Community discussions

 
RackKing
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:23 pm

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.
m2
 
lygstate
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 4:02 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed May 01, 2019 9:13 pm

I hope full SwOS function are merged into RouterOS
 
mkx
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 2913
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:23 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu May 02, 2019 10:42 am

I hope full SwOS function are merged into RouterOS
Which functionality can you enable/configure in SwOS that can not be done in ROS?
BR,
Metod
 
mada3k
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:53 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon May 06, 2019 8:15 pm

mDNS proxy is very useful, both home and medium-enterprise.
Manages some CCR's, RB750Gr3, RB922 and wAP's
 
arily
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:12 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri May 17, 2019 1:47 pm

IPv6 policy routing
IPv6 multiple routing table
IPv6 accounting
Address list subscription
 
eliemacho
just joined
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 12:20 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:28 am

cant really understand why does PCC require us to mark the connection of the incoming WAN interfaces with the same mark of the incoming LOCAL interface
knowing that the routing mark will take the decision at the where to route the packets to the outside world
like using the "WAN1" & "WAN2" for example as connection mark names for the incoming WANs and using the same connection mark names for the incoming LOCAL and then mark the route for each WAN interface
whats the reason behind having the same cnx mark name of the in WAN and in LOCAL

any clarification whats the relation between them and how does this feature work, CZ as for me i could mark the in LOCAL with a routing mark (using of course the pcc feature 2/0';2/1 for ex) and route every connection being made from the LOCAL to the outside with the specific gateway associated with that routing mark WITHOUT going into routing the output traffic of the router interfaces with a cnx mark of there each WAN etc...
 
Sob
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 4619
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:11 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:55 am

1) You posted in wrong thread

2) I'm not sure if I'm getting the part about same names, but no such requirement exists. In some cases, it should be possible to skip connection marking completely, but it would only work if you'd have outgoing connections only, no incoming. And even then marking connections first should be more efficient, because connection tracking happens anyway and just checking mark should take less work than doing PCC computing for each packet.
People who quote full posts should be spanked with ethernet cable. Some exceptions for multi-topic threads may apply.
 
rene72
just joined
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:35 am

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:29 pm

A solution like ha proxy in router os v7 would be usefull I like to run multiple ssl sites behind my mikrotik router on 1 public ip and lets encrypt support to automaticly secure them with ssl
 
rupeshkafle
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:44 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:24 pm

Is there any timeline for IPv6 route marking? or Is it still impossible to implement on routeros6 due to kernel limitations?
 
mkx
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 2913
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:23 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:07 pm

A solution like ha proxy in router os v7 would be usefull I like to run multiple ssl sites behind my mikrotik router on 1 public ip and lets encrypt support to automaticly secure them with ssl
The only sensible part of this wish is "letsencrypt support for SSL certificates" ...

If you're running multiple (SSL) sites behind your mikrotik, you can easily use one of those servers to run reverse proxy (haproxy functionality you requested above is essentially this) on it ... PC hardware is much better suited to run such service than average xMIPS/ARM deployed in RBs. Not to mention additional RAM needed by this functionality (it needs to keep list of active connections if load-ballancing functionality of haproxy is used). Plus all encryption/decryption (not sure if that can/will be offloaded to HW on units that have such hardware).
BR,
Metod
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5806
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:33 pm

PC hardware is much better suited to run such service than average xMIPS/ARM deployed in RBs. Not to mention additional RAM needed by this functionality (it needs to keep list of active connections if load-ballancing functionality of haproxy is used). Plus all encryption/decryption (not sure if that can/will be offloaded to HW on units that have such hardware).
While I did not make this request and do not need such functions, I would say that my CCR routers have so much CPU, crypto accel and RAM capacity that is sitting unused that it would certainly be worth it to load them with something like this, e.g. when the webserver itself gets a little overloaded by the crypto.
 
mkx
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 2913
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:23 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:46 pm

I'd say that such an expensive hardware (as CCRs are) sitting idle at some cheap enterprise, is a rare species which doesn't warrant developing new functionality. I mean ... having idle CCR costing anywhere between 425€ and 3000€, but saving some 1000€ by not buying a modest x86_64 server which would handle things much better ...

I think devs' time would be better used when implementing full feature set for IPv6 ... for example.
BR,
Metod
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5806
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:33 pm

I'd say that such an expensive hardware (as CCRs are)
Apparently we have different definition of expensive... I think our CCR1009's are quite cheap.
I think devs' time would be better used when implementing full feature set for IPv6 ... for example.
I agree with that! But talking to MikroTIk staff it became clear to me that nothing is to be expected in that department.
Apparently most of their customers are not interested in IPv6.
 
mkx
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 2913
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:23 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:06 pm

I'd say that such an expensive hardware (as CCRs are)
Apparently we have different definition of expensive... I think our CCR1009's are quite cheap.
Perhaps not ... but we might have different perspectives. Me, for example, I associate CCRs with decent LAN size which deserves some dedicated boxes to do some things ... such as dedicated server for http/https and in this case CCR should do routing and firewalling. On the other hand I expect to see budget hardware (hEX/hAP) to do stuff where it is sensible to join different tasks on small number of devices.

OTOH I'm quite used to use ICT gear vith price tags ranging from 0 to a few million €uros. (I'm not saying that's their value :wink:)
BR,
Metod
 
pe1chl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 5806
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:04 am

I was thinking more in terms of an inexpensive SSL accellerator/loadbalancer that could also perform some other functions like routing and firewalling.
Not that I need one, but maybe some people do.
 
User avatar
ingdaka
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:06 pm
Location: Albania
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:45 am

+1 for BGP4-MIB (RFC 4273)
Ilir Daka
Electronic & Network Engineer
E-mail: ilirdaka@live.com
Mob: +355692982151
WhatsApp: +355692982151
Mikrotik Official Consultant
CCNA | Fortinet NSE3 | MTCRE | MTCSE
 
Gesuino
just joined
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:28 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:11 pm

Hi please improve dude settings from cli, i love routeros scripting language. I need some instrument for auto adding devices to graphical map, in routeros style like: /dude network-maps rescan "home" that can be triggered by scripts;
/dude device add name=" " ip-address=" " type=" .... to-map="home" <-And device added can be showed in dude graphical client relative map.

Thanks :)
 
aneroid
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:07 pm

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:40 pm

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.
m2
also here ... for securing IoT over VLANs, etc.
 
kiler129
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:22 am

I hit the mDNS problem again in an enterprise setting. You know how funny it is to explain that we need a small VM just to run Avahi reflector? It got even more awkward when someone in the meeting mentioned that both Cisco and Ubiquity can do that.

Really, the mDNS/Zeroconf/Bonjour is really needed. While originally it was just merely a helpful gadget in the Apple ecosystem it's no longer the case. Back in the days there was always a manual option to connect to a device - nowadays it's simply not possible in many scenarios. Chromecasts and AppleTVs are used across the industry in conference rooms and currently it's not possible to put them into isolation since mDNS will not cross the subnets.
 
nithinkumar2000
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:42 am
Location: Coimbatore
Contact:

Re: Feature request for v7.x

Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:58 am

It would be really great if Mikrotik v7.x can include walled-garden like feature for PPPOE also just Like Cisco's.
Because PPPOE with radius create lots of hits when user is suspended of Terminated....

Thanks :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests