https://www.google.de/ipv6/statistics.htmlipv6 is dead
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:I ... delegationIs there a way with DHCPv6 to create a standard DHCPv6 server on mikrotik and delegate prefixes out of a pool etc? If so is there a how too?
... And if google and facebook say so, it is then right???
Even Google is against DHCPv6: https://www.nullzero.co.uk/android-does ... -fix-that/
You can use DHCPv6-PD, as others have said, but not use DHCPv6 to assign addresses. Why do you care about using DHCPv6 to assign individual IPv6 addresses anyway? What is the benefit vs SLAAC?This is a reason why i using other brands in my production LANs
MKT is good for guest network, i don't care what guest do there, what is they IP, they are filtered out :)
stateful DHCP v6 is a must in serious LAN
and i don't care what google say
IPv6 is not dead, it is growing. IPv4 is dying. IPv4 NAT cannot handle what is coming in the future. Companies don't feel under any pressure to move, but cell providers are moving and home customers are getting IPv6 at an increasing rate.never seen anyone using ipv6
hmmm, last time i checked OpenWrt is was doing exactly thisDHCPv6 does not store the MAC or the Hostname of the client system
It might be that you have not looked closely. I surprised my boss and some other people from my company, who travels a lot, when I show them that they had unknowingly logged in in our Google domains using IPv6. Typically from mobile connections or wifi in places such as Thailand, the US or Canada. Look into your logs if you are a sysadmin managing a reasonably globalized company.never seen anyone using ipv6
Nope, they won'tI'm sure they will add it eventually. Unfortunately, so far IPv6 wasn't the biggest priority for them. They added some stuff, but it's not like they are pushing things forward very much. And they only respond here in forum when they feel like it, and that's not very often.
I'm not talking about "assigning" hostnames through DHCPv6 server. I'm talking about DHCPv6 server collecting existing hostnames. DHCPv4 server does - when it hands out a lease, it records the hostname that the system has assigned to it. DHCPv6 server does not.hmmm, last time i checked OpenWrt is was doing exactly this
Linux & Windows hosts have they hostnames and addresses was assigned through IPv6 server
So now i see how things works in MKTIt would be a huge waste of time for MikroTik to implement this feature at the expense of other crucial features. If they have spare time later, sure,
I am not MikroTik staff. But Google has said that stateful DHCPv6 is worthless, there is no point to it, and they will never support it in their products because it is a waste of time. We are missing so many other crucial features for IPv6, such as RADIUS accounting for prefixes, network prefix translation, that the last thing we need is for MikroTik to focus on implementing a feature that Google refuses to implement and says is a stupid feature that should not even exist, vs a feature that most users actually want and need.Actualy, trainers = MKT staff?
If user try to ask something from MKT, some trainer will say: no nooo,
user stop asking, and things are done :)
That's different. There was demand for OpenVPN, so they started with it, but then realized that it won't be so easy. They apparently found some more hardened developers since then, so there's now udp support in v7. As as whole, the implementation is still lacking, but also demand may be lower, because everyone loves WireGuard now.As OpenVPN was never finished, same will be with IPv6
I can assure you that MikroTik ignores my wishes like anybody else's. I can't say if it's better for trainers, probably not. Officially they listen to distributors, because those are their customers who buy stuff from them. We as the end users can request something here on the forum, but I can understand why they may not listen to it, because no matter how many people it would be, relatively speaking it's always just few.So now i see how things works in MKT
I see many posts where forum veterans/trainers say, noooo, you don't need this
I wouldn't be huge waste of time in any case, since most of the DHCPv6 already exist. So small waste of time at most. And not even that, address assignment by DHCPv6 exists, operating systems support it, and if someone likes to use it for any reason (and doesn't care about Android), what's wrong with that?DHCPv6 stateful addressing server is basically useless. It would be a huge waste of time for MikroTik to implement this feature at the expense of other crucial features.
Windows 10 added support for this few years ago. So if you don't have anything older, then yes. But there's a problem with current RouterOS, which does not have any good configuration for this, it only takes what's in IP->DNS and gives it to clients. So if you want to use router as resolver (or anything else than what's in router's IP->DNS), you can't do that with just RA, you have to add stateless DHCPv6 (RouterOS can do that).Can a Windows PC get an IPv6 DNS server by SLAAC, RAVD?
Yes, Windows 10 supports this since version 1703.Can a Windows PC get an IPv6 DNS server by SLAAC, RAVD?
There is a gotcha surrounding this support though - Windows prefers DNS servers received through any kind of DHCP to DNS servers advertised via SLAAC. So if you run dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 and use DHCP on IPv4 and only receive DNS servers through SLAAC, Windows will basically never use IPv6 for DNS and will only use IPv4. If you run IPv6-only on Windows then it will use the IPv6 DNS servers, but that generally isn't an option now. So what I usually do is I still advertise DNS via DHCPv6 to the Windows 10 computers, then it will treat them as equal priority or higher to the IPv4 DNS servers and will actually use them instead of avoiding them.Yes, Windows 10 supports this since version 1703.Can a Windows PC get an IPv6 DNS server by SLAAC, RAVD?
Yes, of course, either an IPv4 DNS or IPv6 DNS will work fine for resolving names for either protocols - but at the ISP level I do prefer for as much of our traffic to be on IPv6 as possible. It helps us to make informed decisions as to when it makes sense to move to CG-NAT for most IPv4 purposes. Once IPv6 hits 70-80% of our network traffic it becomes reasonable for us to stop renting so much IPv4 space and the associated monthly fees without having to worry about the CG-NAT box becoming overloaded.Not that it matters too much, because whether DNS server uses IPv4 or IPv6 for transport, it can answer all queries. So if you have IPv6 connectivity but no IPv6 DNS resolvers, it's no problem, because even IPv4 DNS resolver will give you AAAA records needed for IPv6.
Ok, one single questionIn my experience, most people who want to deploy stateful DHCPv6 (like me previously) expect that it does more than it actually does