I'm not really sure whether I'm a fan of the combined OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 configuration now. It is quite different and there are fewer tabs than before, which is I suppose better in some way. But interfaces and networks are now combined into one tab, which makes it a little ambiguous regarding whether you are configuring OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 - for instance if I enter an interface name as the network (which it allows), which protocol am I configuring? I know I must configure OSPFv3 in this way but can I configure OSPFv2 in this way? It is not really clear. Also how is passive interface=all accomplished - it looks like it is now default without having to add "all" - is that correct? I tried adding network "all" and checking passive (like I would have in the older interfaces menu) but "all" gets turned into " " (blank).
/routing ospf area
add area-id=0.0.0.0 instance=OSPFv2 name=Backbone
add area-id=0.0.0.0 instance=OSPFv3 name=Backbonev3
/routing ospf interface
add area=Backbone network=192.168.88.0/24 network-type=broadcast
add area=Backbone network=192.168.44.0/24
add area=Backbonev3 network=ether1 network-type=broadcast <-- what happens if I do this with Backbone instead of backbonev3? Does it do anything?
I think especially if I was new to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 I would be very confused by the options and unsure which options applied to OSPFv2 and which applied to OSPFv3 now that the dialogs have been combined. I imagine you are adding OSPF authentication back (at least there is a setting there that currently seems to not do anything) but I don't know how you would clarify that that is an OSPFv2-only option. There is a "cost" option under interfaces which makes sense but now that networks is also in the same screen that also means I can add a cost for an IPv4 network - what does adding a cost do for an IPv4 network? I assume nothing since cost for a network would not make logical sense (only cost for an interface makes sense) but since they are combined into a single dialog it is misleading.
Also, under areas now I need to have my backbone named differently for OPSFv2 than OSPFv3 - so instead of being able to use backbone for area 0.0.0.0 for v2 and backbone for area 0.0.0.0 like I could with older RouterOS, it seems like I now have to use something like backbonev2 and backbonev3 so that they don't get confused? I mean it lets me name both "backbone" but the problem is that then I can't tell which is the OSPFv2 area and which is the OSPFv3 area.
Is this just incomplete? So far it seems like the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 configs are just kinda randomly jumbled together and scrunched into a single dialog to save tabs at the expense of clarity, but I'm not sure how different the final version is intended to be. If you are planning to implement address familes in OSPFv3 perhaps this combined dialog might make sense, but otherwise it seems to be more confusing.
(On the plus side, both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 seem to work just fine, with some longstanding bugs seemingly fixed from the ROS 6 implementation.)