Community discussions

 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:58 am

Can we get standard 802.11s support? https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:I ... e/HWMPplus indicates that the HWMP+ protocol is based on 802.11s draft but is not compatible with it.
 
kalaposl
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:41 pm

Re: Feature requests

Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:00 pm

I would love if I could run a script as a firewall action.
 
User avatar
doneware
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:39 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Feature requests

Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:25 am

I would love if I could run a script as a firewall action.
this would degrade the packet forwarding performance in an unpredictable but disastrous way.
but you can log the match with custom tags, parse logs with scheduler, and fire actions as needed.
#TR0359
 
User avatar
macsrwe
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:43 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature requests

Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:27 am

I've been waiting over five years for /system upgrade upgrade-package-source to allow specification of its password parameter on the command line instead of demanding it interactively. This one deficiency makes Flashfig entirely useless to us and makes initializing every one of our MikroTik CPEs a multi-step manual process. I've been told this is done for "security," but every other password, encryption key, secret, etc. can be set from the CLI except this one (which is a relatively minor "security" function at best), so I'm not buying that argument. How hard can this be, guys?
 
nordex
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Croatia

Re: Feature requests

Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:14 pm

Add temperature/voltage graph.
I know it is possible to add it on dude/snmp monitoring, but sometimes it's complicated, and it should not be big problem for you to add it to the existing graphing routines.
Thanks
 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Mon May 01, 2017 4:10 am

I would love if I could run a script as a firewall action.
this would degrade the packet forwarding performance in an unpredictable but disastrous way.
but you can log the match with custom tags, parse logs with scheduler, and fire actions as needed.
You mean like inspecting every packet with a level 7 filter does? Sometimes it's nice having the ability to do something and then allowing the engineer to make sure that it does not get triggered excessively. Rather than not allowing the engineer to have the ability to do something he might have a need to do.
Add temperature/voltage graph.
I know it is possible to add it on dude/snmp monitoring, but sometimes it's complicated, and it should not be big problem for you to add it to the existing graphing routines.
Thanks
On that note, it would be really great to have an average cpu value being displayed in the resources tab. At the moment I have to run a script periodically and try to calculate this on my own.
 
biatche
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:50 am

Re: Feature requests

Mon May 01, 2017 6:07 am

request switch vlan support on RB750Gr3
 
User avatar
doneware
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:39 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Feature requests

Wed May 03, 2017 10:57 am

I would love if I could run a script as a firewall action.
this would degrade the packet forwarding performance in an unpredictable but disastrous way.
but you can log the match with custom tags, parse logs with scheduler, and fire actions as needed.
You mean like inspecting every packet with a level 7 filter does? Sometimes it's nice having the ability to do something and then allowing the engineer to make sure that it does not get triggered excessively. Rather than not allowing the engineer to have the ability to do something he might have a need to do.
there are certain "optimised" actions (like add-src/dst-to-address-list) which could have their "script" counterparts, but that doesn't mean they're the same. packet forwarding is not a thing where one want to mess with interpreted code. and running a script (executing a series of routeros commands) is actually running an interpreted code.
where i do see the quite a bit of flexibility, but it is a fundamental change how the PF code is organised. say we're just fine with a serialised code execution on a single core if it comes down to handle a flow, but that doesn't mean that cpu cycles are there to be wasted on unoptimised execution. also for me is not clear whether the script should be run in a non-blocking or blocking manner. all in all, since its just a set of interpretable code, it would be quite unpredictable whether it is to be executed parallelised or not. the result would be varying delay that could potentially affect (read: ruin) TCP throughput.

i suggested logging and parsing as a workaround, albeit it is far from perfect. but at least you'll get your messages on fw rule match in a deterministic manner, and then its up to you how those elements will be parsed and interpreted by a script or an external entity (like stuff running on syslog server) - so the desired actions could be fired.

i think this fulfils your requirements of "hands shall not be bound", but also provides enough safeguarding for the "not so creative/unexperienced" users, whose forwarding performance would be seriously degraded by running code based on firewall rule matches. and for the RouterOS developers its always a give-and-take situation, where to go, what to risk: provide a very versatile toolset where you can do anything, which can (and most probably will) result a thousands of trouble-tickets and sad faces when used inappropriately, or leave it to be solved by the excessive creativity of the few ones who actually do require it. they need to think in the dimensions of megapackets per seconds for a while, and "tinkering" does not fit into the scope no more. and there is a whole world outside of RouterOS, a lots of tools that may be used to contribute to its original functionality, we just need to think outside the box.

on the example you quoted: inspecting packets as level7 filters do. my opinion on this is a bit mixed. L7 filters offer a pretty versatile approach for packet matching, but it is not intended to be used "with every single packet". there are quite well defined guidelines - presented on regular basis on MUMs by Mikrotik folks - how L7 filters are supposed to be used, or even more harsh: shall be used. and they should not be applied to every packet. because what you get is exactly the situation i described above.
https://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/ ... 948376.pdf (slides 5 - 9)
https://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/IT14/touw.pdf (slide 13 and on)
#TR0359
 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Wed May 03, 2017 4:54 pm

I would love if I could run a script as a firewall action.
this would degrade the packet forwarding performance in an unpredictable but disastrous way.
but you can log the match with custom tags, parse logs with scheduler, and fire actions as needed.
You mean like inspecting every packet with a level 7 filter does? Sometimes it's nice having the ability to do something and then allowing the engineer to make sure that it does not get triggered excessively. Rather than not allowing the engineer to have the ability to do something he might have a need to do.
i suggested logging and parsing as a workaround, albeit it is far from perfect. but at least you'll get your messages on fw rule match in a deterministic manner, and then its up to you how those elements will be parsed and interpreted by a script or an external entity (like stuff running on syslog server) - so the desired actions could be fired.

on the example you quoted: inspecting packets as level7 filters do. my opinion on this is a bit mixed. L7 filters offer a pretty versatile approach for packet matching, but it is not intended to be used "with every single packet". there are quite well defined guidelines - presented on regular basis on MUMs by Mikrotik folks - how L7 filters are supposed to be used, or even more harsh: shall be used. and they should not be applied to every packet. because what you get is exactly the situation i described above.
https://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/ ... 948376.pdf (slides 5 - 9)
https://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/IT14/touw.pdf (slide 13 and on)
I don't see why it's not possible to do the same with a run script on hit rule with some guidelines as you mention exists for the L7 rules. Unfortunately not everybody reads MUM slides.

Yes, the method that you describe of using a firewall rule and logging is an option, but potentially something that can become really messy really quickly.

You do make a good point about whether it should run in the background or block the forwarding of the packet and I would personally argue there that it should be in the background and not delay the forwarding of the packet. Doing it in the background will significantly reduce any knock-on effects on packet throughput providing that it does not get run on each packet and there are cpu cycles to spare.
 
User avatar
doneware
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:39 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Feature requests

Wed May 03, 2017 5:52 pm

You do make a good point about whether it should run in the background or block the forwarding of the packet and I would personally argue there that it should be in the background and not delay the forwarding of the packet. Doing it in the background will significantly reduce any knock-on effects on packet throughput providing that it does not get run on each packet and there are cpu cycles to spare.
seems we have to leave it to Mikrotik guys do decide which way to go :-)
#TR0359
 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Thu May 04, 2017 7:46 am

seems we have to leave it to Mikrotik guys do decide which way to go :-)
Indupitably :)
 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Wed May 10, 2017 8:11 am

Please add the ability to ping / ssh / telnet / other from the ip dhcp-server screen in winbox. This is already offered from the wireless registration page.

Any chance we could get the ability to form simple socket connections / ssh from the router in a script? Currently it's really one sided in that it's possible to connect to the router, but not possible for the router to automatically connect to other things.
 
makstex
newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:31 am

Re: Feature requests

Thu May 11, 2017 7:25 am

Please add compression for the OpenVPN client.
 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Thu May 11, 2017 9:16 am

Could we get a proper AT command + reply interface?

Sending down AT commands in the info string and then having them randomly overwrite some output as a response is far from ideal.

On that same topic, it would be great if the /interface ppp-client info section can be rewritten to go away and read all the data and then come back with the data instead of having to be polled repeatedly hoping to get all the data after x polls.
 
felipelinkmais
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:32 pm

Re: Feature requests

Thu May 11, 2017 4:34 pm

I don't know if it was already sugested.. but mikrotik Traffic Flow could include BGP AS Numbers.
It is important to know what is going on with your network, and with the AS included a lot of things can be done.
Thanks!!
 
teddyhsu
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Feature requests

Fri May 12, 2017 2:25 pm

I hope I can create a counter only supout file, that only take process information and count connections and users.

When my routerboard have more then 100K connections and 2000 users, making supout file will take more 2 hours and bigger then 1GB.
The heavy loading reboot is very hard to debug.
 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Sat May 13, 2017 3:38 pm

I would like to request the required changes in order to allow 3G/LTE signal strength to be monitored on a continual basis without interrupting the signal - see https://forum.sierrawireless.com/viewto ... 108#p41108
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Feature requests

Mon May 15, 2017 12:20 pm

I don't know if it was already sugested.. but mikrotik Traffic Flow could include BGP AS Numbers.
It is important to know what is going on with your network, and with the AS included a lot of things can be done.
Thanks!!
:D this is one of the most highly requested features. It has been promised for the next major release of RouterOS. No ETA...
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
macsrwe
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:43 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Contact:

Re: Feature requests

Tue May 16, 2017 10:11 pm

/ip firewall address-list has a creation-time field that is read only, although it appears in the add box. It would be quite handy if that were writeable at add time, such that the entry would take effect at whatever date and time is entered. This would allow us to schedule changes in account behavior at a future date without having to be sure to log in on that date to make it happen.
 
User avatar
SiB
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Feature requests

Wed May 17, 2017 10:14 am

Now I must create the same few rules in FILTER ICON again and again in many place of WinBox (I use AutoIt to do it like workaround)
PLEASE ADD the SAVE option for filtering rules.
I will be creating prifile filters like, dhcp with dynamic only, Arp static only, Contrack show network1, conntrack show net2 - You gotta idea. Open filters and select own save before filters rules - perfect.
MTCNA + MTCRE + MTCINE | ~600 users at ~150 RouterBoards in EMEA
 
CsXen
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Budapest - Hungary

Re: Feature requests

Wed May 17, 2017 11:19 am

Hi.
I know, that Mikrotik dropped the mipsle platform support... I know... but..
Please, backport two fantastic changes to mipsle, specifically to RB532.
1. WPS client mode.
2. EAP-PEAP-MSCHAPv2

Please, make a "routeros-mipsle-6.32.5" package with these features to make our old routers happier. :)

Thanks and best regards: CsXen
 
Vooray
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:34 pm

Re: Feature requests

Tue May 23, 2017 10:39 am

Please, add /31 mask on p2p support (rfc3021).
 
freemannnn
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:29 pm

Re: Feature requests

Mon May 29, 2017 3:12 pm

it would be nice in capsman interfaces tab a column with how many devices are connected per cap.
 
User avatar
Murmaider
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:10 am

Re: Feature requests

Mon May 29, 2017 8:46 pm

I don't know if it was already sugested.. but mikrotik Traffic Flow could include BGP AS Numbers.
It is important to know what is going on with your network, and with the AS included a lot of things can be done.
Thanks!!
:D this is one of the most highly requested features. It has been promised for the next major release of RouterOS. No ETA...
+1 for this, it makes the current traffic flow implementation 99% complete. It's that 1% we all need to make it useful to anyone using BGP.
 
5nik
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:15 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Feature requests

Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:58 pm

Please add support for DHCPInform for PPP link. It is usefull for Windows VPN clients (push additional info such as domain name, classless routes etc.). Now I must redirect DHCPInform request from PPP to external DHCP server.
Generally, I apologise for my weak english.
 
Pilson
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Feature requests

Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:40 pm

Please add support for setup l2tp client source portselection - set port by maunal, or set random port. Something like /interface l2tp-client set l2tp-out1 src-port=port_number, or src-port=random. It would be a very useful feature, especially if multiple l2tp clients + ipsec establishes connections from local network via one NAT address.
Thanks.
 
User avatar
aacable
Member
Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: ISLAMIC Republic of PAKISTAN
Contact:

Re: Feature requests

Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:35 am

'Unmetered Content' / to bypass local servers from radius accounting.
_____________
Regard's

Syed Jahanzaib
Web: http://aacable.wordpress.com
Email: aacable [at] hotmail.com
 
User avatar
maznu
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 11:12 am
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:45 am

You know how everyone's always saying "we want UDP support in OpenVPN" and "we want LZO"? And MikroTik say that their OVPN implementation is really nasty code that's hard to work on?

How about instead we look to the future: WireGuard https://www.wireguard.io

Clients for every major OS, modern cryptography, and the performance looks pretty amazing:
Screen Shot 2017-06-10 at 23.44.39.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Marek
 
craterman
just joined
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jun 11, 2017 11:07 am

Please add:
- Incremental SPF
- IP FRR (RFC5714) and microloops (RFC5715)
- LFA (RFC5286) & Remote LFA (RFC7490)

And it would be really great if you add:
- RSVP FRR (RFC4090)
- MRT (RFC7812)
 
Sob
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 4379
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:11 pm

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:13 pm

About the WireGuard idea, are you a time traveller writing to us from future? :) I almost got excited, but at present time, things don't look so bright yet:
WireGuard is not yet complete. You should not rely on this code. It has not undergone proper degrees of security auditing and the protocol is still subject to change. We're working toward a stable 1.0 release, but that time has not yet come. There are experimental snapshots tagged with "0.0.YYYYMMDD", but these should not be considered real releases and they may contain security vulnerabilities (which would not be eligible for CVEs, since this is pre-release snapshot software). If you are packaging WireGuard, you must keep up to date with the snapshots.
So I think I'll stick with wanting better OpenVPN for a while, at least until this happens:
After version 1 is finalized, an RFC will be written and standardized.
People who quote full posts should be spanked with ethernet cable. Some exceptions for multi-topic threads may apply.
 
User avatar
maznu
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 11:12 am
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:23 pm

About the WireGuard idea, are you a time traveller writing to us from future? :)
Spoiler alert: Trump gets impeached!

…but I'm not going to reveal which one is released first: WireGuard v1.0 and RouterOS v7.0 :)
Marek
 
drivebydex
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:50 pm

Re: Feature requests

Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:53 pm

Please add in capsman registration table "active host name" and "active address"! THX
 
ajack46
newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Feature requests

Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:51 pm

Providing Compression for the OpenVPN client, would be something i would wish for.
 
biatche
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:50 am

Re: Feature requests

Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:45 am

1. add /ip route check-gateway-ping-interval
2. ability to customize fasttrack rules a little bit. more dual wan friendly. right now i cannot figure out a way to have fasttrack with both ipsec and multi wan, although it does appear possible if its just one extra feature.
 
th0massin0
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 4:16 am
Location: Poland

Re: Feature requests

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:34 pm

1. +1!
2. If your dual wan setup depends on mangle be aware of: https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:IP/Fasttrack
Queues (except Queue Trees parented to interfaces), firewall filter and mangle rules will not be applied for FastTracked traffic.
 
biatche
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:50 am

Re: Feature requests

Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:59 pm

1. +1!
2. If your dual wan setup depends on mangle be aware of: https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:IP/Fasttrack
Queues (except Queue Trees parented to interfaces), firewall filter and mangle rules will not be applied for FastTracked traffic.
i made some workarounds to make fasttrack+ipsec+dualwan all work together..but i really wish they'd come up with something better
 
biatche
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:50 am

Re: Feature requests

Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:01 pm

/tool fetch keep-result (yes | no; Default: yes) If yes, creates an input file.

rename this to save-tofile or something.... from what i am seeing, keep-result appears to save the output to disk. or is it input? i've no idea anymore.

MT could possibly hire an englishman to straighten the terms out.
 
th0massin0
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 4:16 am
Location: Poland

Re: Feature requests

Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:22 am

Could you please describe how did you worked out port forwarding in dual wan environment with fasttrack?
 
platitude
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:15 am

Re: Feature requests

Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:59 pm

DNSCrypt feature request topic has been started in 2012! Your customers waiting it about 5 years and still no support from you. Looks like you are not interested in customer's data privacy at all. Now open your eyes, read the message and satisfy us.
 
biatche
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:50 am

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:42 am

add tool: tcp/udp open port tester.
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5545
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:34 pm

Feature request: move all configuration related to one physical interface to another.
E.g. you have a router with two hardware switches or with ports inside/outside switch.
You have configured e.g. ether8 which is on switch2 with all kinds of options (address, dhcp server, firewall config, etc)
and you decide it would be better to move all this to ether4 which is on switch1, e.g. because you want to free up a port
that is on switch2, to do hardware switching to the other ports on that switch. It would be convenient when this could
be done with a single command, just like an interface can be renamed with a single command and it is reflected everywhere
in the config. After issuing that command and plugging the cable from port 8 to port 4, all functionality would remain the same.
For practical purposes (what would happen to the config that was on port 4), maybe the easiest implementation would
be in the form of "swap interface configurations" What was on ether4 will be on ether8 and vice-versa.
 
msatter
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:56 am
Location: Netherlands / Nīderlande

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:21 pm

When adding an adress in large adress-list is a PITA when an address already exits. The the script is stopped an you can work with on-error to seek sequential through the list use set to update it timeout on the dynamic address. This takes ages when you have to seek each time.

On the moment you get collision it would be a pleasure to be able to directly use set on that entry to set the expire time in the on-error.
Two RB760iGS (hEX S) in series. One does PPPoE and both do IKEv2.
Running:
RouterOS 6.46Beta / Winbox 3.19 / MikroTik APP 1.2.10
Having an Android device, use https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases (no root required)
 
cental63
just joined
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:12 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:22 pm

I find that Userman is a really good choice to build a hotspot service for a company, but i think, as installer, that there is something missing, few things like embedded sms verification (and not the script), and the one that i found more interesting, make the userman database readable (just think about a company with a newsletter). All could be added to make userman like a serious radius server (chr would allows more performance for anought clients). more competitive !
Thats all :o

Regards from an Italian user
 
schadom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:47 am
Location: Austria

Re: Feature requests

Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:56 pm

Please add the 'Comments' column and the 'Add/Edit Comment Button' which is currently missing in WinBox 3.11 under

Routing =>BGP => Networks
Routing => BGP => Aggregates

Interestingly it is available in Routing => OSPF => Networks, but missing in all of the other tabs
While I personally prefer the CLI for configuration, WinBox is nice to get a quick overview.

Thanks
 
Wyz4k
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 am

Re: Feature requests

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:39 pm

Please add SMB support to the fetch tool or the ability to limit FTP accounts to specific folders to the FTP server. The SMB server is considerably more advanced than the FTP server on Mikrotik and makes it easier to limit clients to a specific folder.
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5545
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature requests

Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:16 pm

/queue tree elements can now only match on "packet marks", when multiple packet marks are specified they are OR'ed.

Please add the capability to also match on the "packet priority" field, and make it an AND match with the packet marks.
(so if a queue tree element is specified with both packet marks and a priority, it will only be used when one of the specified packet
marks is present AND the priority field of the packet is as specified)

Alternatively, introduce the option of doing an AND match on packet marks. It is already possible (although cumbersome)
to add packet marks based on the packet priority field.
 
dgrenetz
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:45 am

Re: Feature requests

Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:31 am

We are deploying Mikrotik virtual appliances to centralize and replace several disparate VPN solutions. We need a way to hand out our domain suffix to VPN clients so they won't have to use Netbios broadcast to resolve names. Currently, without domain suffix setting, accessing hosts by hostname takes about 5 seconds longer than it does on our existing legacy VPN solutions. I Googled the issue and see people complaining about this all the way back to 2010. However I do not see it anywhere in this Feature Request thread. Longstanding issue - please help!!
David
 
diasem
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:15 am

Re: Feature requests

Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:22 am

Normis add /31 address for PTP links.
 
User avatar
Chupaka
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:15 pm
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Contact:

Re: Feature requests

Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:23 am

Normis add /31 address for PTP links.
/ip address add interface=ether1 address=192.0.2.2/32 network=192.0.2.3
Russian-speaking forum: https://forum.mikrotik.by/. Welcome!

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

MikroTik. Your life. Your routing.
 
vytuz
newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Feature requests

Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:09 pm

Do You maybe have in plans to make more detailed user group list? Different user access to i.e. wireless, firewall filter, nat rules, ip addresses, dhcp and etc. I imagine it may be hard to add databases and additional cunfiguration to every configuration field. Maybe any possibility to add at least additional wireless user option. Clients sometimes wants to change wifi name, password, but we do not want to allow to change other options with given password.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests