanks, my testing in a VM should reveal how to make sure I do this properly.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70081</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70081</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jivanpal]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:51:16 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:47:29 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/jivanpal" aria-label="Profile: jivanpal">@<bdi>jivanpal</bdi></a> There's another gotcha, IIRC: after reinstalling, make sure you attach the SR, not create a new one, because SR creation is destructive.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70079</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70079</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[stormi]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:47:29 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:42:00 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> Thanks for the thorough explanation. I will test whether SR partition on system disk is overwritten by installing and reinstalling XCP-ng on a VM on my laptop.</p>
<p dir="auto">Loss of VM metadata doesn't concern me as I have relatively few VMs and am happy to just recreate these and attach the retained VDIs to them. The only question that remains is whether those VDIs (and some raw/non-sparse VHDs I have that were created by cloning old disks for data recovery tasks) will show up under the Local Storage repo with a simple click of the refresh button in XO, or whether metadata for those also needs to recreated manually.</p>
<p dir="auto">Rest assured that I have backups <img src="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f60a.png?v=1d3f495298e" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--blush" style="height:1.4em;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title="😊" alt="😊" /> I'd obviously just prefer to avoid needing to restore from them as it's time-consuming.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70077</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70077</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jivanpal]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:42:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:25:24 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/jivanpal" aria-label="Profile: jivanpal">@<bdi>jivanpal</bdi></a> The only way to enable IPv6 for the management interface is at boot time. It's something that can't be modified afterwards in XAPI.</p>
<p dir="auto">Reinstalling without overwriting your VM disks is possible. You'd just 1. make sure you have backups, just in case and 2. carefully avoid selecting any disks for local SR creation during installation. Otherwise they would be wiped. I have doubts about what happens when they are on a partition which is on the same disk as the system, though. I'd have to test to be sure.</p>
<p dir="auto">However, this is not a complete solution, because you'd still have your VM disks, but all VM metadata will be gone so you'd have to re-create all VMs one by one and associate the disks to them. There is a way to export and reimport metadata, but here's the catch: the metadata also contain information about the management interface, and restoring them might also overwrite your brand new IPv6 configuration.</p>
<p dir="auto">So, to me, the best would be to export the VMs (VM exports do include VM metadata for the exported VM), reinstall the server, and then reimport the VM.</p>
<p dir="auto">This considering that you only have one server. With more servers, you can use live migration.</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70060</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70060</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[stormi]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:25:24 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Wed, 24 Jan 2024 23:28:35 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/forum/user/stormi" aria-label="Profile: stormi">@<bdi>stormi</bdi></a> Am I required to install version 8.3-beta1 from scratch, rather than upgrading, in order to get the new IPv6 functionality? I just ran the upgrade from 8.2.1, but am not seeing any change, nor was I prompted to choose which IP versions to enable during the upgrade process.</p>
<p dir="auto">If I'm required to upgrade from scratch, is there a recommended way to do this without losing my VM data, given that my pool consists of a single host running all VMs using local storage?</p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70045</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/70045</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jivanpal]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2024 23:28:35 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPv6 support in XCP-ng for the management interface - feedback wanted on Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:04:15 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Sorry, I replied based on the e-mail notification I got, and missed your EDIT <img src="https://xcp-ng.org/forum/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f642.png?v=1d3f495298e" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--slightly_smiling_face" style="height:1.4em;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title=":)" alt="🙂" /></p>
]]></description><link>https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/64742</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/64742</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[stormi]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:04:15 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>