I would like to be able to access the Hubitat's web interface via IPv6. The Hubitat seems to contain a functioning IPv6 stack 1, but the Hubitat's internal webserver does not seem to be listening on IPv6, at least not on the expected ports 80 and 443 2, 3.
Questions:
Is it the Hubitat's expected default behavior not to serve up the web interface over IPv6?
How can I make my Hubitat serve up its web interface via IPv6?
Footnotes:
Using tcpdump, I observe that the Hubitat correctly participates in Neighbor Discovery Protocol, using SLAAC to assign itself a global-scope IPv6 address derived from its MAC address in response to a router advertisement. I also observe that the Hubitat responds correctly to my pings, either when I ping its SLAAC IPv6 address or when I ping its automatic link-local ipv6 address.
Curiously, the Hubitat does seem to do a TLS handshake on port 443 when I attempt to send an HTTPS GET request to the Hubitat's IPv6 address -- this is what I would expect from a properly-configured web server -- but after the TLS handshake, the Hubitat does not respond to my GET request.
Also curiously, the Hubitat does serve up its diagnostic web interface via IPv6 on port 8081 using http. This suggests that the Hubitat's internal web server is IPv6-capable.
I bet this is something @gopher.ny could answer. I don’t think there’s much you could do to get it to listen on IPv6, most likely this is a feature request.
I suspect IPv6 adoption is fairly low in the consumer market, so it may not be high on their list.
Please consider this inquiry to be a feature request to make IPv6 a first-class citizen on the Hubitat.
I imagine (probably naively) that the Hubitat's internal web server supports IPv6 already, and that a line in the config file to tell the web server to bind to the IPv6 stack is all that would be needed to make all of us thronging masses of IPv6 adopters happy.
Back over 20 years ago when I was working on a PDSN/GGSN (the back-end IP router for mobile phone networks), we theorized that IP address usage in what was hoped to be a huge smart phone market would drive the adoption of IPv6.
Still not yet, even though the huge smart phone market came to be.
I'm one of the home users that would utilize IPv6. However, Hubitat has a valid business reason for not supporting it. IPv6 can negate the need for Hubitat's remote access (cloud) service. Although it would have only a tiny impact on their revenue stream, those of us that prefer to avoid utilizing any "cloud" service would be able to connect directly rather than needing to use port forwarding on our NAT'd IPv4 address provided by our ISP.
If I had to bet, limiting "Remote Access" subscriptions is not the driving force behind the lack of IPv6 support. Anyone who runs IPv6 at home is very likely to be sufficiently competent to run their own VPNd as well.
As @gopher.ny indicated a month ago, he'll look into it.
Consumers need to do little to adopt ipv6. If they're using a mobile device chances are very good they use ipv6 everyday. Google tracks usage IPv6 – Google
Apple requires ios apps in their app store support ipv6-only networks.
ipv6 is well supported in every modern OS without having to do anything. ipv6 usage is seamless and consumers basically don't know what is being used. If the hub supported ipv6 the ios and android devices connecting to it would use ipv6 automatically over ipv4, as would windows and macOS. This is not really a question of consumer adoption of ipv6. The last domino in terms of consumer adoption is a matter of the defaults used by cheap routers.
Enterprise adoption.... now that's a different story.
This may not be a priority for Hubitat, and that's fine, but count me as one more that would like to have ipv6 support in the hub.
Another request here. I've been setting up an IPv6-only VLAN and exploring whether it would be feasible to drop IPv4 from my home network altogether. Hubitat is the main blocker to doing that, if it can't be accessed at all over v6.
(And BTW, the mobile phone explosion did push v6 over the edge. Most major carriers are now v6-only, but you never notice because they integrate good 464 XLAT or NAT64 to help you reach the IPv4 Internet.)
If the addressing is there, making the hub reachable could be as simple as binding to :: instead of 0.0.0.0. The bigger problem will be validation that nothing breaks when v4 is turned off.
Providing IPv6 to the servers might well be a bigger job, but I think it's fair to say that if a user is going to be v6-only on the LAN, they're responsible for making sure routing towards v4 still works.
Any updates on this? Also, is there a version of the hardware that first introduced IPv6 capability (understand the software is still lacking, potentially?) - my C-5 doesn't appear to have an IPv6 address, according to eero, whereas other devices that support IPv6 appear to have one.
