Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We are considering getting a 1Gig rack from a DC and as a little bonus they throw in a /48 v6 for you. I figure this can be split so that each client has their own /64 to use as they please... The real question being has anyone used IPv6 with PFsense; I know it can be hacked it but is it stable or is it better to choose Vyatta instead?

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

As far as I'm aware, there's no IPv6 support within PFSense.

It was slated for "after" the 2.0 release, but I've been waiting for 2.0 to come out of beta for 18 months now, and I'm not holding my breath.

You can track PFSense's progress on IPv6 integration here. It turns out there's a hacked workaround here (the one you referred to), but it's... less than ideal.

share|improve this answer
Pretty much what mark said -- Ain't gonna happen (soon) in the GUI, but works fine from the command line. If you really need IPv6 I'd roll a FreeBSD or OpenBSD firewall and just work from the CLI if you feel comfortable in that environment... – voretaq7 Feb 17 '11 at 22:29
Well being that stability is important Vyatta might be the way to go. – Jacob Feb 17 '11 at 22:53

IPv6 is the thing that made me go from pfsense to vyatta.

Tired of waiting for pfsense2.0+, tired of ugly hacks that breaks the system uniformity (no proper GUI, packages only working w/ ipv4...)

As I'm more of a GNU/Linux guy, I feel a lot more comfortable with Vyatta, and its ipv6 support has proven to be very resilient.

share|improve this answer

If you really want to have ipv6 support, use Monowall

share|improve this answer

Check out the IPv6 board on the forum, a number of things done already, a custom git branch you can sync to, and much more info there.,52.0.html

share|improve this answer
I choose mark's answer because it related to stability not just possibility. – Jacob Feb 21 '11 at 2:32

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.