Page 1 of 1

RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:29 am
by G2Dolphin
From Russian MUM 2019. Currently available for downloading from http://mt.lv/v7.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:37 am
by ofer
please also share MIPSBE version

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:58 am
by gstubbe
Awesome, installing it on a spare 3011. Is there a special version of winbox needed? Or any changelog available?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:59 am
by cyon
I can't read that!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:01 pm
by krisjanisj
Awesome, installing it on a spare 3011. Is there a special version of winbox needed? Or any changelog available?
Will work with the winbox.exe You have. No special version needed.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:03 pm
by G2Dolphin
I can't read that!
* 7.0beta1 available for testing.
* For 5G-devices and other modems
* More information on MikroTik.com

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:07 pm
by pe1chl
Have any special instructions been given?
I see a netinstall and an npk, do you need to use netinstall or is it enough to upload the npk and reboot?
Is it limited to certain ARM devices or can it be used on all of them? (I have an unused LHG ac that I could try it on)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:10 pm
by G2Dolphin
Have any special instructions been given?
I see a netinstall and an npk, do you need to use netinstall or is it enough to upload the npk and reboot?
Is it limited to certain ARM devices or can it be used on all of them? (I have an unused LHG ac that I could try it on)
No other instructions was given. Heard hAP ac² and some other devices mentioned, so I guess there's no restrictions on 4G-5G devices only.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:13 pm
by gstubbe
Have any special instructions been given?
I see a netinstall and an npk, do you need to use netinstall or is it enough to upload the npk and reboot?
Is it limited to certain ARM devices or can it be used on all of them? (I have an unused LHG ac that I could try it on)
Currently running it on a RB3011 so I think it will be all arm devices.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:16 pm
by kalamaja
No other instructions was given. Heard hAP ac² and some other devices mentioned, so I guess there's no restrictions on 4G-5G devices only.
Drag NPK into Files, double reboot, done. Works well on hAP AC2, no visible difference atleast now. Linux kernel has upgraded from 3.3.5 to 4.14.131.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:18 pm
by pe1chl
Ok thanks, nice project for the weekend :-)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:25 pm
by huntermic
So instead of a kernel from 2012 we are now going to have a kernel from 2017.
Lets hope they can update this to the 4.19 version soon.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:29 pm
by macgaiver
4.14 has longer EOL than 4.19

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:33 pm
by huntermic
4.14 has longer EOL than 4.19
Good point!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:33 pm
by mkx
So instead of a kernel from 2012 we are now going to have a kernel from 2017.
Lets hope they can update this to the 4.19 version soon.
Why stop at 4.19 ... MT should go for 5.3 ... ROS 7.0 is beta, and linux kernel 5.3 is RC. With current pace, linux kernel will be at least at 5.8 long term before ROS V7 hits stable...

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:36 pm
by DenisPDA
Added ext4 support ?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:37 pm
by huntermic
So instead of a kernel from 2012 we are now going to have a kernel from 2017.
Lets hope they can update this to the 4.19 version soon.
Why stop at 4.19 ... MT should go for 5.3 ... ROS 7.0 is beta, and linux kernel 5.3 is RC. With current pace, linux kernel will be at least at 5.8 long term before ROS V7 hits stable...
For real stability you need to have long term support, and also use proven technology.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:50 pm
by itscris
Maybe I am looking with my nose.. but is there a changelog available?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:55 pm
by huntermic
Maybe I am looking with my nose.. but is there a changelog available?
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=93106&start=550#p748615

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:56 pm
by krisjanisj
Maybe I am looking with my nose.. but is there a changelog available?
Currently v7 has v6.45.5 feature set. Main change is a new Linux Kernel, rest of features will gradually come out in next builds as for now we want to ensure that v7 is stable on hAP ac^2 and WAPGR LTE/4G/LTE-US boards mainly (and other boards) to get v7 ready for upcomming 5G products.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:57 pm
by ofer
Maybe I am looking with my nose.. but is there a changelog available?
Currently v7 has v6.45.5 feature set. Main change is a new Linux Kernel, rest of features will gradually come out in next builds as for now we want to ensure that v7 is stable on hAP ac^2 and WAPGR LTE/4G/LTE-US boards mainly (and other boards) to get v7 ready for upcomming 5G products.
When will you include support for MIPSBE?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:59 pm
by krisjanisj
When will you include support for MIPSBE?
No current ETA can be given but won't be years...

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:10 pm
by itscris
Maybe I am looking with my nose.. but is there a changelog available?
Currently v7 has v6.45.5 feature set. Main change is a new Linux Kernel, rest of features will gradually come out in next builds as for now we want to ensure that v7 is stable on hAP ac^2 and WAPGR LTE/4G/LTE-US boards mainly (and other boards) to get v7 ready for upcomming 5G products.
Thanks. That makes sense. Looking forward!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:11 pm
by alexspils
after installing this release on CRS317 lost connectivity via SFP
SFP page shows only module present
after downgrading to 46beta38 SFP shows all info, signal strenght but no link

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:14 pm
by DenisPDA
after installing this release on CRS317 lost connectivity via SFP
SFP page shows only module present
after downgrading to 46beta38 SFP shows all info, signal strenght but no link
RouterOS v7 beta
Only for hap ac2, wap ac

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:15 pm
by doneware
Added ext4 support ?

[admin@MikroTik] > sys reso print 
                   uptime: 2m16s
                  version: 7.0beta1 (development)
               build-time: Sep/05/2019 15:08:48

[admin@MikroTik] /disk> format-drive file-system=
ext3  fat32
i guess not.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:19 pm
by alexspils
any way to get sfp working again?
downgrade to RC or stable does not helps

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:23 pm
by doneware
still no ipv6 support for L2TP and SSTP client/server, but hey, hello MACSec!!!
macsec.png
and vrf has been moved from 'ip route vrf' to 'ip vrf'. but export verbose dies on it :-(
ipvrf.png
on the other hand, environment(?) vars are now possible in DHCP client option values?
dhcp-opt-dyn-vars.png
finally, you can export/import ssh host keys:
sshkeys.png
wow. torrent client. this may be totally useful for distributed sw upgrades. love it.
torrent.png

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:34 pm
by FezzFest
Whoa! Just installed 7.0beta1 on a hAP ac^2. Wireless/EoIP/VPN all work.
Routing stack seems to have changed quite dramatically though!
I lost BGP, but I gained /routing/pimsm and /routing/fantasy, although I have no clue what that last one does yet.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:41 pm
by Paternot
Amazing! Finally!

Now, to the grinding that is testing! :D

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:53 pm
by blingblouw
I imagine people are going to freak about this
/interface/ovpn-server/server/set protocol=udp

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:59 pm
by DenisPDA
I imagine people are going to freak about this
/interface/ovpn-server/server/set protocol=udp
@doneware

Added support UDP OVPN ?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:06 pm
by doneware
I lost BGP, but I gained /routing/pimsm and /routing/fantasy,
is this the real life, or is this "/routing/fantasy"?
mpls is also gone. but looking at /system/packages, i'd say this is really just a preview/snapshot, as all packages are gone.

[admin@MikroTik] /system/ntp/server> /sys package/print detail
Flags: X - disabled
0 name="routeros" version="7.0beta1" build-time=sep/05/2019 15:08:48 scheduled=""
[admin@MikroTik] /system/ntp/server>

in terms of VRFs pretty much everything is bye-bye in this build, but that's might be due to no mpls support.

but for example ntp client has some significant improvements.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:10 pm
by eworm
Some paths are given with "/", some with white space. Is both allowed now?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:11 pm
by normis
BGP/MPLS are disabled intentionally, as this is a home router test.
Fantasy is fake route generator (hence the name)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:12 pm
by krisjanisj
Some paths are given with "/", some with white space. Is both allowed now?
For now both will work (so importing scripts from v6 that contain whitespaces will execute properly).

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:27 pm
by DanchoDimitrov
With the new kernel, do we get better ath10k wifi drivers?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:30 pm
by honzam
Changelog?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:31 pm
by doneware
BGP/MPLS are disabled intentionally, as this is a home router test.
some traces are visible though :-) - i love the extra insights, like /routing/forwarding-path/print and /routing/route/print.
i assume, the debug.* attributes will not be around in the official releases. is there any source that describes the new values?

and this one is just perfect.
ecmp.png

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:32 pm
by krisjanisj
Changelog?

Litteraly few posts above:
Currently v7 has v6.45.5 feature set. Main change is a new Linux Kernel, rest of features will gradually come out in next builds as for now we want to ensure that v7 is stable on hAP ac^2 and WAPGR LTE/4G/LTE-US boards mainly (and other boards) to get v7 ready for upcomming 5G products.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:40 pm
by cyon
Whoa! Just installed 7.0beta1 on a hAP ac^2. Wireless/EoIP/VPN all work.
Routing stack seems to have changed quite dramatically though!
I lost BGP, but I gained /routing/pimsm and /routing/fantasy, although I have no clue what that last one does yet.
what VPN are you running?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:46 pm
by jvanhambelgium
Have any special instructions been given?
I see a netinstall and an npk, do you need to use netinstall or is it enough to upload the npk and reboot?
Is it limited to certain ARM devices or can it be used on all of them? (I have an unused LHG ac that I could try it on)
Currently running it on a RB3011 so I think it will be all arm devices.
Brave soul ;-)
Any reason you can think of to actually upgrade & try this v7 ?
Don't think my RB3011 here will become faster or more stable.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:01 pm
by mkx
Added ext4 support ?

[admin@MikroTik] > sys reso print 
                   uptime: 2m16s
                  version: 7.0beta1 (development)
               build-time: Sep/05/2019 15:08:48

[admin@MikroTik] /disk> format-drive file-system=
ext3  fat32
i guess not.

One thing is user-land tool to format drive. Another thing is plugging USB stick already formatted with ext4 ... does ROS recognize it?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:02 pm
by FezzFest
what VPN are you running?
PPTP- and OpenVPN-clients both work fine. OpenVPN server in UDP mode works as well (just tried it)!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:03 pm
by mkx
Any reason you can think of to actually upgrade & try this v7 ?
Don't think my RB3011 here will become faster or more stable.

More stable definitely not, faster likely not ... according to changelog, kindly published by @krisjanisj, not even more functionalities.

So, unless you like to live on the edge (and sometimes slightly over it), then there's no reason to install ROS v7 on your production devices yet.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:07 pm
by DenisPDA
Added ext4 support ?

[admin@MikroTik] > sys reso print 
                   uptime: 2m16s
                  version: 7.0beta1 (development)
               build-time: Sep/05/2019 15:08:48

[admin@MikroTik] /disk> format-drive file-system=
ext3  fat32
i guess not.

One thing is user-land tool to format drive. Another thing is plugging USB stick already formatted with ext4 ... does ROS recognize it?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:09 pm
by krisjanisj
So, unless you like to live on the edge (and sometimes slightly over it), then there's no reason to install ROS v7 on your production devices yet.
DO NOT install this on production gear. This release is experimental and should be treated accordingly.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:31 pm
by upower3
Any congestion control algorithm improvments/changes? 5.x or 6.x is a bit dated on this, and new kernel in 7.x may introduce some extra ability in this field!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:46 pm
by normis
Question unclear, specific example?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:49 pm
by FezzFest
I believe he's referring to fq_codel, which is only available in linux kernel 3.6 and beyond.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:12 pm
by cyon
what VPN are you running?
PPTP- and OpenVPN-clients both work fine. OpenVPN server in UDP mode works as well (just tried it)!
IKEv2 to ios 12.4?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:17 pm
by upower3
Well, and multicore suppert for BGP one day?

Seems like a early New Year hollidays gift!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:22 pm
by mrz
BGP currently disabled, stay tuned.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:25 pm
by normis
We have never promised multicore BGP routing, by the way.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:29 pm
by upower3
We have never promised multicore BGP routing, by the way.
Surely, but keeping in mind your multicore CCRs for such a decent money and mostly stable BGP implementation you have there is no wonder a lot of poor it man still hoping for that.

By the way, after ovpn/udp this might be the next expected thing, so who knows maybe one day you make it true?

So to say, not that much fields you can use that powerful CPU for it you won't do nice tricky sophisticated things, right?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:30 pm
by normis
I believe we used the phrasing, much imroved BGP speed, or something like that

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:32 pm
by osc86
no luck with my hap ac2. Tried upgrading from 6.44 and using netinstall. Not a single frame is coming out of this thing on any ethernet port.
Edit: working now. Had to netinstall 6.45.5 only with system + dhcp package, than uploaded 7.0b1 npk and rebooted twice

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:35 pm
by normis
Some info about upcoming routing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbfKplzda7I

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:40 pm
by upower3
Some info about upcoming routing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbfKplzda7I
Quite a news, and also nice demo! Will wait for the upcoming v7 stable release (hope you're not Apple so you'll post download link not next year but by maybe November?).

Now what about 3rd thing on the list: wilder IPv6 support? :)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:46 pm
by Dude2048
Tried twice to install V7 on my hap ac2. Bricked the hell out if it. :D Thank MikroTik for netinstall...... Wil try beta2

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:46 pm
by IPANetEngineer
Image

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:59 pm
by mistry7
Tried twice to install V7 on my hap ac2. Bricked the hell out if it. :D Thank MikroTik for netinstall...... Wil try beta2
Install labtest Beta before you try the Beta, that helps for me

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:14 pm
by Dude2048
Labtest beta? I tried the link on the first page. http://mt.lv/v7

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:17 pm
by Dude2048
I imagine people are going to freak about this
/interface/ovpn-server/server/set protocol=udp
A very careful dance on the table.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:39 pm
by pe1chl
We have never promised multicore BGP routing, by the way.
Surely, but keeping in mind your multicore CCRs for such a decent money and mostly stable BGP implementation you have there is no wonder a lot of poor it man still hoping for that.
The "demo" I saw recently (no idea if it was a hoax) showed at least the use of some more cores for BGP, when multiple peers are present.
Not a completely multithreaded version which would use most or all cores on a CCR1072, but at least it is something.
(it appeared to handle each peer's updates in a separate process and then send them to a central process to compute the routing table, which was still single-core)

Thinking about it, I wonder if BGP can be made multithreaded by splitting all routes by prefix length. I would think the recomputation of the routing table can be done separately for each prefix length.
(there should be no interlocks needed between updates of routes of different prefix length)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:47 pm
by nickshore
Try putting your router on latest v6 Stable or Testing release before upgrading to the v7 beta



Labtest beta? I tried the link on the first page. http://mt.lv/v7

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:49 pm
by Hammy
We have never promised multicore BGP routing, by the way.
Surely, but keeping in mind your multicore CCRs for such a decent money and mostly stable BGP implementation you have there is no wonder a lot of poor it man still hoping for that.
The "demo" I saw recently (no idea if it was a hoax) showed at least the use of some more cores for BGP, when multiple peers are present.
Not a completely multithreaded version which would use most or all cores on a CCR1072, but at least it is something.
(it appeared to handle each peer's updates in a separate process and then send them to a central process to compute the routing table, which was still single-core)

Thinking about it, I wonder if BGP can be made multithreaded by splitting all routes by prefix length. I would think the recomputation of the routing table can be done separately for each prefix length.
(there should be no interlocks needed between updates of routes of different prefix length)
We don't post hoaxes. You can take whatever we post with confidence to the bank.

As I understand it, v7 is as multithreaded as any other BGP implementation in production anywhere.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:51 pm
by nz_monkey

The "demo" I saw recently (no idea if it was a hoax) showed at least the use of some more cores for BGP, when multiple peers are present.
Not a completely multithreaded version which would use most or all cores on a CCR1072, but at least it is something.
(it appeared to handle each peer's updates in a separate process and then send them to a central process to compute the routing table, which was still single-core)

Thinking about it, I wonder if BGP can be made multithreaded by splitting all routes by prefix length. I would think the recomputation of the routing table can be done separately for each prefix length.
(there should be no interlocks needed between updates of routes of different prefix length)

It was a legit demo.

BGP cannot be split in the way you propose. Filters need to be processed in a "run to completion" fashion. Currently the only way to get a semblence of multi threading is to run a thread/process per BGP peer, process the routing update against the filter set, then push the result up to a conductor process that runs the best path selection algorithm against the routes in the active RIB.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:09 pm
by j2sw
Folks who are expecting multi-core BGP are not understanding how BGP works on other platforms. Cisco is not multicore BGP. They have what is called soft-reconfiguration. This make a huge difference. Push for this instead of multi-core BGP. It will help more.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:13 pm
by pe1chl
BGP cannot be split in the way you propose. Filters need to be processed in a "run to completion" fashion. Currently the only way to get a semblence of multi threading is to run a thread/process per BGP peer, process the routing update against the filter set, then push the result up to a conductor process that runs the best path selection algorithm against the routes in the active RIB.
I think what they did in that demo looked like a separate process that handles the updates from a single peer, and it can process the filters.
Finally there was a single process that updates the routes (best path selection).
However, I cannot understand why that cannot be done multithreaded, with a separate thread for each prefix length.
Of course not all prefix lengths have the same number of routes, but it would at least have some more parallel processing!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:27 pm
by jmginer
Address-lists for route filters available?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:32 pm
by osc86
I hope IPv6 VRF + policy routing will be added in a later beta release......

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:35 pm
by colin
finally we saw the beta version of v7, and hope the full ipv6 support will be implemented.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:40 pm
by metricmoose
If anyone is having issues installing the beta like I did on a hAP ac2, I had to update the firmware in System>Routerboard before the v7 beta would boot properly.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:44 pm
by j2sw
If anyone is having issues installing the beta like I did on a hAP ac2, I had to update the firmware in System>Routerboard before the v7 beta would boot properly.
Makes sense. Latest firmware on the router board for the latest software.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:05 pm
by Dude2048
Try putting your router on latest v6 Stable or Testing release before upgrading to the v7 beta



Labtest beta? I tried the link on the first page. http://mt.lv/v7
Works like a charm. Thanks.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:20 pm
by mfr476
Wireless not working?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:24 pm
by dynek
No more multiple packages? What if I installed a limit number of them on my HAP AC^2, what happens with this v7 beta1?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:27 pm
by FezzFest
Wireless not working?
Wireless works fine on hAP ac^2 (and probably other ipq4000-series devices).

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:28 pm
by thekrzos
Wireless not working?
Working ;)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:29 pm
by Hammy
What is the intent behind the new torrent feature?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:36 pm
by ErfanDL
Changelog please

Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk


Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:45 pm
by krisjanisj
Changelog please

Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk

Litteraly few posts above:
Currently v7 has v6.45.5 feature set. Main change is a new Linux Kernel, rest of features will gradually come out in next builds as for now we want to ensure that v7 is stable on hAP ac^2 and WAPGR LTE/4G/LTE-US boards mainly (and other boards) to get v7 ready for upcomming 5G products.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:48 pm
by irghost
Has anyone tested version 7 on RB4011(or RB3011) ?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:29 pm
by Dude2048
The only thing so far not working is the Dude who wants to connect to ROS7. SMNP works. I think that that particular sub system is disabled.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:19 pm
by edielson_atm
I believe we used the phrasing, much imroved BGP speed, or something like that
What is the current version of the kernel?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:28 pm
by mistry7
I believe we used the phrasing, much imroved BGP speed, or something like that
What is the current version of the kernel?
Linux kernel has upgraded from 3.3.5 to 4.14.131.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:33 pm
by Jotne
Hopefully its close to this:

Latest linux release 5.2.11 (29 August 2019)

At least based on 5.x and 4.x

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:37 pm
by honzam
Has anyone tested version 7 on RB4011(or RB3011) ?
rb4011 - on table works...

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:41 pm
by honzam
Linux kernel has upgraded from 3.3.5 to 4.14.131.
Cource of this information?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:55 pm
by FezzFest
Cource of this information?
Unpack *.npk and check /lib/modules/ directory.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:56 pm
by Gu475v
Linux kernel has upgraded from 3.3.5 to 4.14.131.
Cource of this information?
Unpacked .npk file
V7.png

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:56 pm
by Jotne
Should read before I post :)

From the .ko file
vermagic=4.14.131 SMP mod_unload ARMv7 p2v8
So 4.14.131

I guess 5.x is to new for MT, only some month.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:58 pm
by mfr476
Nv2 nstream work fine?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:18 pm
by FezzFest
If that feature is important to you, why not test it and let us know?
Remember @krisjanisj's comment though:
DO NOT install this on production gear. This release is experimental and should be treated accordingly.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:23 pm
by gstubbe
Any reason you can think of to actually upgrade & try this v7 ?
Don't think my RB3011 here will become faster or more stable.

More stable definitely not, faster likely not ... according to changelog, kindly published by @krisjanisj, not even more functionalities.

So, unless you like to live on the edge (and sometimes slightly over it), then there's no reason to install ROS v7 on your production devices yet.
We just had some spare 3011s so I tried it on one of them, I'll dedicate it to v7 beta installs

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:53 pm
by genesispro
I upgraded my RB3011UiAS fine...
poe out on port10 is not recognized as poe and not working as poe
Capsman server is not working... clients won't connect... clients are all hapAC so I can't upgrade them to v7 too
CAP faild to join router .... handshake failed: error 140870e8 (6)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:15 pm
by dmcken
When will you include support for MIPSBE?
No current ETA can be given but won't be years...
Would be much more interested in tile or chr...

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:38 pm
by Paternot
Does anyone know if Mikrotik uses the kernel/official drivers on ROS7? Or is it still making them?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:42 pm
by doush
Since we have a new kernel, we are waiting for new line of CCR products preferably higher clock speed CPUs and better multi-threading.
And also x64 version for PCs and 64bit intel based SBCs.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:47 pm
by edielson_atm
Linux kernel has upgraded from 3.3.5 to 4.14.131.
Cource of this information?
Unpacked .npk file
V7.png
which program did you use to unzip?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:54 pm
by doneware
just upgraded a wAP60G to see if there's anything new on the wigig part. found nothing spectacular so far, but noticed that there's already a settable 'region' parameter:
[admin@2also] /interface/w60g> set 0 region=
asia  australia  canada  china  eu  japan  no-region-set  usa
[admin@2also] /interface/w60g> set 0 region=
otherwise the unit runs fine. will try another one tomorrow.
[admin@2also] > /sys reso print 
                   uptime: 54s
                  version: 7.0beta1 (development)
               build-time: Sep/05/2019 15:08:48
         factory-software: 6.41.2
              free-memory: 197.4MiB
             total-memory: 256.0MiB
                      cpu: ARMv7
                cpu-count: 4
            cpu-frequency: 716MHz
                 cpu-load: 0%
           free-hdd-space: 3028.0KiB
          total-hdd-space: 15.2MiB
  write-sect-since-reboot: 31
         write-sect-total: 2960
               bad-blocks: 0%
        architecture-name: arm
               board-name: wAP 60G
                 platform: MikroTik

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:55 pm
by doneware
which program did you use to unzip?
judging the previous images to me it seems it was 7z(ip). at least this was the icon i saw on the posted png.
7zip.png

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:58 pm
by doneware
@Normis,
do i correctly assume that from v7 on IPv6 will be part of the 'system' package and will be enabled by default?

[please say yes]

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:02 am
by genesispro
another issue... that I created a workaround
ppoe client (to the ISP) connects but the route that it is adding is not working... I had to create and run the following script to add a proper route that works
/ip/route/set [find where comment="pppoe"] gateway=([:pick [/ip/address/print as-value where interface=pppoe-out1] 0]->"network")

of course I added a comment of "pppoe" to the route that I created in order to get updated with the above script

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:23 am
by irghost
Linux kernel has upgraded from 3.3.5 to 4.14.131.
Cource of this information?
Unpacked .npk file
V7.png
7zip

which program did you use to unzip?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:42 am
by irghost
Linux kernel has upgraded from 3.3.5 to 4.14.131.
Cource of this information?
Unpacked .npk file
V7.png

which program did you use to unzip?
7zip

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:49 am
by gius64
I already read CCR support won’t take years and there is no ETA, but... is it expected to be released in this year or not?
BGP performances is the feature I need :-)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:39 pm
by doneware
I already read CCR support won’t take years and there is no ETA, but... is it expected to be released in this year or not?
if you check out the video that was posted previously (from april 2019) - the multicore BGP test was run on a CCR1016. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbfKplzda7I )
as far as i know, there ain't no ETA for arm either. but probably a lot more folks around the world have arm based units to test this preview version than have CCRs, so this is perfectly understandable why the first public release was done for this platform. and this version one doesn't include no BGP :-)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:15 pm
by xakep7
Has anyone tested version 7 on RB4011(or RB3011) ?
Yep.
Higher CPU load and lower speed with nat then 6.45.
Image
Image
Image

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:34 pm
by skullzaflare
I flashed last night to test it out, noticed no OSPF (atleast i havent found it yet)
Also noticed my CAPS stopped working, appears they cant see it? (i didnt flash the caps ac)

Only things i have noticed so far, but it was 1am lol

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:10 pm
by FezzFest
Haven't tried OSPF, but it looks like you can configure it under /routing/ospf. Winbox doesn't show the OSPF menu though.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:12 am
by skullzaflare
Update on CAPs, i updated one of the CAP AC to 7, then it recognized my ac2 capsman again.
Incase anyone else happens to try it.

Edit - found a new bug, CAP AC lost poe out ability, no longer in interface, HOWEVER i can see it in terminal but i cannot enable it

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:48 am
by rushlife
This is AWESOME.
Ros7 beta !

It's make my day ! Thx Mikrotik

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:23 am
by ErfanDL
Why not compile ROS 7 for raspberry pi ?

Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk


Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:43 pm
by Tobei
Hi,

I've tested 7.0beta1 on a hAP ac² and I was not able to get my configuration with VLANs (used the hw capabilities of the switch chipset) to work. Without VLANs it worked. For the moment I downgraded back to latest stable version.

Best Regards
Tobias

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:55 pm
by chrismal
First Thanks to Mikrotik team for their great product. All I would like to say is Implementing a modern AQM would be really great for example fq_codel.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:24 am
by ksteink
Nice progress!!

Some of the new cool stuff that I want to see:

- Not just OVPN with UDP support but also HW acceleration for AES encryption like hEX S or similar does HW accelerated IPSec.

- Wireguard support as well with HE acceleration for encryption.

- SDWAN capabilities like major players that has dynamic routing using PBR and L7 application identification / visibility with multiple IPSec tunnels with the option run multiple devices centrally managed from a central controller (similar to Unifi). Use the same controller to manage switches and WAPs (replacing CAPSMAN?)

- Central controller for switches and WAPs (SD-LAN)

- IPS / IDS and AMP integration to be a full UTM appliance.

- VXLAN support to have routed LANs as alternative to L2 domains and spanning tree.

- Physical stacking in switches.

- Application visibility and Analytics up to layer 7 on Routers, switches and WAPs

- Wi-Fi6 access points.

- Mainstream of 10 Gbps interfaces instead of 1 Gbps.

- Full switch features on RBs without compromising performance (avoid HW offload to be disabled) instead of limiting it to CRS 3.x series. I get that this requires to align HW dependencies but let’s do this right

- Simpler way to configure IKEv2 on the router and clients (i.e wizard that generates all the configs on predetermined profiles?)






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:52 am
by jvparis
Hi,

I've tested 7.0beta1 on a hAP ac² and I was not able to get my configuration with VLANs (used the hw capabilities of the switch chipset) to work. Without VLANs it worked. For the moment I downgraded back to latest stable version.

Best Regards
Tobias
I was experiencing the same and also downgraded.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:42 am
by BlackFate
It's true that we were promised OVPN with UDP support in RoSv7.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:12 am
by Dude2048
Not promised. But the functionality is there. I have not tested it yet.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:40 am
by doneware
L7 application identification
with the growing number of <you-name-it>-over-HTTPS applications around, if your app can be identified in the transmission path, then encryption is not working quite right.
the network isn't there to solve all the possible issues what in general sw devs are too lazy to tackle, it's just delivers packets from A to B or sometimes to C. on application level you have far more visibility, flexibility, transparency and can react much smarter than you can possible ever do in L3. and for sure you don't want to expose app internals to a random NE in the transit path.

IMO, this 'app aware networking' is something most 'major players' push down both the operators' and the customers' throat for quite a while (5+ years), claiming the other one wants to have this. but in reality, most people - regardless whether they're residential or business customers - just want to have a reliable connectivity with reasonable speed at an affordable price.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:32 pm
by mfr476
NV3 is coming?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:01 pm
by mkx
NV3 is coming?

Personally, if I had to choose between 802.11ax and NV3, I'd rather get 802.11ax. Because it might boil down to such choice ... either use stock linux/producer driver and miss any vendor specific protocols (such as nstreme or NV2) or write own driver and include whatever bells and whistles you want, but write own drivers with all of bugs brought in due to limited testing possible. With some luck MT will be able to come up with a hybrid solution (use bulk of stock driver but hook in NVx) ... I've no idea if that's possible or feasible.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:37 pm
by r00t
Wifi6/802.11ax have TDMA as a part of the specification, so there should be no need to implement any proprietary TDMA protocol for it.
It can even do much more than what supposed NV3 would ever do, like splitting bandwidth into multiple streams for different clients at the same time (at OFDM carrier level, similar to what LTE does).
If the Qualcomm Linux driver and firmware passed WIFI6 certification, all these features should be working "out of the box"...

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:12 pm
by brauser
Hopefully its close to this:

Latest linux release 5.2.11 (29 August 2019)

At least based on 5.x and 4.x

Latest LTS kernel with longest life is the current used: 4.14. Please see: https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:22 pm
by Ulypka
ovpn.png

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:24 pm
by dynek
BTW Wireguard works with 4.14.142 ;-)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:23 pm
by KBV
OVPN is not compatible with the previous v6;
v7 ovpn client does not connect to server v6.45 if certificates are used.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:32 pm
by Swordforthelord
OVPN is not compatible with the previous v6;
v7 ovpn client does not connect to server v6.45 if certificates are used.
Where were the certificates generated?
In my experience, MT generated certificates don't work with the Windows OVPN desktop client (maybe they do now, I haven't tested recently). Maybe, hopefully, if your certificates are MT generated from v6 or older this is an indication that Mikrotik is now using code from the actual OpenVPN project?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:27 pm
by weather01089
Is the Mipsbe coming soon?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:44 am
by KBV
Where were the certificates generated?
In my experience, MT generated certificates don't work with the Windows OVPN desktop client (maybe they do now, I haven't tested recently). Maybe, hopefully, if your certificates are MT generated from v6 or older this is an indication that Mikrotik is now using code from the actual OpenVPN project?
Certificates generated by MT CHR, but I won’t say exactly which version, it was a year or two ago. It was definitely version 6.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:51 am
by chechito
Wifi6/802.11ax have TDMA as a part of the specification, so there should be no need to implement any proprietary TDMA protocol for it.
It can even do much more than what supposed NV3 would ever do, like splitting bandwidth into multiple streams for different clients at the same time (at OFDM carrier level, similar to what LTE does).
If the Qualcomm Linux driver and firmware passed WIFI6 certification, all these features should be working "out of the box"...
OFDMA is not the same as TDMA

The main objective of TDMA is to avoid collisions between stations due to the hidden node problem, which is exasperated in ptmp scenarios.

In fact OFDMA implies an increase in complexity if it is intended to be implemented in PTMP

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:52 am
by sindy
Where were the certificates generated?
In my experience, MT generated certificates don't work with the Windows OVPN desktop client (maybe they do now, I haven't tested recently).
Certificates generated by MT CHR, but I won’t say exactly which version, it was a year or two ago. It was definitely version 6.
Certificates include a field called key-usage, and various clients and servers treat this field differently, from ignoring its contents completely to only accepting the certificate if a particular usage is listed in that field. So I would not say "MT generated certficiates don't work", I would say "certificates not matching the requirements of the software which uses or receives them" don't work. As no "OpenVPN client" or "OpenVPN server" usage is standardized for certificates, I would expect "tls-client" or "tls-server" to be required, but you have to check.

Also, some clients and servers require a minimum key length and minimum key type (RSA/EC) of the certificate to accept it.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:11 am
by KBV
As no "OpenVPN client" or "OpenVPN server" usage is standardized for certificates, I would expect "tls-client" or "tls-server" to be required, but you have to check.
Also, some clients and servers require a minimum key length and minimum key type (RSA/EC) of the certificate to accept it.
This key usage is set correctly and it worked on version 6.
I have
client side certificate: tls client
server side: digital signature, key encipherment, tls server

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:45 pm
by Swordforthelord
As no "OpenVPN client" or "OpenVPN server" usage is standardized for certificates, I would expect "tls-client" or "tls-server" to be required, but you have to check.
Also, some clients and servers require a minimum key length and minimum key type (RSA/EC) of the certificate to accept it.
This key usage is set correctly and it worked on version 6.
I have
client side certificate: tls client
server side: digital signature, key encipherment, tls server
What do the logs show for both sides when the client tries to connect?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:03 am
by GreySer
IGMP-proxy not available at current beta ?

RouterOS v7 bundle package

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:28 pm
by Chupaka
- removed individual packages, only bundle and extra packages will remain
Does it mean that workaround for SMIPS' 'insufficient space' by installing only necessary individual packages won't work anymore? %)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:42 pm
by normis
The bundle is smaller now, plus the underlying issues are fixed. This should not be required anymore

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:50 pm
by pe1chl
I never liked the bundle. I usually don't require all packages in the bundle but I do require some extra packages.
I think the better way would be to only install packages that are relevant to the device by default, and have an easy-to-use UI to download the required extra packages.
(the update server already provides them, only need to present a list of available packages, checkmark the required ones, and a Download&Install button)

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:55 pm
by normis
Well, this will no longer have to be considered. Only bundle in v7.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:01 pm
by pe1chl
And no more extra packages? Or still the "download a zipfile, unpack it, upload some files to the router" method of installing an extra package?
I mean it seems so easy to solve that in the UI of the router itself, given that it already can update itself and that works ok when extra packages have been installed before.
Also it seems like MikroTik is now focusing more on the home market and it is just nonsense to have packages like mpls and routing in the bundle package for everyone...

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:04 pm
by normis
Don't mix up "extra" with "all" packages.
Like I previously said, there will be default bundle + optional extra packages, like user manager, tr069, calea, gps, lcd, ups. I think that's all.

There will be no more system package

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:06 pm
by pe1chl
So things like MPLS, OSPF, BGP etc will remain standard in all home routers? Or will these options just go away for things like hAP Lite?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:08 pm
by normis
nothing will be removed, just those things will be in the bundle. the bundle itself will be somewhat smaller though.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:29 pm
by Hammy
We would appreciate further compartmentalizing of Router OS features to increase device efficiency and reduce attack surface.

Put SMB, Torrent, and other things that have no place in ISP infrastructure into another package.

Put BGP, MPLS, and other things that have no place in consumer devices into another package.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:32 pm
by muetzekoeln
We would appreciate further compartmentalizing of Router OS features to increase device efficiency and reduce attack surface.

Put SMB, Torrent, and other things that have no place in ISP infrastructure into another package.

Put BGP, MPLS, and other things that have no place in consumer devices into another package.
+1

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:44 pm
by pe1chl
Put BGP, MPLS, and other things that have no place in consumer devices into another package.
Well it actually is like that in v6, but unfortunately those packages are part of the "bundle" and enabled by default, while things more important for consumers like IPv6 are disabled by default.
It would have been nice when v7 removed that unclarity (and sometimes it was also the source of problems) of having the nested "bundle" package where you can only enable/disable subpackages, and the "extra" packages that you can install and uninstall. No more cases of having a package disabled in the bundle, installed as extra package, and getting tangled on updates.

But apparently the movement is in opposite direction: everything except for some really niche packages become part of the bundle. So everyone has to download the entire bundle, for which there has to be space (has been problematic in several cases).
Now we will have to see how many subpackages there still are in the bundle and if the default enable/disable state is reasonable.
Hopefully everything I require is in the bundle (it looks like it as the things I install extra are ntp and multicast) so at least there is only 1 case.

It would have been understandable to me when the message was "we have moved ppp, dhcp, security and ipv6 into the system package to make dependencies more managable".
But why this whole bundle package thing is even there to begin with, is completely unclear.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:02 pm
by Paternot
But why this whole bundle package thing is even there to begin with, is completely unclear.
Well, I don't have an spare ARM to test the beta7, BUT

1) I imagine it is much better to just ship the router with all the capabilities: both in terms of Mikrotik support hassle and in terms of user/admin maintenance.
2) They said it is smaller than version 6. Well, version 6 still works ok with 16MB of storage - problems arise when You install some extra packages. If everything is tucked in the bundle, and it uses less space... it's a win-win, don't You think?
3) Yes, there are some packages (which ones?) that aren't part of the bundle. Remains to be seen if the choices made are sane - but since Mikrotik is doing it for some time now, I believe they will get it right. Time will tell. The wise move would be to leave these extras to something niche, where it would be expected that the router would have more storage anyway.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:07 pm
by Sob
Wait, torrent wasn't a joke? I'm usually for everything so no hard complaints from me, but that seems ... unexpected. :D

Otherwise agree with packages, merging some basic ones into one would definitely make sense, but some could still stay separate.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:24 pm
by GreySer
Don't mix up "extra" with "all" packages.
Like I previously said, there will be default bundle + optional extra packages, like user manager, tr069, calea, gps, lcd, ups. I think that's all.

There will be no more system package
Say me please, multicast package included in current beta, or not ?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:46 pm
by Cha0s
Wait, torrent wasn't a joke?
Torrent is an essential feature of every router!
DNS on the other hand... :lol: :lol:

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:54 pm
by nz_monkey
We would appreciate further compartmentalizing of Router OS features to increase device efficiency and reduce attack surface.

Put SMB, Torrent, and other things that have no place in ISP infrastructure into another package.

Put BGP, MPLS, and other things that have no place in consumer devices into another package.
+1

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:24 pm
by xvo
We would appreciate further compartmentalizing of Router OS features to increase device efficiency and reduce attack surface.

Put SMB, Torrent, and other things that have no place in ISP infrastructure into another package.

Put BGP, MPLS, and other things that have no place in consumer devices into another package.
+1

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:02 pm
by cmanuelsantos
From Russian MUM 2019. Currently available for downloading from http://mt.lv/v7.
@Normis,
Will there be any new wireless improvement for wisp?
I need to know because I will deploy new sites and I need to decide if deploying with mikrotik or any other wireless manufacturer with good tdma.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:37 pm
by mfr476
+1 wireless improve

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:33 pm
by Gennadiy51
another issue... that I created a workaround
ppoe client (to the ISP) connects but the route that it is adding is not working... I had to create and run the following script to add a proper route that works
/ip/route/set [find where comment="pppoe"] gateway=([:pick [/ip/address/print as-value where interface=pppoe-out1] 0]->"network")

of course I added a comment of "pppoe" to the route that I created in order to get updated with the above script

I also had to register a route to connect via PPPoE and the connection happened normally:
2019-09-12.png
but I don’t understand what is shown on "Nexthops":
2019-09-12 (1).png

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:28 pm
by doneware
Put SMB, Torrent, and other things that have no place in ISP infrastructure into another package.
with the SMB thing i am totally OK. with the torrent - do we know the purpose of the torrent client here?
i saw a couple of devices which included torrent functionality for sw distribution - and i mean the OS for the devices itself.
i think this is a cool idea, esp for boxes that are present in large numbers in the network, say the CPEs. not because of the network load, but the concurrent downloads on the server side. in a home device management with 10s of thousands of CPEs a network wide sw rollout can pretty much become a bottleneck. if torrent functionality is here to address that, i am all in.

on the other hand i totally agree, for core or border routers you will hardly ever need it.

on the other hand, i have no issues with preinstalled/deep integrated components if they are disabled and by disabling i mean completely deactivating. as long as it fits on the device it is all cool for me. disabling a single package in a composite npk will not remove anyhing from the flash, and in general functions like torrent client could be activated/deactivated on the fly w/o requirements to reboot the device.

i love the flexibility of routerOS and the fact that i can have any of them on any platform. if you start to demand feature splits between device families, you can quickly end up in a segmented mess, for example the thing cisco has for quite some time. since the late 90s/early 2000s you have sw features on one model/family what you don't have on the other. and marketing folks are very good at screwing up stuff like this.

IMO unless a feature/package doesn't have a significant impact on the performance of the device just because it is installed, but has a way to deactivate it in the configuration, it is just fine. why'd anyone bother to uninstall/disable the routing package (BGP or MPLS) if BGP/LDP/MPLS is disabled on its own? in routeros disabling/removing packages renders a certain amount of the configuration invalid, and the parser will throw an exception when encountering an attribute/option that depends on a package that is unavailable (like use-ipv6), so cross-references can be a pain sometimes. and this is just complexity we've been exposed. there might be a lot more hidden behind the scenes.

i can't stress it any further: IPv6 is a basic stuff now, it shouldn't be a separate package. it is ok if you disable IPv6 forwarding in /ipv6 settings, or we could even have a kill switch for the whole ipv6 protocol stack if one desires (banks, financial institutions and most enterprises are scared ....less), but it must be the part of the basic cocktail, and if you ask me it must be enabled by default.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:43 pm
by muetzekoeln
i can't stress it any further: IPv6 is a basic stuff now, it shouldn't be a separate package. it is ok if you disable IPv6 forwarding in /ipv6 settings, or we could even have a kill switch for the whole ipv6 protocol stack if one desires (banks, financial institutions and most enterprises are scared ....less), but it must be the part of the basic cocktail, and if you ask me it must be enabled by default.

In the near future users will request a kill switch for IPv4, because ISPs enforce it or it will have unwanted effect/vulnerabilities.

As already suggested, if single-function packages are not feasible, two system-packages (ISP/core, CPE/resident/home) would be ideal. But both packages should be available for every device model. So you can have a small Mikrotik device in the lab and test configurations for later rollout on core equipment, for example.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:45 pm
by Quasar
BTW Wireguard works with 4.14.142 ;-)
Now that the kernel is compatible, adding the required userspace glue should be easy for MikroTik.

Would really boost VPN performance without having to rely on (hardware) IPsec acceleration.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:08 pm
by pe1chl
IMO unless a feature/package doesn't have a significant impact on the performance of the device just because it is installed, but has a way to deactivate it in the configuration, it is just fine. why'd anyone bother to uninstall/disable the routing package (BGP or MPLS) if BGP/LDP/MPLS is disabled on its own?
Well, it appears that MikroTik is moving from the small-ISP-backbone world to the home consumer world, offering equipment for home usage with features targeted to home users, some of them pre-configured with appropriate default settings for that market.
It would seem natural to have protocols like BGP, OSPF and MPLS disabled by defauit on such devices, to reduce confusion for daddy who wants to make a small change to the config and should not be distraced by a menu called "Routing" which has nothing to do with what he needs but may sound familiar (it is called a Router, what does it do: Routing, probably I need to set something there).

It would seem natural to me when those home boxes come with a couple of packages pre-installed that run the functionality that the particular model offers (like having Wireless/Hotspot only when the device has a wireless interface, BGP/OSPF/MPLS only when it is like a CCR or RB1100 and maybe not even then, and have an easy way under System->packages to add packages from the available packages list without having to fiddle with zipfiles and uploading.

I don't see what advantages a "Bundle package" brings, except for the side-effect that you can install packages simply by enabling the subpackage from the bundle package.
But it seems like a difficult way of achieving that, and it does not scale well (when packages are added to the Bundle all the time, it grows too big for the smallest devices. has already happened!).

The default enabled/disabled status of the subpackages needs to be considered. To me, it appears that routing and mpls should be disabled by default, ipv6 enabled by default.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:21 pm
by doneware
Well, it appears that MikroTik is moving from the small-ISP-backbone world to the home consumer world
i might rephrase this a bit: extending instead of moving. but that's just my feeling.
It would seem natural to have protocols like BGP, OSPF and MPLS disabled by defauit on such devices, to reduce confusion for daddy who wants to make a small change to the config and should not be distraced by a menu called "Routing" which has nothing to do with what he needs but may sound familiar (it is called a Router, what does it do: Routing, probably I need to set something there).
if you ask me, webfig (even with that hideous quickset) ain't for the faint hearted. i deliberately did not mention winbox. people nowadays are "simple". i saw folks getting around on the GUI of OpenWRT but freaking out from webfig on mikrotik. and this also applies to the Tikapp: it is not a consumer tool. i'd say a true home customer friendly solution would be a separate - airport utility like - app for quick setup and no webfig. or a _drastically_ simplified webfig. i doubt that any of the forum visitors should be taken for a role model for the "random home consumer from the 'hood". what seems obvious and simple to us, for the everyday guy is like quantum physics.
To me, it appears that routing and mpls should be disabled by default, ipv6 enabled by default.
you have my full support on that.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:15 pm
by Paternot
Don't have a spare ARM, so can't test V7. But one thing I'd like to see is UTF8 support. I want to be able to write comments on my own language with all its characters available.

I know it isn't critical, but would be nice to have...

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:52 pm
by Sob
@doneware: I wouldn't go into how consumers can or can not handle RouterOS. You can't solve that, either we can have nice and configurable system as we know it, or it can be user friendly for them. But hardly both at the same time. It's for different discussion.

For packages, IMHO bundle was a mistake, when it was still like individual packages, only glued together. But it does make sense to merge some packages into one (for start at least system, security, ipv6, dhcp, possibly others) to avoid dependency problems and necessary conditional code (so it would not be bundle, but one new package with stuff from previous individual ones). Is there a reason to not have security or ipv6 in 2019? No. Dhcp may be a little different, but since it's already required by security...

And for the rest, I wouldn't mind to have everything, if those components can be disabled, i.e. they would be present but not running, so not exploitable. On the other hand, seeing home stuff in their routers does annoy enterprise people, and enterprise stuff may confuse home users (not that much really, if they can deal with the rest), so having separate optional packages for those wouldn't hurt either. Another matter is 16MB flash, for that it would be best to have even more smaller packages, but it's the opposite direction than MikroTik wants to take.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:26 pm
by Florian
Soooo, we can't disable undividual package with V7 ?

Because if not, I hope the ipv6 / duid bug, where it's needed to disable the dhcp package before changing the mac adress (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=120801&p=699787#p699787) is fixed.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:52 pm
by IntrusDave
Why are people asking for ext4 on mikrotik devices when they should be asking for f2fs?

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:59 pm
by Quasar
no luck with my hap ac2. Tried upgrading from 6.44 and using netinstall. Not a single frame is coming out of this thing on any ethernet port.
Edit: working now. Had to netinstall 6.45.5 only with system + dhcp package, than uploaded 7.0b1 npk and rebooted twice
If anyone is having issues installing the beta like I did on a hAP ac2, I had to update the firmware in System>Routerboard before the v7 beta would boot properly.
Both were relevant for my hAP ac2. First had to upgrade the bootloader (I was on 6.44.1) else it would fail to boot (netinstall required).

Afterwards uploading v7 & rebooting didn't do anything, until I removed all but the system package.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:29 am
by mszru
Why are people asking for ext4 on mikrotik devices when they should be asking for f2fs?
As a home user, I wish v7 had support for exFAT. Microsoft has made technical specification for exFAT publicly available last month (proof link).

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:49 am
by paulct
Out of interest is there an expected release date of new revisions, e.g v7.0beta2 every couple weeks? Or would we only get updates every quarter?

Thanksk

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:06 am
by krisjanisj
Out of interest is there an expected release date of new revisions, e.g v7.0beta2 every couple weeks? Or would we only get updates every quarter?

Thanksk
There are no set release schedules for the next beta releases. We will release beta2 once were done fixing current bugs that were found in beta1 and once we expanded the current feature set (and maybe beta on another platform, who knows!).

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:27 am
by paulct
There are no set release schedules for the next beta releases. We will release beta2 once were done fixing current bugs that were found in beta1 and once we expanded the current feature set (and maybe beta on another platform, who knows!).
Thanks, I would presume the beta version of V6 would slow down now and more resources allocated to the v7 dev team. No point in flogging a dead horse essentially.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:46 am
by pe1chl
Thanks, I would presume the beta version of V6 would slow down now and more resources allocated to the v7 dev team. No point in flogging a dead horse essentially.
I would hope that by now the infrastructure is in place to work on both versions in parallel without duplicating all the effort... after all, there is still a long period of parallel maintenance ahead before v6 can be buried and forgotten.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:56 pm
by IPANetEngineer
Out of interest is there an expected release date of new revisions, e.g v7.0beta2 every couple weeks? Or would we only get updates every quarter?

Thanksk
There are no set release schedules for the next beta releases. We will release beta2 once were done fixing current bugs that were found in beta1 and once we expanded the current feature set (and maybe beta on another platform, who knows!).


Even if it's not perfect, we'd love to start testing BGP/MPLS on ARM/Tilera!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:29 pm
by jprietove
Even if it's not perfect, we'd love to start testing BGP/MPLS on ARM/Tilera!
And CHR also, please!!

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:44 am
by colin
Even if it's not perfect, we'd love to start testing BGP/MPLS on ARM/Tilera!
And CHR also, please!!
CHR +1

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:05 am
by nz_monkey
CHR +1

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:18 pm
by dynek
CHR-2

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:12 pm
by blimbach
CHR++

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:30 pm
by pe1chl
Please don't post those useless +1 messages in this topic. They serve no purpose and clutter the useful information.

Re: RouterOS v7.0beta1 (ARM)

Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:41 pm
by leosmendes
Any chanfs of the sfp tab on interfaces appear on x86 with this new version? Important information is not reported to sfp card users. What tasks are ready for multiprocessing today in v6? and what happened to be in v7? what is the implementation order for them?