That sounds suspiciously like the (subset of) HomeNet protocol -- a good idea that was thought of and "worked on" far too late in the IPv6 lifecycle for most enterprise-y products...at least to my knowledge...to make use of.It would work for connecti...

I know you can't go back in time and stop yourself from buying your MX84. I can't go back in time either.But as far as decisions to be made, you entirely have control over where you go from here: stay with Meraki MXes and see if "name and shaming" ...

As I said in my first (or second) post: If you really need v6 WAN, then the MX isn't for you. Especially if you need it right-this-second, change your WAN device to something else that does support your needs.All other vendors can easily and swiftly ...

@ViperZ1 wrote:"A lot of the mess is trying to force IPv6 into a NATed IPv4 world of today. v6 is old (first draft was back in '98), but only just received standardization last year, and there are still issues that IPv6 only networks don't address o...

@DHAnderson1 wrote:I also have been working with IPV6 for a few years now, and I am disappointed with Meraki's foot dragging on this.About a year ago, I had a SonicWall TZ 300 (rough equivalent to a MX64) connected to Charter's dual stack cable netw...