Community discussions

 
veso266
just joined
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:25 pm

Udpxy to relay multicast to unicast for IPTV: http://www.udpxy.com/index-en.html
 
Adam84
newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:51 pm

DHCP Lease assignment based only on partial MAC (i.e. only on OUI) / hostname / received DHCP Option 82 Info (this one is the most important).
IPsec Virtual Interface (that would allow routing to other networks through tunnel)
DNS records based on zones
 
NGL
just joined
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:43 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:17 am

I am in desperate need of ISIS... specifically Shortest Path Bridging (SPB)
Or some way to Dynamically route Large TE tunnels down multiple smaller ones.

Here is our problem. We are a WISP and we run MPLS and TE tunnels between sites. We use multiple connections between sites and utilize them with TE tunnels. The problem is that it does not balance well when the sites are needing lots of bandwidth and have many smaller connections. Here is an example.

Lets say site A has 4 connections to it:
1gb path 2 hops
100mb path 2 hops
100mb path 3 hops
200mb path 4 hops
Site A uses 350mbps and it is reserved in the TE tunnel. Great all is working well... until something happens to the 1gb link and it goes down.
When the 1 gb connection goes down the TE tunnel will fail and all of the traffic will then go down the 100mb 2 hops path. the other 2 links will not be used at all and the site will be crippled by lack of bandwidth. It has the bandwidth available but no way to use it.

Option 1: have some way to dynamically route Large TE tunnels down multiple smaller ones.

Option 2: Use multiple TE tunnels using BGP signaled VPLS and throw them all into a bridge that has ISIS and Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) breaks traffic up to allow multiple paths to the same site.

Option 3 (current option) Use multiple TE tunnels using BGP signaled VPLS and throw them all into a bonded interface. write a script that monitors the interface and add back changed VPLS interfaces. They are all dynamically made so when something changes they break out of the bonded interface. Then add the bonded interface into a bridge. You may need to add Nx addresses on both sides to use the fail detection on the interfaces in the bonding to make sure traffic doesn't go down a dead interface. then add another custom script to move the IP addresses to follow the dynamically created interfaces to ensure correct fail over....

Option 3 is not cool.
We really need option 1 or 2
 
troffasky
Member
Member
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:37 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:59 am

There is this small, not-well-known but very useful tool called "etckeeper" for Linux, which automatically commits all changes you do on your configuration to the version-control-system of your choice (git, svn...). An implementation of that for MikroTik would be interesting
I suggest you look at RANCID, it does what you've described. Works for me, as well as with much other network equipment.
 
gt4a
just joined
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:14 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:55 am

1. single ssid for 2.4G & 5G.
users don't have to chose 2.4g or 5g, ap will automatically assign best freqs for client. APs from Ruijie network(China based) have this feature. and some openwrt based firmware can.
2. better Active directory IAS compatibility.
radius+ias, some clients(laptop) can connect but some can't not. but all of them can connect to cisco ap(ms ad/radius).
 
jarda
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:46 am

It was always possible to use the same ssid for different wlans.
 
netflow
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:53 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:01 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping support.
Much needed for IPTV in Russia!
Don't we already have IGMP support?
Just over the weekend I managed to configure IPTV box with IGMP proxy, and 2 firewall rules (one to allow IGMP, another to allow UDP to specific subnets used by my provider)
Can you post the exact rules? Yes, we do have IGMP proxy and it should be enough in most cases. Some people refuse to try it, so a complete example would be nice, to make it easier. 
I have IGMP proxy and still feel the need of IGMP snooping to reduce network bandwidth efficiently and simplify configuration.
My intended setup:
- IGMP Proxy from WAN to LAN and L2TP interface
- Where LAN is defined as bridge between ETH and WLAN

Problems:
- WLAN is polluted once an ETH interface register for UDP streaming
- All physical ETH interfaces linked to the same internal switch are also polluted

Solution I had to use because of lack of IGMP snooping:
- Remove bridge interface, introduce L3 routing between ETH and WLAN (by separating subnet)
- Remove link between ETH interfaces and introduce L3 routing (which as consequence reduce transfer speed between cable computers) or accept network broadcast pollution or use an external switch with IGMP snooping

So OK we can work around and understand it cannot be added to v6.x but since v7 is a rearchitecturing, I think it is completely legitimate to request to add it to the toolbox for those who want/need.
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5270
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:53 pm

It was always possible to use the same ssid for different wlans.
I think what is meant is the "trick" to have a much much longer beacon interval on 2.4 than on 5 GHz
so a client that randomly starts receiving is more likely to connect on 5 GHz when it is supported.
Without this, the majority of clients will connect on 2.4 even when they do support 5, until some
config at the client is changed to prefer 5. (it is usually default to prefer 2.4)
This cannot be done on MikroTik because you cannot configure the beacon interval.
 
User avatar
rushlife
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: czech republic

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:18 pm

I wish standard bash ( or another command processor ) scripting interface.
Scripting in mikrotik and debugging scripts for mikrotik is horrible.
Sorry but it is just true. I spoken about that with many many colleagues and every single man have this wish for new mikrotik. Please, please consider this. Please.
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5270
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:02 pm

I wish standard bash ( or another command processor ) scripting interface.
Scripting in mikrotik and debugging scripts for mikrotik is horrible.
Sorry but it is just true. I spoken about that with many many colleagues and every single man have this wish for new mikrotik. Please, please consider this. Please.
I think you have chosen the wrong OS. When you want bash scripting and other open access to the Linux system, you should install OpenWRT or another compact Linux system.
In some MikroTik routers you can even do that as a Virtual Machine running under RouterOS.
The RouterOS system is designed to be a closed layer on top of Linux that guards you from direct system access.
 
lukoramu
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:11 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:27 am

Interactive command-line packet sniffer, which would print packet headers immediately and without any 'paging'.

Just like tcpdump. For example:

/tool tcpdump interface=ether1 protocol=!udp src=192.168.1.0/24
10:23:49.941810 IP 192.168.1.171.4000 > 192.168.1.240.3565: Flags [P.], seq 35055931:35055951, ack 933641181, win 8192, length 20
...
 
hzsolt94
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:47 pm

We need a lot of IPv6 features to be able to use it instead of IPv4. Just some examples:

- Working DHCPv6 server for single adresses,
- DHCPv6 with custom addressing schemes, to workaround device IPv6 limitations (Give out adresses based on MAC, give out EUI-like addresses, etc.)
- DHCPv6 DNS advertiesment support
- RA DNS extensions
- NAT66 (Needed for special things like hotspots, DNS-spoofing, captive portals)
- IPv6 policy-routing
- OpenVPN over IPv6 and OpenVPN with IPv6 inside
- IPv6 Layer7 filtering

Also there's the need for IPv6 address local-part matching in firewall rules. I frequently want to allow connections to one specific device, however as the dynamic prefix changed by the provider, the address of that devices is changed. This means there can't be exceptions based on full IPv6 addresses. (There is a dirty workaround with dydns and IPv6 address-lists but ...) The clean solution would be to match the lover bits of an address, something like "inverted /64 or /48 subnet matching".
 
ceesco53
just joined
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:36 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:13 pm

BGP4-MIB. Please and thank you.
 
User avatar
jspool
Member
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:06 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:22 am

IKEv2 for IPSec
+1 This is so needed in the industry. Mikrotik would dominate the always on VPN for mobile devices if they had a VPN that fully supported IKEv2.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:49 am

IKEv2 for IPSec
+1 This is so needed in the industry. Mikrotik would dominate the always on VPN for mobile devices if they had a VPN that fully supported IKEv2.
FYI IKEv2 was just added to 6.38 Release Candidates. See http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:IP ... 2_RSA_auth for config info.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 5839
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:53 am

IKEv2 for IPSec
+1 This is so needed in the industry. Mikrotik would dominate the always on VPN for mobile devices if they had a VPN that fully supported IKEv2.
Check the changelo of latest rc.
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 00#p566926
 
User avatar
jspool
Member
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:06 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:03 am

IKEv2 for IPSec
+1 This is so needed in the industry. Mikrotik would dominate the always on VPN for mobile devices if they had a VPN that fully supported IKEv2.
Check the changelo of latest rc.
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 00#p566926
Great news! I look forward to a stable version that we can offer to customers.
 
Florian
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:45 am
Location: France

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:47 pm

Hi !

I would love a equivalent of "llprio" found in OpenBSD6.

"In ifconfig, add the "llprio" parameter to set the priority of packets that do not go through pf."

I believe it would be a way to interact with raw sockets packets. (In my own case, I need to put priority on DHCP packets, which can't be done right now...)

Thx :)
- Sorry for my english -
 
jrandombob
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:08 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:25 pm

- Working DHCPv6 server for single adresses,
...
- DHCPv6 DNS advertiesment support
+1 on both of these, I was toying with the idea of switching my wireless infrastructure over to MikroTik, but until there's a DHCPv6 server which does host addressing I'll be putting that on the back-burner.
 
hurymak
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:14 pm

No, Secure Routerboot does not protect the hardware at all. It only protects the configuration.
Currently true, but we will implement a specific second interval for the reset, so that it will be impossible to reset, unless you know that it is triggered between the 85th and 90th second :)
when this option will be implemented?
 
Alwest
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:24 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:31 pm

DHCP Lease assignment based on received DHCP Option 82 Info (this one is the most important)
+1
must have!
I believe in Mikrotik)
MTCNA 92%
 
umount
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:52 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:56 am

Force sending of DHCP options to clients
 
buraglio
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:59 pm
Location: +1 (217)
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:00 am

IS-IS would be amazing. The ability to manage more than one routed protocol inside a single routing protocol that does not rely on the protocol it is routing for communication seems like a self evident great idea to me - but i don't have to code it and I get that building ISO/CLNS likely isn't straightforward. Nevertheless, it would significantly change the simplicity of any medium to large sized routed network. Managing OSPF2/3 pretty much stinks as a general rule and does not scale to large sizes like IS-IS does.
Segment routing via IS-IS TLV would be even more amazing. SR is a game changer - but it's dependent on the TLV or IPv6 implementation to function.

nb

I am in desperate need of ISIS... specifically Shortest Path Bridging (SPB)
Or some way to Dynamically route Large TE tunnels down multiple smaller ones.

Here is our problem. We are a WISP and we run MPLS and TE tunnels between sites. We use multiple connections between sites and utilize them with TE tunnels. The problem is that it does not balance well when the sites are needing lots of bandwidth and have many smaller connections. Here is an example.

Lets say site A has 4 connections to it:
1gb path 2 hops
100mb path 2 hops
100mb path 3 hops
200mb path 4 hops
Site A uses 350mbps and it is reserved in the TE tunnel. Great all is working well... until something happens to the 1gb link and it goes down.
When the 1 gb connection goes down the TE tunnel will fail and all of the traffic will then go down the 100mb 2 hops path. the other 2 links will not be used at all and the site will be crippled by lack of bandwidth. It has the bandwidth available but no way to use it.

Option 1: have some way to dynamically route Large TE tunnels down multiple smaller ones.

Option 2: Use multiple TE tunnels using BGP signaled VPLS and throw them all into a bridge that has ISIS and Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) breaks traffic up to allow multiple paths to the same site.

Option 3 (current option) Use multiple TE tunnels using BGP signaled VPLS and throw them all into a bonded interface. write a script that monitors the interface and add back changed VPLS interfaces. They are all dynamically made so when something changes they break out of the bonded interface. Then add the bonded interface into a bridge. You may need to add Nx addresses on both sides to use the fail detection on the interfaces in the bonding to make sure traffic doesn't go down a dead interface. then add another custom script to move the IP addresses to follow the dynamically created interfaces to ensure correct fail over....

Option 3 is not cool.
We really need option 1 or 2
ForwardingPlane, LLC
https://www.forwardingplane.net
 
lukoramu
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:11 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:45 pm

It would be very usefull to have "add to set" and "remove from set" operators in RouterOS commands, on those attributes, which contain some set of elements, i.e., ports:
/interface ethernet switch vlan set [find vlan-id=10] ports+=ether1
/interface ethernet switch vlan set [find vlan-id=11] ports-=ether3,ether4
The attribute "ports" is a set (a data structure) in this example, and operators "+=" and "-=" are hypothetical operators, which adds and removes elements to/from the set "ports". In mathematical terms - union and complement operations. Maybe event an "intersection" operator would be usefull in some cases :-)

Or is it already possible to do such operations? (I don't know RouterOS scripting yet..)
 
lukoramu
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:11 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:16 pm

Or even better - replace every "ports" and "tagged-ports" attribute (at least under "/interface ethernet switch") with a list of vlan-port associations in separate submenu (in style of "bridge ports", where you can use "add" and "remove" commands on every bridge-port association).
 
campa4bt
newbie
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:06 pm

For me it is important to obtain a consolidate multi platform VPN:

- For example introducing the IKEv2

But it will be interesting, if is possible, to realize a multiplatform client, or web based VPN client to realize VPN Tunnels over 443 https port from different devices. It will be use SSTP existing Server or something similar.

Exists a roadmap on VPN evolutions on this way?

Thanks a lot for your work.
 
User avatar
juliokato
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:27 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:31 pm

Force sending of DHCP options to clients
+1
I apologize my grammatical errors, my english not so good, I am not a native speaker.
Wiki is maintained in English. I use Google translator. 8)
 
User avatar
juliokato
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:27 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:40 pm

DHCP Lease assignment based on received DHCP Option 82 Info (this one is the most important)
+1
must have!
I believe in Mikrotik)
+1
Although I believe it is not the best solution on the routerboard.
I already a solution that generates reports and historical of all DHCP requests based on option 82. (something that MT will not do).
Btw will be something to be evaluated.
I apologize my grammatical errors, my english not so good, I am not a native speaker.
Wiki is maintained in English. I use Google translator. 8)
 
User avatar
juliokato
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:27 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:47 pm

Automatic Import

In RouterOS it is possible to automatically execute scripts - your script file has to be named anything.auto.rsc - once this file is uploaded using FTP to the router, it will automatically be executed, just like with the '/import' command. This method only works with FTP.

Once the file is uploaded, it is automatically executed. Information about the success of the commands that were executed is written to anything.auto.log

source: https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:C ... tic_Import

Suggestion for Mikrotik: could migrate the automatic import also to sftp or scp uploads and downloads . (auto execute files *.auto.rsc from anywhere)
Last edited by juliokato on Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
I apologize my grammatical errors, my english not so good, I am not a native speaker.
Wiki is maintained in English. I use Google translator. 8)
 
User avatar
juliokato
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:27 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:54 pm

How to reset counter interfaces LTE or PPP-Client.

I has find for interfaces ethernet, but not for the LTE nor PPP....

The only way i can do this at the moment is to reboot the mikrotik device...
I apologize my grammatical errors, my english not so good, I am not a native speaker.
Wiki is maintained in English. I use Google translator. 8)
 
buraglio
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:59 pm
Location: +1 (217)
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:32 pm

Another potentially easier option for implementing segment routing would be to implement IPv6-SR (and the SRH). I'd personally rather have IS-IS because I believe it is a significantly better protocol, but implementation if SRH would likely be easier since there is already an IPv6 stack and public code exists to extend the protocol.
IS-IS would be amazing. The ability to manage more than one routed protocol inside a single routing protocol that does not rely on the protocol it is routing for communication seems like a self evident great idea to me - but i don't have to code it and I get that building ISO/CLNS likely isn't straightforward. Nevertheless, it would significantly change the simplicity of any medium to large sized routed network. Managing OSPF2/3 pretty much stinks as a general rule and does not scale to large sizes like IS-IS does.
Segment routing via IS-IS TLV would be even more amazing. SR is a game changer - but it's dependent on the TLV or IPv6 implementation to function.

nb

I am in desperate need of ISIS... specifically Shortest Path Bridging (SPB)
Or some way to Dynamically route Large TE tunnels down multiple smaller ones.

Here is our problem. We are a WISP and we run MPLS and TE tunnels between sites. We use multiple connections between sites and utilize them with TE tunnels. The problem is that it does not balance well when the sites are needing lots of bandwidth and have many smaller connections. Here is an example.

Lets say site A has 4 connections to it:
1gb path 2 hops
100mb path 2 hops
100mb path 3 hops
200mb path 4 hops
Site A uses 350mbps and it is reserved in the TE tunnel. Great all is working well... until something happens to the 1gb link and it goes down.
When the 1 gb connection goes down the TE tunnel will fail and all of the traffic will then go down the 100mb 2 hops path. the other 2 links will not be used at all and the site will be crippled by lack of bandwidth. It has the bandwidth available but no way to use it.

Option 1: have some way to dynamically route Large TE tunnels down multiple smaller ones.

Option 2: Use multiple TE tunnels using BGP signaled VPLS and throw them all into a bridge that has ISIS and Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) breaks traffic up to allow multiple paths to the same site.

Option 3 (current option) Use multiple TE tunnels using BGP signaled VPLS and throw them all into a bonded interface. write a script that monitors the interface and add back changed VPLS interfaces. They are all dynamically made so when something changes they break out of the bonded interface. Then add the bonded interface into a bridge. You may need to add Nx addresses on both sides to use the fail detection on the interfaces in the bonding to make sure traffic doesn't go down a dead interface. then add another custom script to move the IP addresses to follow the dynamically created interfaces to ensure correct fail over....

Option 3 is not cool.
We really need option 1 or 2
ForwardingPlane, LLC
https://www.forwardingplane.net
 
chaplin
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:30 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu May 11, 2017 4:34 pm

Allow header modification.
curl -H
 
gmiller01
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:09 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon May 22, 2017 3:58 pm

  • MAC address vendor in IP scan results, like https://macvendors.com/
  • Telnet to other port than 23 (testing if a port is alive)
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 5839
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon May 22, 2017 4:12 pm

  • Telnet to other port than 23 (testing if a port is alive)
Already possible
/system telnet address=1.1.1.1 port=222
 
htdbnbj
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Durban, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:57 pm

Looking forward to up to date NIC support in v7 x86 and with 64Bit.
ROS x86 looking very dated at the moment and working around it with a VM solution is not the answer when all one wants is a bare hardware solution.
Hi-Technology (KZN) (Pty) Ltd. South Africa
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5270
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:19 pm

[*]MAC address vendor in IP scan results, like https://macvendors.com/
The file for that is rather large, 600K for the file used by nmap, 1300K for the file used by wireshark.
Maybe it could be done in an optional package.
[*]Telnet to other port than 23 (testing if a port is alive)
Already possible:
/system telnet 1.2.3.4 port=80
 
gmiller01
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:09 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:26 pm

[*]MAC address vendor in IP scan results, like https://macvendors.com/
The file for that is rather large, 600K for the file used by nmap, 1300K for the file used by wireshark.
Maybe it could be done in an optional package.
[*]Telnet to other port than 23 (testing if a port is alive)
Already possible:
/system telnet 1.2.3.4 port=80

Thank you :-)
 
AnupamPradhan
newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 2:44 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:23 pm

Hi All,

I have seen lots of post and hell lot of documents available on web for PCC load balancing. But all these documents dont have the one click deployment solution. I mean its great to learn something new but sometimes GUI with one click solution is better for a production environment.

I have seen Mikrotik team has done a tremendous job in developing the ROS. But still, as I believe and I am sure there are lots like me believes that this WAN load balancing is still missing from ROS.

@Normis - I have used Tplink TL-R470T+ for the same purpose. So simple and easy. If they can do it I think its not very big deal for Mikrotik team.
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5270
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:59 pm

I have seen lots of post and hell lot of documents available on web for PCC load balancing. But all these documents dont have the one click deployment solution. I mean its great to learn something new but sometimes GUI with one click solution is better for a production environment.

I have seen Mikrotik team has done a tremendous job in developing the ROS. But still, as I believe and I am sure there are lots like me believes that this WAN load balancing is still missing from ROS.
In general the MikroTik solution is not for those that want "one click solutions". The advantage is that with MikroTik you have a lot more flexibility, the disadvantage is that it requires some insight and experience from you (although in the case of PCC there are ready-to-use examples for the simple case of two equal internet connections).
When you don't have insight and experience and you have no interest in obtaining it, MikroTik may not be for you.
Please don't try to convince MikroTik that they should turn RouterOS into a one-click-system because it will remove the flexibility that the other users require.
 
lalo86
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:25 pm

Please consider implementing ShadowSocks Client/Server with chacha20 encryption.
It's so bad to use metarouter with OpenWRT or dedicated OpenWRT hardware just beacause RouterOS doesnt have it.


Thanks
 
User avatar
erebusodora
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:46 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:32 pm

I will be very glad if there is a tool for cutting the current screen of winbox. Also, if something (text) is copied from the terminal to the colors for greater convenience when looking for a setting. Also have and chat system between two routerboard systems or between two administratos in winbox :)
 
User avatar
shahbazian
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:22 pm
Location: Iran
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:52 pm

Implement NAT64 described in RFC6146 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146 + DNS64

Also, 6RD.
6RD very useful for rapidly deployment of IPv6 in ISPs; some of xDSL modems support 6RD now.
Learn MikroTik to improve your network.
( MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCUME, MTCIPv6E, MTCINE )
MikroTik Certified Trainer & Consultant
RIPE NCC Trainer
 
campa4bt
newbie
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:30 pm

Cloud Centralized Manager
 
giguard
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:10 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:05 am

Hi,
I would like to request for radius accounting support on IKE2.
Right now it is only supporting access request.

May be this goes without saying but just in case, rate-limit attribute support is necessary also.
As far as rate-limit is concern, it is now being discarded by the RouterOS.

Lastly, thank you guys/gals, your work is appreciated.
Thank you,

Daniel
 
nopain1573
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:35 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:45 am

shadowsocks built in please。
 
TerAnYu
just joined
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Russia, Novosibirsk

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:04 am

There is a strong wish to see function similar Dynamic Multipoint VPN (DMVPN)
ROS: 6.[latest]
 
chakphanu
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:03 am

JWT Token: Hotspot without local user or radius.

1.MT install public key or use JWK/JWKS method.
2.when client login via external auth server and send callback token to MT: http(s)://local.hotspot.mt/token=jwt.token.signature.
3.MT using public key to verify jwt token.
4.MT do login with parameter in jwt, without require local user or external radius.
example jwt parameter:
{
"jti": "uuid-xxxx-xxx-xxx",
"iss": "https://auth.provider.com/",
"exp": 1460046123,
"User-Name": "username@realm.com",
"Mikrotik-Rate-Limit": "1M/2M",
"Session-Timeout": 3600
}
 
estas
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:34 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:28 pm

Please, add UDPXY for IPTV stream relay!
 
hairfarmer
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:26 am

mDNS server for Chromecast/Bonjour/ZeroConfig across VLANs.

WiFi networks are too big to have all the available devices all bridged to the LAN.

Would be nice to then firewall what devices are discoverable.
 
muetzekoeln
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:29 pm

Locator Id Separation (LISP) support
RFC6830-6836, please!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest