Hi All
I have a few customers and would like to monitor them using the dude.
My question is what is the best option for hosting the application ?
I have a fairly big server that supports KVM and I run SolusVM on there … so i can spin up a VM of most flavor of operating systems.
Should i just build a Windows VM and run it on there or could I even run a KVM machine that directly runs CHR ?
Thanks
Nik
I don’t think you can run Dude server directly on windows anymore. Now it is only as a RouterOS Package. Therefore you will most probably end up with CHR on KVM or on another hypervisor.
Thanks for the reply.
Really struggling to find any sort of guide out there on how to get CHR up and running on a Centos KVM box 
I personally needed to run it in Hyper-V so I downloaded VHDX image and created virtual machine with that image. It worked straight away.
I have no experience with KVM but based on https://serverfault.com/questions/571416/kvm-disk-formats-portability I understand that suggested format of virtual drive is RAW. Try to download it from here: https://download2.mikrotik.com/routeros/6.42.3/chr-6.42.3.img.zip (you can see all links at https://mikrotik.com/download ), create your CHR machine, add this drive and run it. Hopefully will be okay. If not, send more details on what you tried and what happened when it did not work. Maybe someone with KVM knowledge will answer.
Thank you !
To get this up and running I just went with an AWS CHR image - will figure out the KVM route once I’ve figured out if what I am trying to achieve is possible 
Nik
Maybe it’s just me, but for 55 bucks I would just buy a dedicated MikroTik hEX to run Dude on, and avoid all the invented-here hassle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the feedback, tell me where would you place the dedicated MikroTik hEX to run Dude on to avoid all the invented here hassle ?
Nik
we spent well over a thousand dollars in certified mikrotik experts to get a dude server up and they couldn’t resolve the glitching problem in server 6 and later that server 3beta4 didn’t have. The problem made our networks unuseable.
I have yet to read a report that claims the problem has been resolved and I’m not inclined to invest back into it
Is there some subtlety here that I’m missing? You would place it on the network with your customers. Or you would place it in an equivalent area of the Internet as where you intend to place your cloud hosted router solution. If a CHR will work from a given place, a piece of hardware will too.
I ended up with an aws chr instance so that I had a publicly addressable IP…
My understanding was the CGNAT (lack of contactable public IP) would have made putting the dude server on a a customer site a problem / overly complex …
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
/ip cloud is usually used to solve this need; set up once and forget.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, /ip cloud does not solve NAT issues. It is just integrated dynamic DNS. (and time sync)
It solves the “lack of public IP” problem. Solving the NAT problem is simply a port forwarding rule. I run systems configured just this way, it’s not difficult.
lack of public IP is the same thing as being behind NAT. All /ip cloud does is giving you DNS A entry pointing towards public IP of your device. If you don’t have public IP (i.e. your public IP is shared and you are behind NAT) /ip cloud does not solve anything.
If you can do port forwarding, then you can reach your device same way without /ip cloud.
in this context /ip cloud is providing just the DNS. It has nothing to do with port forwarding = does not solve the problem.
“Lack of public IP” is an ambiguous phrase. Sometimes it is used to mean “RFC-1918 address.” Other times it is used to mean “addressable but not static.” /ip cloud solves the latter problem; if your public IP can change at whim, you cannot solve this problem using only port forwarding.
My suggestion was to attach the hardware device to the edge router, inside the LAN NAT, and port-forward the Dude port on the edge router. I don’t know how to make this clearer, so I will not pursue this topic further.
Now I understand where the misunderstanding started, however, I cannot agree with this approach.
I am aware that some people use term “Lack of public IP” for “public dynamic” but that is just some people being stupid. The term has only one interpretation and that is the one you said yourself - RFC1918 address on his device, (because it is behind CGNAT as he said)
As skilled person, you should never ever assume/accept this interpretation. Every time you do, you are spreading this mistake further which increase everyone’s confusion.
Anyway, thanks for explanation. Have a wonderful day
It is equally “stupid” to assume that he is claiming that a routable IP is not available at his edge router, else remote maintenance of his network would be problematic. If he can administer it, he can install Dude hardware inside it. You have a nice day, too.