Full IPV6 functionality - Could everyone make a request on the feedback link

[The_Phil]

Hi everyone.  Could I get as many people as possible request full IPV6 functionality using the feedback button, bottom right of screen in the portal.

The working I used was:

"When will Meraki support IPV6 and BGP advertisements for provider independent ranges. It is 2025 and Meraki was established 10 years after IPV6 became available."

[KarstenI]

Stop, first vote for MX HA-support with IPv6 ... 😉

Or just vote for both!

[Tony-Sydney-AU]

Hi @The_Phil ,

I love IPv6 and BGP. These two topics are very dear to me. I agree it's frustrating how long IPv6 has been going on and yet We don't see it implemented everywhere.

I understand that a Provider Independent (PI) range it's an IPv6 address block that you get from your local Internet Registry. So, I believe you would like to have an MX doing eBGP peering and exchanging both IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes with another Autonomous System (AS) over an IPv6 interface.

Let me know if I got your use-case right. Can you expand your IPv6 use-case?The reason I ask this is because We can increase the chances of our feature request getting to a production firmware if We add more details and advocate for it in a better way. Doing this would make a more compelling case to Internal Team when they get your feature request.

Anyhow, using the "Give your Feedback" button is a great way to plant ideas in the product team's mind. 

I would like to add to your topic here. I propose We follow this template below when doing this feature request:

Feature Request Title: eBGP Peer LAN/WAN support for IPv6

Use-Case detail: As We know, MX firewall only offers the ability to establish BGP peering via IPv4 address when using eBGP in VPN Concentrator or in Routed Mode. With the progressive adoption of IPv6 and the carrier motion to support IPv6, having the ability to peer with an IPv6 neighbour is becoming a key compatibility feature. Customers and Service Providers are moving to an IPv6-only architecture so lack of IPv6 BGP peering leaves MX firewalls obsolete.

[IvanJukic]

Over the many years of working in this industry. If I can add my own personal view here.

I was hopeful IPv6 adoption would have picked up steam in the earlier years of my career. As Jeremy Cioara once said, the Internet will die due to the dreaded and looming IPv4 exhaustion rate.

However, as time went on I noticed the rate seemed to plateau when viewing the data from the Regional Internet Registries (RIR). Those are folks who assign IPv4 blocks out. I didn't quite understand why this was happening. Then I heard about IPv4 Brokers selling IPv4 blocks. So there was a rush to gobble up all the IPv4 people could get their hands on. I thought, well that is good to help the slow down until Network admins get IPv6 implemented right?

Much later, along came CARRIER GRADE NAT; CG-NAT. Like having a Private IPv4 address routed on the Internet that the Carrier/ISP handle. Why bother with CG-NAT, when IPv6 networks are alive and well. As more time passed, I noticed CG-NAT became the bandaid that no one wanted to rip off. I asked myself why??? Some of the RIRs have already ran out of IPv4 blocks to assign. E.g. RIPE & APNIC.

Then I remembered... RIPv6. That old and stinky routing protocol, somehow made its way into IPv6. How on earth did that happen? Then I realised, people can be adverse to change. That's why RIP made it. Same as IPv6. People find it much easier to read numerical digits than Hexadecimal. "So let's stick with IPv4, because CG-NAT is working." I head someone say. "Why" I said.. "I find the letters and numbers confusing.". 🙄

Vendors, including Meraki, can add many IPv6 features to their products. But. How many people today, will implement a full IPv6 stack across their entire architecture and get rid of IPv4? Kill CG-NAT and NAT in general, and watch IPv6 adoption spike.

I am obviously simplifying here, of course there are many reasons to keep CG-NAT. Security is just one. But I personally believe people don't want to get rid of IPv4. They are comfortable with it.

[Tony-Sydney-AU]

Thank you, @IvanJukic ! Yes, CGNAT and IP brokers gave IPv4 an indefinite life extension.

This topics remind me of this old Packet Pushers episode where the guest has some sharp takes on IPv6 caveats. It gets to your point around 19mins.

Have fun listening, everyone!

[IvanJukic]

Haha I reccognise that Voice... That's Geoff! Brings back memories.. He is a nice guy.