The Meraki line of hardware will have to support both IPV4 and IPV6 stacks. Perhaps the MX beta is for a more modular stack based implementation of the current IPV4 code.
Can someone explain what effect having ipv6 in just the MR would have without the MX? You couldn't route IPv6 to Internet without MX right? Even if MS and MR lines had 100% support for ipv6, unless it's purely for internal site traffic, what is the benefit without the MX's involvement?
Been wondering that myself. It seems to me that IPv6 support at the edge is the most important thing to get fixed. There isn't a shortage of private IPv4 addresses. They should make the MX the priority for IPv6 support.
Not everyone is full stack Meraki. We have ~150 Meraki devices including ~25MXs but they are not used for corporate Internet edge. Our existing Internet edge devices do have full ipv6 support so MR and MS ipv6 support would have some value to us, albeit it would be much more useful if the MX SD-WAN tunnels could carry ipv6 over ipv4 even if they didn't have full ipv6 support.
as of https://community.meraki.com/t5/Full-Stack-Network-Wide/IPv6-Meraki/m-p/96763/highlight/true#M1593, we should get an update in the next few days:
We expect our next official update to be in October. In the meantime, stay safe and healthy.
hopefully they read the stuff in this thread as well. roadmap and timeline would be nice.
I had to put my old Sonicwall in front of my MX so I could join the beta for the MR.
One reason to start with the MR is that is Meraki has sold more MR devices than MS or MX. So you are giving the most users IPV6.
Another reason is that the MX is most likely the most complicated. It probably requires a new architecture.
October has come and gone, November is also done My license will expire before I can use my MX, Meraki should offer license extensions for anyone using an MX that paid for a license but can't use the device as public-facing on WAN.