I would really like to see an optional SwOS package for ROS
Or … a virtual SwOS that runs under/inside a ROS MetaRouter environment ) ( this might be the easiest one to create )
ROS is is great , however it is really complicated when working with Vlans in a switch environment.
SwOS is great when working with Vlans on a switch , however it has zero ROS router functionality.
I would love to see an optional SwOS package for ROS, or even better yet virtual SwOS that runs under/inside a ROS MetaRouter environment
It would be awesome for a SwOS package to have the following functions & features:
On SwOS package enable/install , look at the ROS switch configuration, then remove all ROS switch configuration and enable the SwOS package then as-best-as-possible import/translate the original ROS switch configuration into SwOS configurations.
Maybe it would be better in the long run to improve the VLAN configuration on bridges in RouterOS. I agree with you that it is counter-intuitive and error prone.
Especially the fact that for an untagged port on a VLAN you both have to set the port as untagged member of the VLAN but you ALSO need to set the PVID of the port to that same VLAN is really horrible.
It could be useful to have an option in the NTP client setup, either per server or globally for the client, to use a random source port number for the queries instead of 123.
Some internet providers block traffic from source port 123 in an attempt to prevent clients from running NTP servers.
It is possible to achieve the same using a src-nat rule, but it is often difficult for users to set that up. A simple checkmark would be easier, maybe even some auto-detect feature to enable it (e.g. when the client cannot sync although servers are configured).
Normis,
any plans to revamp CapsMan?
It would be useful to have a wizard (like for DHCP) to create a wlan from scratch. Another section that could be improved is the Channels: why don’t you use the standard notation 1,2,3…instead of the frequencies? Not everybody is a CWNA…
In general CapsMan is awesome (I have lots of deployments in central London, mostly hotels, sites up to 100 cAPac…) but its interface is not easy to navigate nor intuitive. For once, I think you need to look at your competitors and pick up some ideas for a more user friendly interface.
I do not think we will see DoQ at all. Basically this is the equivalent to DoT, where TCP is replaced with Quic for transport.
However I hope we will see the current DoH implementation (and fetch tool?) to be updated to use HTTP3, which then includes Quic for layer 4 transport.
I have not find this request yet on the forum. For me will be extremely useful.This request is for Winbox.
I am using a lot of comments on my setup, also the comments got a logic for the string content, so it will be extremely useful to be able to have the option to display the comments:
as they are now (standard mode)
as a separate column.
Do this for each and every screen that got the possibility to use comments.
about IPSec policy to not override every routing table (can specific routing table and routing metrics for each policy)
so we can use mangle to specific which traffic (same destination) will go through which peer.
e.g. Server A have to connect with client IP 192.168.1.0/24 via IPSec peer A.
also Server B have to connect with client IP 192.168.1.0/24 via IPSec peer B.
(Peer A and Peer B is different place / different customer)
and maybe Server C have to connect with client IP 192.168.1.0/24 via l2tp
I really want to be able to hide certain categories/tabs in winbox, it would be fantastic even if it works locally for the winbox client.
If i’m running mikrotik CHR, i dont care about:
CAPsMAN, W60G station interfaces, WDS, NStream Dual
captive portal or RADIUS
DOT1x(since running in cloud anyway)
MPLS
Mesh
Would be a terrific feature to hide these features, would reduce the mental load greatly and allow to customize the interface to your use case (maybe with a red icon in the toolbar to show hidden features)
Where do we put feature requests now? I see the old wiki page is gone. I’m just going to post it here, Please @Support if you can, as I think it might be a fast step forward for Mikrotik
I’ve been thinking about the new Docker Container support in ROS7… I’m wondering if perhaps it could be too heavy for those small CPU routers.
Given that they still want to make custom code run and have a maximum security mindset, Somewhat recently the WASI standard has appeared, which is WebAssembly but run as native apps, It has a standardised System API for network or OS features, so it’s truely cross platform and it’s language agnostic as most languages can be compiled to webassembly.
I know it might be a shot in the dark, but it seems to be a single file application for any OS or Browser, and doesn’t need an specific architecture either, so could run on ARM, or Mips or X86, no specific version per cpu architecture.
Given it’s focus on SandBoxed running, it would potentially be a really secure way to run custom code.
Currently, JS,Python, RUST, C#, GO, C++, Ruby all compile to WASI, with more coming later no doubt. - https://www.fermyon.com/wasm-languages/webassembly-language-support
I have a bunch of really small .net Apps that I’d love to run directly on the Router… and I’m waiting for Docker, But I’m wondering if an RB2011 will even have enough power to run a docker container. That’s if I can even compile to a Mipsbe in .net?? whereas WASI… That would work out of the box
).