MikroTik devices always had a descriptive type number, e.g hAP ax3 is C53UiG+5HPaxD2HPaxD
This tells you (to some extent) what interfaces it has. But somewhere (way) in the past the additional “user friendly name” like “hAP” was introduced.
Well then the user friendly name should be the BEh. 
Or mEH since the emphasis is on Media...
What matter for me is the lack of PoE-out port and external antennas, and hopefully some future WiFi7 IEEE 802.11be product will have that instead of gazillion USB ports...
But the capabilities are irrelevant to the name.
So maybe we should have 26 infix in models' names for the forthcoming 2026 "season" ? 
I tend to agree with @BartoszP it doesn't matter. But at same time, MikroTik did put out a longer video explaining their product naming schemes. With now dozens of comments about this "3" in name now... it just be easier if someone @MikroTik clarified WTF the "3" in hAPbe3 means to stop the guessing.
In 2011 they still put the year into the model name of the (very nice…) router introduced back then.
The is just funny coincidence. The device was version two of series (between RB1xxx and RB3011) and had 11 Interfaces.
You’re tryna tell me mikrotik didn’t secretly invent a time machine to bring the RB4011 into 2018?
[...]
Perhaps marketing also invents new naming conventions ... seem to being updated all the time too
The name doesn't give capabilities to a product but there are naming conventions adopted by some companies like series 3, 5 etc by BMW for example...
And Mikrotik used to have hAP naming as ac/ax (now with S) as base line workhorse wifi router, ac/ax lite as a low cost options, ac/ax 2 as mid range and ac/ax 3 as top of the line that sure enough led us to think that this be3 will be top of the line for WiFi7 small office routers...
One could of course name a product using bunch of random characters but I dont think something like hAP auj6Lahz would benefit the brand...
Yet MikroTik uses names like that for the product, see what I wrote above. It is like BMW calling it “3 series” but the model code is G21.
Any indication to whether MT will include Thread border router functionality in ROS, or whether this functionality has to be delivered by a container?
It will be a container, so that 10 years from now, when we have a brand new IoT standard, we don’t have to keep supporing Thread in RouterOS, when no products exist for it any longer.
3 Likes
Like Proxy, SMB etc?
5 Likes
proxy and smb are widely used technologies even today
So are VTI. Any plan on that front?
1 Like
we are talking about a single device that has a specific chip inside. it’s not a software feature.
You were talking about supporting technologies that may be on their way out.
Proxy has been useless ever since https became the norm, people still using it are often just continuing an existing tradition. SMB is probably going down the drain together with Windows, which is currently in a fast collapse (you may not have noticed it as an Apple user, but Windows 11 users are not taking it anymore and are jumping ship).
So I would say when you do not want to support Thread in the core RouterOS because it may be disused in 10 years time, then why support Proxy and SMB in the core and not in some installable module?
Yes. But not by everyone on their router (I'd say it's strong majority even for home user segment).