Hi.
UPnP exposes information to the internal users. It should be possible to make use of UPnP portforwarding only while maintaining stealth.
NAT-PMP would be good to have as well considering UPnP has been suboptimal so far.
What do you think?
It would be great to have the same features as seen here in Tomato Firmware:
Yes. This is serious.
MikroTik, Please.
Would be a damn good idea.
send this feature request to support
Can we please have decent/best in world UPnP already ?
I am talking about making it usable in ISP/Wireless ISP environments with higher requirements about security, usability and stability for customers without public IPs.
Thank you.
you can have decent UPnP:
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:IP/UPnP
I second this request. Settings like those suggested from Tomato are necessary to be able to use uPNP on a larger scale. Currently there is no way to do the cleanup in a decent way. Also secure mode can be very important in a hack sensitive environment.
Especially with IPv4 filling up or rather, having filled up. It’s of paramount importance to have great uPNP and NAT-PMP support. NAT will only get used more and more the coming years instead of less. 
Is it on to-do list or not?
NAT-PMP features - imply vulnerable code usage(unless someone re-wrote “from scratch” clean fork, which is unlikely) and actual only among Apple “MacOS”(glorified xBSD mix/mess with ugly UI/DE) users, ie niche market.
probably if Apple consumers fill petition to invest/pay into Mikrotik to implement that - it may happen. for example.
Well NAT-PMP carries other advantages like:
DNS Long-Lived Queries - a protocol for setting up long-lived DNS queries with change notification, as a more efficient alternative to rapidly polling the server
and
Dynamic DNS Update Leases - a protocol for performing DNS Dynamic Updates with an attached lease time, that are automatically deleted unless renewed before the lease expires, much like a DHCP address lease.
Cisco and juniper adopted it in carrier grade NAT.
I think if Mikrotik would adopt this protocol, this fact would catch attention among mac and i* users.
personally i more like enjoy others NAT-T things support in RouterOS, but if anyone be happier with NAT-PMP its okay, WHEN/IF someone implement relatively secure support of it, which is not happened, yet, sadly
and since NAT-PMP mention - why not PCP instead, which is ough to be replacement for NAT-PMP, right ?
ie, This thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Control_Protocol
its support EAP and other essential features and thus resolve portions of concerns/flaws both security and performance -wise.
and yes, it May be useful. just like DIAMETER implementation along with RADIUS its ought to replace over time/years.
Any news on from mikrotik on implementation (PMP or PCP).
Come on guys, tell us you’ve done it already! 
PCP would be funny things 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Control_Protocol
aswell as configurable NAT-T implementation.
implementing NAT-PMP(that ought to be replaced by PCP)had not much sense by itself.