Please post any missing BGP and Routing filter functionality or new features that you would like to see in future routing implementations.
I would like to see VRF’s working better.
At the moment when you add a loopback bridge to a vrf, you are still able to ping the ip of that bridge from the main table on that router.
Also. Being able to use services inside a vrf e.g. PPP/ssh/telnet/winbox/btest/dns
Oh and the ability in a routing filter to send received/sent prefixes to an address list
We have regular issues where IPv4 and IPv6 BGP announces are withdrawn on once side of the network but the Mikrotik continues to onward announce the prefix on the other side of the network and forward traffic over the withdrawn path. I fix for that is important.
This is a common fault. We also experience it regularly. I believe Mikrotik are going to fix this in the new routing (was told this in an response to a support ticket)
All existing problems will be addressed. Please list improvements that are currently missing and you would like to see.
In that case:
The ability in Winbox/CLI to see all prefixes received from a peer, that also indicates the last filter policy they passed through, and if they have been inserted in to the routing table, and if so which one. This will allow you to easily see prefixes that were received but blocked by a filter, and identify which filter it was. Or, which filter allowed a prefix that you want to block. You can then adjust that filter.
BGP Peer Groups would be good too. When you have say 10 peers with common settings, the only thing thats different is the peer IP and remote AS, have them belong to a parent group that defines all the other settings, then when you need to change a setting you only need to change it in one place instead of 10.
+1
My reflectors have >200 sessions configured, identical in all respects except for the peer address. Any simplification of that would be welcome.
–Eric
This is why we need it too. Route reflectors for L2VPN and L3VPN. It would make it a lot cleaner and easier and reduce human error
Not directly related but MPLS Fast Re-Route pleeeease !
This is a good request and we were thinking about it previously. Most likely it will be it implemented.
I’m not sure if what you ask is possible without complicated coding. Currently you can add routing filter rule with log action and see where prefix is matched, similar as it is in firewall rules.
BGP groups most likely will not be implemented, but we will think of some way to make configuration easy if you have peers with common settings. Some of common parameters can be set in instance.
Anything else?
I will add one myself:
BGP origin validation
https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/certification/bgp-origin-validation
This feature is considered.
Hi mrz,
If we are able to do some pie in the sky ‘nice to have one day stuff’ for your list:
(if any of this is already doable plz point me in the right direction 
)
- BGP default propagate
- Likely my biggest request other than not having routes stuck in the cache
- If I receive a default from a peer allow me to actually correctly propagate it instead of only having the option to originate
\
- BGP Replace private AS
- We can already remove a private AS, but I want to specifically be able to overwrite a specific private AS with another AS of my choosing. This is sometimes an issue when multiple private peers interact at one peering point.
- BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community:
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-03
- http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t2/feature/guide/ftbgplb.html
- This has a lot of downstream implications on path selection etc so I’m guessing this would not be high on the list. Its a nice cisco feature however that would be useful as we are all using the Mikrotik’s more and more in SP environments
This is already in our TODO list
What if you remove private AS and then add set-bgp-prepend-path=<other_private_as> in output routing filters?
We will look into and consider adding it.
Hi,
Just out of curiosity..
Is BGP Route Flap Damping (RFC 2439) implemented?
And also I’m in the process of stating a project with Anycast based BGP for our external services.
I have not done any deeper studies right now on the requirements in BGP but it stands between Cisco vs Mikrotik right now.
If both can do it then price will decide brand.
That’s a shame 
BGP groups are a very very important feature if you’re taking part at large IXes, like AMSIX in the Netherlands or DECIX in Germany… It just makes a lot of configuration a lot easier.
Yes I am disappointed as well. It would save us a lot of time, and reduce human error.
As I mentioned we will think of something but not in the way you have groups in, for example cisco.
As far as I know not supported. But it is a good feature request.