MX IPv6 Support: Now desperately needed

[PhilipDAth]

I just tried getting some more IPv4 address space for a service provider and the RIR simply declined the application due to IPv4 exhaustion.  This is the second RIR to do this for one of my applications, in two different regions in the world.

It's now starting to get to the point that new connections will not be able to get a public IPv4 address.  Service providers are going to be forced to allocate private IPv4 address space and a public IPv6 address prefix - and you'll be needing to use that IPv6 prefix to do many things (such as build VPNs, client VPN and provide inbound NAT).

I suspect the whole work from home initiative will have just compounded this issue.

It is now becoming commercially urgent that the MX supports using IPv6 on its WAN and VLAN interfaces and for AutoVPN to support using it.

The currently client VPN technology, L2TP over IPSec is unlikely to work over native IPv6 connections, and definitely wont work through NAT64 gateways.  So the entire existing client VPN solution will have to be forcibly replaced.

IPv6 support is no longer a technical requirement, but a commercial imperative.

[BlakeRichardson]

Agreed and support @PhilipDAth  on this one, we have waited far to long for IPv6 support. This is going to be a make or break for a lot of customers.

[CptnCrnch]

I‘ve stopped counting how many customers I‘ve supported with their Remote Access VPN topics in the last few days. None of them would even have considered Meraki because of the lack of IPv6...which is so darn unfortunate 😞

As @PhilipDAth said: regarding the changed circumstances IPv6 should definitely be a top priority to get up and running (finally). Otherwise a lot of business will be lost, possibly for a very long time.