*** Official Ubiquiti Discussion Thread ***

Following up on my IPv6 issues, Ubiquiti has provided me with custom firmware for my UDW and on the first lot of testing this looks to be working now.

F9PPm6u.jpg


Quad9 DNS - IPv6

Code: 
C:\Users\Admin>ping 2620:fe::fe

Pinging 2620:fe::fe with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=4ms
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=4ms
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=3ms
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=4ms

Ping statistics for 2620:fe::fe:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 3ms

BBC IPv6

Code: 
C:\Users\Admin>ping -6 bbc.co.uk

Pinging bbc.co.uk [2a04:4e42:200::81] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=4ms
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=4ms
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=3ms
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=3ms

Ping statistics for 2a04:4e42:200::81:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 3ms

UDW IPv6:

Code: 
root@UDW:~# ping -6 bbc.co.uk
PING bbc.co.uk(2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81)) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=4.07 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=4.20 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=3.76 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=4.35 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=5 ttl=62 time=4.21 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=6 ttl=62 time=3.72 ms
^C
--- bbc.co.uk ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5007ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.723/4.050/4.345/0.232 ms


It's also passing on IPv6 checkers now:

bqJNFw3.jpg


AEoNbhh.jpg


It's really good news and I have also provided the requested info as well. So interested to know what they have found/changed, waiting on feedback on that front.

This is a huge improvement on where it was.
 
Last edited:
More of a greed than need question!

I currently have 2 AC-LR and thinking about changing them for 2 U6+, would I gain any benefit or should I just stick to what I've got? There's only 2 of us in the house so not a huge amount of kit connecting.
 
Personally I wouldn't bother unless I needed to.

If I had an AP fail I'd buy a WiFi 6 AP to replace it or if my the throughout I was currently getting was too low after properly tuning the config and if the clients could support it then I'd look to upgrade.

But I wouldn't replace WiFi 5 kit that's working fine with WiFi 6.
 
Purchased the Ubiquiti U7-Pro over the weekend to replace my Netgear Wireless router. Its been giving me endless problems, randomly drops the connection for a few seconds. Messed round with a few settings, still have the same problem :(

Might have to send it back and get the U6-Pro instead as it more mature with firmware.
 

EA 8.3.32

Improvements​

  • Added ability to download Inspection Logs. Currently only available through the local web UI, support for downloading via Site Manager will come in a future release.
  • Improved backup restore process.
  • Removed PPPoE interfaces from the dropdown when configuring NAT routing, this will return in a future release.
  • Updated translations.

Bugfixes​

  • Fixed the inability to remove sites on Multi-Site setups in rare cases.
  • Fixed an issue where WireGuard users were not removed when deleting the VPN server.
  • Fixed an issue where an invalid meshing configuration could be provisioned to Access Points.
  • Fixed an issue where L2TP, DS-Lite, and U-LTE failover networks were shown under NAT from interfaces.
 
RSR said:
Following up on my IPv6 issues, Ubiquiti has provided me with custom firmware for my UDW and on the first lot of testing this looks to be working now.

F9PPm6u.jpg


Quad9 DNS - IPv6

Code: 
C:\Users\Admin>ping 2620:fe::fe

Pinging 2620:fe::fe with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=4ms
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=4ms
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=3ms
Reply from 2620:fe::fe: time=4ms

Ping statistics for 2620:fe::fe:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 3ms

BBC IPv6

Code: 
C:\Users\Admin>ping -6 bbc.co.uk

Pinging bbc.co.uk [2a04:4e42:200::81] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=4ms
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=4ms
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=3ms
Reply from 2a04:4e42:200::81: time=3ms

Ping statistics for 2a04:4e42:200::81:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 3ms

UDW IPv6:

Code: 
root@UDW:~# ping -6 bbc.co.uk
PING bbc.co.uk(2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81)) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=4.07 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=4.20 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=3.76 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=4.35 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=5 ttl=62 time=4.21 ms
64 bytes from 2a04:4e42:400::81 (2a04:4e42:400::81): icmp_seq=6 ttl=62 time=3.72 ms
^C
--- bbc.co.uk ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5007ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.723/4.050/4.345/0.232 ms


It's also passing on IPv6 checkers now:

bqJNFw3.jpg


AEoNbhh.jpg


It's really good news and I have also provided the requested info as well. So interested to know what they have found/changed, waiting on feedback on that front.

This is a huge improvement on where it was.
Click to expand...
Following up from this:

"The custom-built firmware includes improvements to automatically set the default route to the DHCPv6 server, enhancing resiliency in environments where RA(Router Advertisement) is absent from ISP side.

Our development team will be bringing these improvements in future UniFi OS releases. We appreciate your understanding and patience as we work to implement this improvement.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know here.
Best,
UI Support
Ubiquiti Inc."

So the reason IPv6 failed on the UDW / UDM was the ISP missing the RA part in IPv6, so this should be patched into future updates and then other people with ISPs who present IPv6 in a similar method should then work.
 
Just ordered a NVR with the G4 bullet promotion, already got a G4 bullet, but on my cloud key. Wanting a camera over the drive as crime is becoming a problem in the surrounding areas.

Fingers crossed re choice as did wonder if NVR due to be updated, I know G4 has been superseded by the G5.
 
Avalon said:
What offer? I didn't see anything on email or the UK shop URL?
Click to expand...
Log in to receive UNVR Special Offer - G4 Bullet Camera.

I'm tempted to order one, I've put the SE back on the wall and the HDD is vibrating and the long haired general can hear it. I could rack the NVR in the garage with the rest of my lab gear.
 
Last edited:
ChrisD. said:
Log in to receive UNVR Special Offer - G4 Bullet Camera.

I'm tempted to order one, I've put the SE back on the wall and the HDD is vibrating and the long haired general can hear it. I could rack the NVR in the garage with the rest of my lab gear.
Click to expand...
Thanks :) It's an interesting offer as it makes the NVR stupidly cheap if you want one, but as an SE owner, I can buy 3 x G5 turrets for the same money, so probably not for me. If I didn't have an SE and wanted to get into the Protect side, or was upgrading from a CK, it makes sense though.
 
Avalon said:
Thanks :) It's an interesting offer as it makes the NVR stupidly cheap if you want one, but as an SE owner, I can buy 3 x G5 turrets for the same money, so probably not for me. If I didn't have an SE and wanted to get into the Protect side, or was upgrading from a CK, it makes sense though.
Click to expand...
Still sucks having a single drive in the SE though, unless you have some form of a backup. I know the RAID in an NVR is not a backup, but it does mitigate single disk failures.

I use Scrypted to back up detections to iCloud, however whilst that was initially rock solid, I've had a few issues over the past few weeks meaning I've had to re-add cameras to Apple Home which removes the recordings.
 
I use another firewall product for gateway duties, hence NVR thought. I ordered one earlier this afternoon, with G4 camera. So two G4 units now, I may look at a WiFi camera for the back of the garage to capture anything there. Camera internal pointing it the main door.

I TBH would look at other camera options too for sharp night coverage of driveway area.
 
ChrisD. said:
Still sucks having a single drive in the SE though, unless you have some form of a backup. I know the RAID in an NVR is not a backup, but it does mitigate single disk failures.

I use Scrypted to back up detections to iCloud, however whilst that was initially rock solid, I've had a few issues over the past few weeks meaning I've had to re-add cameras to Apple Home which removes the recordings.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what would suck more is racking the thing on top of servers with 'a fair bit' of redundant local storage just to add RAID for my doorbell and replicate the NVR functions of my SE :D Honestly, if they had brought the G5's to market with a comparable feature set to Hikvision's ColorVu, I would be all in, the NVR pitches at the right level functionally, i'm not sure if I want to risk playing the long game in the hope the G6's are better on the current gen NVR's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom