New years gift to our loyal forum users. This is the list of features we have planned to complete within the next 6 months, for v5:

- IPsec IPv6 support with IKE v2 IKE v3 (probably in v6 beta)
- IP Pool support; for PPP and DHCP (to manage networks instead of addresses)
- IPv6 Address auto-configuration from other routers
- IPv6 DHCP stateless configuration & prefix assignment
- Hotspot
- Webproxy
- DNS64
- NAT64
- SSTP IPv6
- L2TP IPv6 (also probably only for v6 beta)

IPv6 DHCP stateless configuration & prefix assignment

You probably mean stateful address allocation.

Any plans to support MPLS 6PE?

no, stateless

yes, MPLS 6PE is planned, but probably in v6 beta only.

IPV6 support is a top need right now.

- IPsec IPv6 support with IKE v2 IKE v3 (probably in v6 beta)
Will it include new things except just IPv6 support? Like ciphers, PFS Group 14-16 and authentication algorithms?
- Webproxy
Is it possible for you to add a remove button to remove all the "Mikrotik HttpProxy" headers while you guys are at it?

New years gift to our loyal forum users. This is the list of features we have planned to complete within the next 6 months, for v5:
[...]
- Hotspot
[...]

How? NAT64 -> NAT44?

Hooray, that's exciting. Excited about the other features, too.

Great news !


Thanks guys, looking forward to it.

I would like to suggest that when the dev team are concentrating on IPSEC that they implement "Virtual Tunnel Interfaces" and "Next-Hop Tunnel Binding" as well as IPv6

this would allow us to replace a large amount of aging Netscreen's and Juniper SSG's It is also one of the top features requested on the Wiki list

VTIs would be awesome, yes.

Cant really say you support IPv6 without IPSEC functional.. IIRC, the IPv6 RFC required IPSEC capability...

So realistically, we are looking at about 12-18 months before ROS really supports IPv6 completely.

Is it possible for you to add a remove button to remove all the "Mikrotik HttpProxy" headers while you guys are at it?

Should also allow you to disable exposing the address of the device being proxied (X-Forwarded-For header).

12-18 months before ROS really supports IPv6 completely.

so and where did you get that number?

12-18 months before ROS really supports IPv6 completely.

so and where did you get that number?

lol, did the O/P not know the Latvian's work faster in the winter to keep warm

IPv6 featureset will be complete in a jiffy

12-18 months before ROS really supports IPv6 completely.

so and where did you get that number?

If you arent doing IPv6 IPSEC until V6, and v5 has been testing for 9 months, with a few months to go until stable.

Just sayin....

we could make v5 full release in 2 months, and release v6 beta the day after that. just sayin

we could make v5 full release in 2 months, and release v6 beta the day after that. just sayin

Beta != Release

we could make v5 full release in 2 months, and release v6 beta the day after that. just sayin

Beta != Release

?

Release means when something is available to the public. How stable or complete that release is, is another question. As you know, versions keep changing, and new features get added since 1996, so there is not one "final" or "complete" version out there.

we could make v5 full release in 2 months, and release v6 beta the day after that. just sayin

Beta != Release

?

Release means when something is available to the public. How stable or complete that release is, is another question. As you know, versions keep changing, and new features get added since 1996, so there is not one "final" or "complete" version out there.

That has to be the most narrow-minded comment I have ever seen. "RouterOS is never complete because we always add stuff to it".

If that is how you want to justify it, fine. But the simple fact remains that (unless someone kicks dev into gear) a complete IPv6 feature-set is 12-18 months away. Masquerading behind "We are always adding new features" wont change that.

I didn't say anything like that. I referred to the popular wish for "v5 final release". Use of word "final" is misleading, as you know v4.0 already superseded by 16 newer versions.

Still no sign of IPv6 mangle mark routing ??? so still can't do nth load balancing

On that topic is there any chance we could have a very simple config like ECMP but which does per packet and not per session ???

It would just round robin the packets across each interface added to the default route.

Nick.

- IP Pool support; for PPP and DHCP (to manage networks instead of addresses)

This will help.

- IPv6 Address auto-configuration from other routers

Will this be something that works for all address types or just link-local? If the MT is in router mode, wouldn't this break the specification? Or is this DHCPv6 client? I'm not complaining, but wanting to understand what you are saying.

- IPv6 DHCP stateless configuration & prefix assignment

YIPPEE!! One of the VERY important features.

Hi guys!

I'm new to MikroTik but not new to networking or routers. I just want to say what a fantastic job you've done on the product. I purchased a RB750 last year sometime, and had tried it in different lab scenarios, and the other night I was ready for the real deal. I've also been lurking on the irc channel as flrichar.

The MT handles everything I need it to do, including my IPv6 tunnel from HE.net. I did notice whenever I enable stateless autoconfiguration, it doesn't seem to be sending router advertisements. Am I doing something wrong, or is this a bug or caveat? I'm running the latest stable 4.16. I've set it up before in Cisco and Linux, and actually, I've turned on radvd for the same /64 and segment I want, and it works perfectly.

I'm at the point where I don't mind if it's a bug or caveat, I just want to know I'm not crazy and stop pulling my hair out searching for something I may have overlooked!

Our ISP has just announced support for IPv6 Prefix Delegation on PPP using DHCPv6

http://www.aaisp.net.uk/news-2011-ipv6.html

How long until we see support for this in RouterOS ???

The more complete the IPv6 implementation, the more routerboards we will sell, the competition are lagging behind.

Nick.

Our ISP has just announced support for IPv6 Prefix Delegation on PPP using DHCPv6

How long until we see support for this in RouterOS ???

A good question - I keep an eye on the changelogs, but it hasn't appeared yet. It's critical for me - my ISP does dual-stack V4/V6, and I'm unable to use IPv6 because the RB750 does not do DHCPv6/PD. My only option would be to pull the RB750 out and put the Cisco back in (with the corresponding increase in power bill).

I note in this (http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 0&start=50) thread there's discussion of this. themmc has the right idea. I saw the suggestions to statically configure prefixes for users - as themmc said, that does not work. If a user's PPP session can dynamically land on any of 3 or 4 different LNS's, which one do you hard code their prefix on?

For an ISP, they need tools to do this stuff dynamically. They have those - mostly.

For a user, they need a router than can do DHCPv6/PD. Those are few and far between.

As a side note, an RB750 that had an ADSL2+ port (and DHCPv6/PD) would be an interesting beast indeed.

Whenever I'm having a bad day, I can just come here and read the IPv6 feature list to make me happy again.

Appreciation will be shown in love and alcohol. ^_^

Please consider a IPv6 blackhole implementation.

Still no sign of IPv6 mangle mark routing ??? so still can't do nth load balancing.

I think whis will never make it to the TODO list...
...because in v5 Winbox I already see Ipv6 firewall mangling.

What about a NOT-IPV6 todo list? My wishlist:
* MLPPP, mostly PPPTP or anything else server AND client. Like so many I am using nth mangling to bundle connections which is very inflexible compared to MLPPP.
* Real, not bandwidth limited queues. Have the OS take from the highest priority queue first inthe tree, dont drop random packets for lower priority traffic. I never will understand why my PING drops when I backlock "left over" traffic on my connection. Others can do that (AVM does prioritization without knowing the netwok speed nicely).
* Integrate queues with MPLS in a sensible faction. At least allow requeueing on special MPLS queues (simple priority is all that is needed there, the priority can be set at the entry point). Right now I can not use MPLS becasue of traffic classes and the inability to mix priority + routing. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong

Interesting point to note, Blizzard is rolling out IPv6 for WoW in tomorrows 4.1 patch. I believe the first major game to do so

Curious as to how DHCPv6 prefix delegation is going? Is that likely to be here soon?

Would be good to have prefix delegation out before world IPv6 day

http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/

Good luck with that, looks like we will have to miss ipv6 day due to memory leaks in ROS 5.x

dynamic ipv6 address lists are really needed to implement rate limitation with pcq.

Any updates on the following for IPv6 ??

Prefix Delegation
Packet Mangling
Policy Routing


How long until we have a complete IPv6 implementation ?

Nick.

Hi there,

Normis can you confirm that you will be implementing http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6204 as a typical IPv6 CE Router?

thx

I am impatient to see full IPv6 PPPoE-server support in ROS. I would allow me to throw away several ciscos.

I am impatient to see full IPv6 PPPoE-server support in ROS. I would allow me to throw away several ciscos.

It works here (ROS 5.4). I just miss dynamic ipv6 address-lists.

DHCPv6-PD is fast becoming the most critical feature missing from ROS, The only reason I can see that it hasn't been added yet is MT simple aren't putting any energy into IPv6. I think it's time (again! since things seem to happen only when we kick up a fuss) to all e-mail MT support about DHCPv6-PD and other key IPv6 features

DHCPv6-PD is fast becoming the most critical feature missing from ROS, The only reason I can see that it hasn't been added yet is MT simple aren't putting any energy into IPv6. I think it's time (again! since things seem to happen only when we kick up a fuss) to all e-mail MT support about DHCPv6-PD and other key IPv6 features

I agree . unfortunately other solutions have no success also http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=53586

Maybe Mikrotik are waiting for 6.0beta to introduce more ipv6 functionality... ???

DHCPv6-PD is fast becoming the most critical feature missing from ROS, The only reason I can see that it hasn't been added yet is MT simple aren't putting any energy into IPv6. I think it's time (again! since things seem to happen only when we kick up a fuss) to all e-mail MT support about DHCPv6-PD and other key IPv6 features

we are working on it

You've been "working on it" for 6+ months now, It's a joke. Atleast just take some OSS code and whack a npk together.

Given the prevalence of PPP for internet connection the IPv6 stack in ROS is pretty useless without PD, You can work around it using 6to4 tunnels over your access network but that doesn't scale well enough.

How about you actually hand out a realistic time frame this? You said ROS 5 would have it but that could be a year away still, It's not a massive under taking. It seems like you've slipped back into your old habbit of doing nothing until your users scream at you for something

I am impatient to see full IPv6 PPPoE-server support in ROS. I would allow me to throw away several ciscos.

It works here (ROS 5.4). I just miss dynamic ipv6 address-lists.

Can you pass IPv6 network routes to attached PPPoE clients assigned through Radius?

Can you pass IPv6 network routes to attached PPPoE clients assigned through Radius?

Yes, with Framed-IPv6-Prefix. They stuck in ospf, though, Ticket#2011051866000501.

Can you pass IPv6 network routes to attached PPPoE clients assigned through Radius?

Yes, with Framed-IPv6-Prefix. They stuck in ospf, though, Ticket#2011051866000501.

Ok I will make some test in the next days. Are you planning to fix the OSPF issue in the next release?
Otherwise I might consider using BGP to announce routes to the rest of my AS.

Thanks!

- IPsec IPv6 support with IKE v2 IKE v3 (probably in v6 beta) - DONE
- IP Pool support; for PPP and DHCP (to manage networks instead of addresses) - DONE
- IPv6 Address auto-configuration from other routers - hopefully next week
- IPv6 DHCP prefix assignment - DONE

- IPv6 DHCP stateless configuration
- Hotspot
- Webproxy
- DNS64
- NAT64
- SSTP IPv6
- L2TP IPv6 (also probably only for v6 beta)
- MPLS

what about IPv6 Firewall route marking for nth mangle etc ?

IPv6 policy routing is planned for later, no actual plans yet.

what about IPv6 Firewall route marking

me too, very need it, thanks mr.janisk, thanks mikrotik. i hope ipV6 policy routing will release immediately.

BTW: I've got a working DHCPv6 on Mikrotik now. All I need for it is support for Radius. Can't really tell who gets which prefix now.

All I need for it is support for Radius.

yep, RADIUS support is 'must have' feature for DHCPv6!

Mr Normis what is the current status? how many % finished?

- IPsec IPv6 support with IKE v2 IKE v3 (probably in v6 beta) - DONE
- IP Pool support; for PPP and DHCP (to manage networks instead of addresses) - DONE
- IPv6 Address auto-configuration from other routers - hopefully next week
- IPv6 DHCP prefix assignment - DONE

- IPv6 DHCP stateless configuration
- Hotspot
- Webproxy
- DNS64
- NAT64
- SSTP IPv6
- L2TP IPv6 (also probably only for v6 beta)
- MPLS

which of these do you personally need the most? others also, please discuss

we are working on:

- SSTP IPv6
- L2TP IPv6 (also probably only for v6 beta)
- MPLS

- Webproxy

I think this already works

Hi Normis,

@home where I currently do this to experiment and learn IPv6.
Well the thing I was trying to do right now is to create ACL's in the webproxy and to get that to work properly. I can not add IPv6 addresses in the ACL in winbox.

I have in IPv4 also used the webproxy in transparent mode. Seems to be impossible right now and from what I can read about IPv6. Am I wrong?


@work we currently have IPv6 on the roadmap for next year.
The things we need there is L7 filtering, Hotspot, DHCP (Equal function as IPv4, not only prefix delegation) and MPLS

How far is your progress on these things?


edit: I tried to use the proxy by hardcoding it in firefox and made a test rule to allow all. But to no avail it did not allow me to use IPv6 and the webproxy. Could be user error but I can not at the moment figure it out. Anyhow ACL with IPv6 address or subnet does not work. Will be translated to 0.0.0.0 when done with Winbox Terminal. And not accepted when done in the GUI.

I need dynamic "ipv6 firewall address-list", currently it's only static.
Also ospf-v3 is not quite stable, there are stuck redistributed routes.