Crowd Funding of v7

[mistry7]

We don’t need exciting stuff, we need bugs fixed.
Like IPv6 recursive routing, usable BGP.

• Spectral Scan

• new Wireless Chipset support

• Support for Wave 2 (Speeds near competitors)

• Support for 802.11ax

• Working TDMA

• Full IPv6 Support

[ofer]

I mean there were years since start of it’s development and we still wait blindly…

You say that, like there had been no new features in v6. In fact, most exciting stuff that was meant for v7, was already ported to v6.

OpenVPN with UDP connections

[schadom]

Mikrotik might consider dividing their software into different releases like Cisco does with IOS, IOS-XR and the SMB stuff.
Requirements are simply too different. CCR as BGP edge router, an access point or a home router are simply not comparable.

[Chupaka]

Mikrotik might consider dividing their software into different releases like Cisco does with IOS, IOS-XR and the SMB stuff.

You mean, like RouterOS and SwOS?

[schadom]

Mikrotik might consider dividing their software into different releases like Cisco does with IOS, IOS-XR and the SMB stuff.

You mean, like RouterOS and SwOS?

Lol yeah…

[vecernik87]

lol, sure… because when I log into to IOS and i run some command.and then i go to another IOS and run exactly same command, the result is different because one IOS is on ASA (firewall) while second is on 887 (router).
gimme break please… whole idea of splitting resources and developing multiple systems is ridiculous.

[PtDragon]

I mean there were years since start of it’s development and we still wait blindly…

You say that, like there had been no new features in v6. In fact, most exciting stuff that was meant for v7, was already ported to v6.

I appreciate all new features you added in v6 but still there are features i wait for … that are planned for v7.
Like adding more queue types like codel and fq_codel (active queue managing).
Like more parallelization of load(firewall and queues) for CCR(36 cores).
Also implementing features into v6 does not show anything of progress in v7, right?

[strods]

What do you mean with queue “parallelization”? Each parent queue already works on separate CPU core in v6.

[ivicask]

What do you mean with queue “parallelization”? Each parent queue already works on separate CPU core in v6.

Really?Because when i asked support why cant my RB750Gr3 route more than 150mbit of traffic with queues and single core gets stuck at 100% while router all cores arent going even over 50%, i was told the opposite of what you say.

[PtDragon]

What do you mean with queue “parallelization”? Each parent queue already works on separate CPU core in v6.

I mean under big enough load on my 36-core CCR just several cores load up fully and others are almost free.
Maybe there is a way to parallelize load for firewall and queues(those are top consumption under load) so it will distribute much more evenly between cores to improve bandwidth?
Surely it will require some kernel-side changes(as both firewall and queues run in kernel space) so it can be for v7 with adding new queue types.

[Chupaka]

Really?Because when i asked support why cant my RB750Gr3 route more than 150mbit of traffic with queues and single core gets stuck at 100% while router all cores arent going even over 50%, i was told the opposite of what you say.

What are your queues? Telepathists are on another forum.

[raffav]

What are your queues? Telepathists are on another forum.

good point

[hkjimmytam]

New Intel LAN card driver (for example i210) should be available on v7? (because kernel was updated)

Or v6.x will updated Intel LAN driver?

IPv6 routing mark (policy route) was promise on v7 since few years ago…