As soon as some device has more than one interface (for any kind of usage) with IPv6 enabled, it’s good to have per-interface setting of SLAAC client. Period.
Since underlying linux kernel supports it, the fuss with firewall blocking RAs on interfaces where user doesn’t want it is a complicated workaround which should not be needed.
Ok but then I want some other things as well that are available from the underlying Linux platform:
All things I personally find useful, can use in my niche application, but apparently are not important enough to add to RouterOS even when that should be very easy.
and proxy_ndp!!
And we all (probably) support that! It’s one of things that MikroTik should think about, after they make v7 stable and look for interesting new features they could add. What could be better than just allowing access to something that already exists and they don’t have to code it from beginning. Someone could call it cheating, but I wouldn’t mind. 
As for SLAAC, ISPs doing something wrong, etc, I’m afraid that it’s lost cause. Even when it’s the case, I don’t think they will be educated by MikroTik boycotting something, when others don’t. But it’s not always that, even the right thing (as described above by @mducharme) is currently not handled ideally, and that’s not good.
Yes, I agree completely. With our customer CPE radios we do not want to have to configure a firewall on them for the sole purpose of preventing receiving RA’s on interfaces other than our management VLAN - it is certainly an overcomplicated workaround for what should be a basic setting. I don’t want a customer to plug something in backwards and start sending RA’s to a radio, and then it gets some other global address I don’t want.
I’m glad that MikroTik is finally making needed IPv6 improvements, but we (in general, not just MikroTik) have to start treating IPv6 as the current protocol, and not just something coming up in the future. Feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 is no longer something that should be optional, it must be required.
From the console /tool Netwatch does not exist
The entered scripts does not work either
If you read the previous posts..
You have to understand that MT doesn’t support DHCPv6. As the uneducated ISP (I only have 20 years of experience), I have to resort to RA/SLAAC to get my customers’ routers to talk to my MT routers on IPv6. Fortunately, most of their routers are MikroTik routers I have installed. We use RA/SLAAC on the WAN interfaces and DHCPv6 prefix delegation to assign /60’s to the routers.
Also, RA/SLAAC are the only things universally supported internally, too. (No Apple support for DHCPv6 at the moment, for example.)
There is no need to use SLAAC on the WAN interfaces, you can use an address from the pool or use the link-local address. That works just fine.
DHCPv6 PD is the correct way to assign the customer addresses.
For containers, can we use another subnet than 172.17.0.0/16 or is this hardcoded for now?
This is the default docker subnet so it conflicts with machines already running docker which have this route locally.
Did you try using another subnet and it doesn’t work?
How many SSID groups can be created? I do have the master interfaces I want to roam accross (they have same SSID), and also the virtual interfaces that do exist (same SSID among them). Like main and guest wifi network. If I do export it does not show to which roaming group the interface belongs to:
/interface wifiwave2
set [ find default-name=wifi1 ] configuration=Home configuration.mode=ap disabled=no security.ft=yes
set [ find default-name=wifi2 ] configuration=Home configuration.mode=ap disabled=no security.ft=yes
set [ find default-name=wifi3 ] configuration=Home configuration.mode=ap disabled=no security.ft=yes
Is roaming defined by “SSID” ? Is there any limitation of number of SSID, master i/f and virtual i/f one can use ?
My audience has the 3 master interfaces and 12 virtual ones, using 6 SSID among them.
Does the ROS 7.4 support such scenario ?
As I already wrote (and you didn’t explain where I was wrong): RA (SLAAC) is the only proper way of receiving upstream gateway address. So router does have to listen to RAs on its upstream (WAN) interface(s). At the same time it has to ignore RS (Router Solicitation) queries on the very same interface(s), answering to RS on WAN interface(s) can cause havoc. I’m not sure if ROS having WAN interface set with “an address from pool” (yes, some people do that) ignores RS queries, I fear it doesn’t just like it doesn’t on other (LAN) interfaces.
Hello Everybody
Any new regarding BGP inside a VRF ?
Regards
Using ipad with iOS 12.5.5 you can not authenticate/connect to Wifi when 802.11r is enabled.
Tried to disable WPA3, management config disabled (is already) and few other things.
Only help is remove security.ft from the interface.
Is there a special logging command to see what is going on under the hood of Wifiwave2?
Ok fortunately I have never encountered a situation where it will not work. Most providers here use PPPoE and it provides a local address, and the router can set a default route (no gateway address required, just an interface connected route). Others use a static address on the link and you get the address and gateway address on a letter at the start of your subscription (not a very user friendly method, but on the other hand it does not rely on anything).
The use of SLAAC on the link to the provider is not in use anywhere here, I think. Even the providers that use DHCP for IPv4 do not use it.
On all the ISP networks I have managed over the last 20 years (in the US), we used PPPoE on DSL and DHCP on everything else (fixed wireless, fiber, cable). Presently, I do DHCP on fixed wireless, as does a neighboring WISP, the local cable company, and Starlink. The telco (DSL & fiber) does PPPoE. Both are standard enough; ISPs across the country pick one or the other depending on the experience and preference of the network’s administration team.
As a provider, I choose DHCP due to its convenience in turning customers up quickly and troubleshooting when routers go awry (one less thing to support in third-party routers).
IPv6 is barely held together by tin cans and strings when it comes to vendor support; fortunately SLAAC on the WAN and DHCPv6-PD for the LAN “mostly works” on both the MT routers I deploy and the third-party routers customers bring along.
wifes iphone had exactly the same issue, mine on 15.5 connects fine
Using ipad with iOS 12.5.5 you can not authenticate/connect to Wifi when 802.11r is enabled.
Tried to disable WPA3, management config disabled (is already) and few other things.
Only help is remove security.ft from the interface.
Is there a special logging command to see what is going on under the hood of Wifiwave2?
It didn’t work the first time because of a bug with veth interfaces: updating IPs has no effect, interface must be re-created.
A bit of nitpicking, SLAAC (Stateless Address Autoconfiguration) is the part where device configures address from prefix received in RA, if it has autonomous flag. But if you get own prefix from DHCPv6 server, you don’t need SLAAC (= another address), you need only to accept RA and get gateway from there (if ISP configures it like this, for use with DHCPv6, there’s no reason for autonomous flag anyway, so there won’t be any address configured by device).
This is how it’s supposed to work, so it should definitely be supported, including per-interface config, without requiring any tricks with firewall. And also mentioned in manual. Currently it’s not, so if someone new to this reads RouterOS DHCPv6 manual, they don’t get even a single hint about how it should be done properly.
SLAAC (= automatic address) is something that normally shouldn’t be required on router, but the world is not ideal and sometimes it may come in handy.