Seems to be a few questions and few key features of IPv6 floating around. Would anyone from Mikrotik care to comment on a roadmap for v6 and what features are expected to make it into what version of ROS?
From the wiki all access to the router is v4 only currently (SSH/API/Winbox/etc) along with alot of tools like bandwidth test, torch, queues and some key things like MPLS which MT is pushing quite hard for us to use on links in order to get the best out of them. Transition technology is somethings thats been raised in another thread, Does MT have any plans to implement any of them and which one(s) is MT going to push?
There is alot of talk about the new wireless tech in ROS 5 but almost no talk about the extensions to v6 in ROS 5, This time next year if we haven’t run out already we will be down to the last 1 or 2 /8’s left for IANA to hand out, As ISP’s with any foresight are starting to layout the plans for v6 for their own networks now it the time for MT to come out and outline their own plans for v6 and give us an idea of the timeline/featureset we can expect from ROS
I have to say this is something key that really needs to be done. I understand it will be improbable to apply all the features of IPV6 within the space of 6 to 12 months so a time frame of what kind of features we can expect to see when would be key to the next round of purchasing decisions my org makes. Currently I run a combination of UBNT and MT equipment, but have recently been told I need to be running a dual stack network no later than Feb next year. And currently with no DHCPv6 or PD this is an issue (this would need to work with PPPoE as well).
If there is only going to be a few months wait time, then it would be worth me just doing a patch job using some older servers as routers, but if this is going to take 6 months + then maybe I need to look at cisco again.
Its the not knowing that is really killing me at the moment…
I find it very disappointing that there is no MT comment on this, Ignoring v6 wont stop it from coming. Any serious ISP is planning their v6 deployment if not already in trails like us, If MT’s roadmap of v6 isnt upto spec then we will have to work around this with a partner like cisco as will a many other ISP’s
There are some principles we use when we are choosing what features to implement next. No matter if it is IPv6 feature, new wireless feature, hardware support feature or any other feature.
are there standards available that describe how feature should be implemented?
number of clients asking for specific feature.
number of clients willing to try out and debug new feature if necessary.
We have resources to implement only few new features at the same time. And situation at the moment is simple - new wireless protocols and features / proper multi-cpu support and load balancing over cores are features that are far more demanded by customers than IPv6 features.
Also only few customers have actual feature requests - most of others just ask “all IPv6”.
Sorry, bur at this point i can’t give you any time frame.
I’m very disappointed in this response, Its a complete cop out. There are a number of threads asking for some advanced features and some basic ones, NAT64/DNS64 is a new one without comment. Basics like torch, bandwidth test, v6 router services like winbox and ssh.
Clients may not be demanding them now but when ISP’s are no longer able to request v4 space the clients will be screaming for it and MT’s v6 feature set will be young and untested and given past history buggy for the first 10-15 releases. Now I’m not asking for a “We will have X by Jan/01/2011” but an simple outline of what MT intends to include (Router access to all services over v6, All tools able to do v6, v6 pppoe, DHCPv6 etc) and what transition tech MT is looking into and MAYBE if they know what ROS version they are planning to put each feature into.
Like I’ve said a number of times, Now is the time to be upskilling into v6 for techs, Planning rollout and vendor selection for ISP’s along with bringing backoffice systems upto speed and for Vendors to be outlining their v6 plans and working towards a stable v6 feature set.
Based on whats just been said to me I now have to devise a “Plan B” network design to use Cisco to deploy v6 and break a pure MT network up because MT’s listening to what clients want right now without looking at what they will need in the future. Its worth noting that a high percentage of contracts with major companies and govt’s are requiring pure v6 upgrades in order to secure them.
I suggest anyone else like me who’s looking forward to a pure v6 world posts here and e-mails MT letting them know they want v6 now
We have resources to implement only few new features at the same time. And situation at the moment is simple - new wireless protocols and features / proper multi-cpu support and load balancing over cores are features that are far more demanded by customers than IPv6 features.
Okay, so MikroTik is spread thin. I guess customers aren’t purchasing enough RouterBoards to create the revenue needed to hire the developers to address these requests.
There are quite a few feature requests by customers. Some may not be in as high demand as others, but most of the requests I’ve seen lately are quite reasonable. What would it take to start a bounty program to implement various features? Companies regularly fund Linux/BSD developers to implement various features. Would MikroTik be open to something simliar?
The thing is, In my mind their v6 feature set is almost done, Router access over v6, Router tools for v6 and some protocols are even in the 5 beta now (pppoe,dhcpv6), Add in a transition tech like NAT64/DNS64 and It wouldn’t take much to polish it off even if it meant that for now v6 ROS tools like bandwidth test were console only, Having to console in to do something rather than winbox it is ALOT better than having no option at all.
RouterOS has enough IPv6 features to slowly deploy IPv6 network. PPP IPv6 support is already added, stateless auto-configuration is added (can be used until statefull configuration is implemented).
NAT64 looks to me as unnecessary, incomplete feature that is not that popular (judging from my Google search).
tbh it looks like it addresses only HTTP transition - i can’t see other services (like FTP) working in this.
So if you need IPv6 customers to be able to browse IPv4 HTTP pages - use a simple everyday solution → HTTP PROXY, and don’t ask MT to rip the Kernel apart.
Manually assign IPv6 Proxy address in your client browsers and allow HTTP Proxy handle IPv6-IPv4 transition
Your right PPP IPv6 is back in ROS 5 beta which was taken out due to security reasons from 3.18 IIRC. As I said the feature set is almost there but its the access and tools of ROS its self which is holding back alot of our plans personally.
As for NAT64, Dont confuse it with NAT-PT, NAT64 is what google and cisco are pushing and is currently being deployed, Its in active trails with T-Mobile in the USA and a couple of UK isp’s run it via Cisco’s CGv6 platform. NAT64 is out there and tested, for the most part applications work right away and FTP is the most common one to fail which is corrected with ALG’s
I dont think you understand what NAT64 is about, You cant simply put a proxy in place as your client browser will still get a A dns record and attempt to go V4, NAT/DNS 64 catchs this and changes it into a AAA dns record. There are currently 3 main transitional tech out there, LSN, DS-L and NAT64. LSN is large scale NAT and is only seen as a option for tiny ISP’s, DS-L helps ease transition and NAT64 is the main endgame as v6 content outweighs v4 content
I am currently running v5 Beta 6, and your right, a lot of the iv6 features are almost there. However, Ipv6 client over PPPoE isn’t working (/Doesn’t exist), and as far as I can test DHCPv6 server or client (that can get a PD), doesn’t exist either.
I know their have been plently of request for a working ipv6 PPPoE client (even reports that it worked as part of a bug in an older version).. so it would be interesting to know if this is still on the books, or on a roadmap.
And your right, this isnt going away… if end users can not get an IP address, then having a router is kind of pointless. Any word from MT on a time frame for the closure of at least SOME of these issues?
Seems fairly natural to me so far. NAT64 is all that we need at the moment, so, we just need (have) this feature to wait or become more demanded than others as presented by MT support, unfortunately. As for me to say that people still didn’t realize how important it is…
IPv6 DHCP is not the same as you are used to. There is no need for DHCP client at all. Hosts receive RA messages and generates IPv6 address based on MAC. This is a part of IPv6 autoconfiguration features. Also according to RFC Routers are ignoring RAs and does not perform address autoconfiguration, this feature is ment only for the hosts.
DHCPv6 (server) is also just an option for statefull autoconfiguration.
With latest beta versions I don’t see any problems routing IPv6 traffic over ppp tunnels. If you have any problems please describe in details.
Well thats a step in the right direction, For those of us who dont like sending passwords in clear text when will SSH/API/Winbox over LL/Global v6 Address be in place?
For the most part, IPv6 (running b5v6) works fine for my needs apart for one key piece within ipv6 firewall mangle. There’s no action: ‘mark routing’. I utilize this feature within the IPv4 to round robin packets over multiple pppoe links.
Is this mangle function going to be included at some point in the near future?
