http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Virtualization
I like it!
I like it even more because it’s documented before it’s released, making it easier to try once it is available.
Now we only need a VMware package… 
Just to spark conversation…
Why?
So you can run multiple RouterOS instances on a single host.
I think Mikrotik would have been better off to implement “Virtual Domains” as a feature of the OS. This would have a master option for enabling VDOM’s. When enabled, you could create individual RouterOS VDOM instances via WinBox/CLI without having to manually create images, it would just install a RouterOS base. There would be the “root” vdom which is the HOST os, and is connected to for management of interfaces and vdom’s. From the root vdom you could “switch” into the sub vdom instances for admin, however interfaces would still be controlled from the root vdom and assigned to sub vdoms.
This would make it seem like a more professional system.
Hell, with a combo of this and CARP like functionality it would be bloody impressive.
what about licensing of virtual routers?
i for one can not wait to try this, it has potentially so many applications, especially in a DC environment. i can foresee a licensing model similar to user-manager, where you have have up to 5-10 instances on Level 3-5, and then unlimited on Level6.
keep up the good work guys!
Can you share some application Examples ?
gmsmstr
I guess this is one application example:
x86 Hardware base.
RouterOS is installed, and then inside the Xen hypervisor there, we install CentOS 5 with a squid proxy setup.
Maybe that is a way to get a nice R-OS and Proxy server mix going. Might get around some of the issues that folks have with the RouterOS web proxy.
Rgds
Alex
@ alex_rhys-hurn, i think i missed the part where it is actually a virtualization product that will allow you to install other operating systems, i think it should just virtualize mikrotik instances only. at least that is my perception what the xen package should accomplish for mikrotik, no reason to run other operating systems on an actual mikrotik router.
@gmsmstr, i for one can see an excellent opportunity to offer DC customers their own firewall/router/vpn server/dude instances that can be managed by us or the client themselves.
One of the big problems with virtualization is that it allows and encourages a wide variety of operating systems and roles to be to be in once place with no firewalling or minimal separation. For the datacenter, MT can be part of the solution for taming this.
At a branch office or small business, one box could be the MT router, VOIP system, file/email server, all in one powersaving and spacesaving box.
For training and testing, it could be a good feature for MT corporate and individual students. We could use one PC to setup a network of multiple virtual MTs communicating with each other to learn new network features. MT themselves could use the ease of creating, rebooting, destroying virtual MTs to automate software release testing to a further extent.
The dude packages are nice. I can see that as being very important. The only key issue I see is how people are going to deal with getting the connectivity though the router, that has 6 or 20 other routers on it. Usually a router is a hardware piece, either it be a x86 solution or not. I could see a “combined” package with say, your router, plus server on a virtual piece. The question comes in can you create multiple connections to multiple virtual servers.
I have used virtual servers in the past and I do like the thoughts behind it. Just wishing to understand how this is a great improvement. Course, I look at some of my hardware, like the 2200 Series PowerRouters and think that these powerhouses would be ideal for MT. Lots of Power, solid hardware etc.
@gmsmstr, first thought that came to my mind in dealing with multiple mikrotik instances and customers was: VLAN baby, VLAN! I can see us throwing one of our spare Rackable C2004’s at this and adding a dual/quad gige into it as well, lots of horse power.
Figured as much. Something else I was thinking is dropping in a private network, and doing a PPTP connection to get a public.. Or PPPoE
is this xen only allowed on VT capable chips? If it is thats good, if not, then I could see it will cause many problems with older i386 boxes that aren’t made for virtualization.
Some non VT capable chips will do paravirtualization, and it looks like the MT mentions supporting this. This doesn’t mean all i386 compatible systems can do virtualization; just a larger subset than the present built-for-virtualization processors, perhaps most processors built in the past two-three years instead of those from the past 18 months.
i386 do support virtualization - there is just a larger overhead handling VM exceptions than on the processors supporting VT feature.
I love you guys, first MPLS, and now Xen! 
Now just add un-modified DomU support so we can run Windows on MT (yuck, I know), and iSCSI support so the OS images don’t need to be local, and I may just be able to replace EVERYTHING with MikroTiks.
Truly awesome work! 
HI..
Awesome feature…As it is not that old…and has recently been integrated on LINUX platform…I think it is one of the most greatest achievements of MT…
GO MT GO!!! 
In this version 3.11 with XEN , its possible Virtualize Windows Server ? or only Linux or Mikrotik ROS ?
Sandro
Wow you guys are on fire! A big thanks to Mikrotik!! Now if I could only get UDP support in OpenVPN.