@borrrden this, along with NAT66 would be very helpful for people who have ISPs that only provide single addresses and only /64s subnets

I'm also looking for this, and for the same reason: local DNS resolution in the presence of dynamic IPv6 prefixes.

While this might become irrelevant for my particular need if local DNS resolution is implemented (-> https://community.tp-link.com/en/business/forum/topic/542472), ULA is a standard IPv6 feature that should be supported regardless.

I have a ER605 and use it to load balance 2 ISPs both of which support IPv6.  This feature is very much needed since I don't want to be tied to IPs provided only by 1 ISP. I am not sure if one ISP connection goes down if the IPv6 alloaction  will switch to the other ISP IP range. Local DNS is another huge reason.

  @g301k103g I'm also in this situation and I upvote for the ULA support. When primary link goes offline, IPv6 is lost and needs to be manually reassigned to the backup link which is very annoying.

Yes I agree this is pretty important especially as there was a new CVE from MSFT for windows for IPv6 Remote Code Execution, with zero click. I really think this is a critical feature and needs to be implemented very soon. @Hank21 please expedite this as the security implications from this feature are very important.

I agree. It should be mandatory in this days. Any cheap router have IPv6 ULA.

I'm migrating to Omada and having tons of problems with IoT devices based on newest Matter protocol, that depends exclusively by IPv6. The leak of IPv6 ULA forced me to use my ISP IPv6, which isn't good enough resulting in a lot of disconnections. Imagine those who doesn't have any IPv6 avaliable to use? They couldn't use any Matter device!

Is there any idea if Tplink will adopt IPv6 ULA? It should be mandatory to any IPv6 router!

The leak of IPv6 results in a lot of problems, mainly with IoT devices based on Matter and Thread protocols.

How will TP-Link intend to sell Matter/Thread products if their own routers have a limited support?