This is a legacy parameter that initially was used to not overflow available memory. Then somebody thought that it is a good idea to use it as a protection from bad announcements. But actually, it is the worst case you can do for protection. Flapping connections simply add unnecessary load to the r...

sorry misread the original post. max-prefix-limit most likely will not be added.

Seriously?

So any peer could crash my routers by flooding me with prefixes? No, wait, should we even EXPLAIN you why max-prefix-limit is important?

What specific things do you want to see in RouterOS 7?

I would like to have the bugs you said you wouldn't fix in 6.x fixed, no more than that.

Especially the issue with VRFs with the same IPs (Ticket#2014042266000552) which is almost a showstopper for my whole business....

does yor default Routing table or Your vrf tabel have the Gateway? The defaul route is installed in the main table by the DHCP client. A static route does the same, however. The VRF is pretty empty, just an interface with a single static IP address. BTW, if I disable the interface in the VRF and re...

add a dst=0.0.0.0/0 to Your route add? :) You are missing default GW, and cannot Reach anyting else than Your 192 net. No, I'm not missing it, I forgot to re-enable the DHCP client default route after trying to add a static default route. The issue remains. [admin@BACO] > /ip route print Flags: X -...

Ticket#2014042266000981 I setup a SSTP client connecting to a server with a properly signed wildcard certificate (CN=*.sevio.it). The server is correctly sending the certificates chain. The client is configured to use the server's hostname vpn1dev.sevio.it. The client connects, the server's certific...

Also.... 6.12, removing an intermediate/CA certificate has no effect, it is still sent to the client until reboot.

Also... minor issue not worth opening a ticket.... downgrading from 6.12 to 6.11 removes server certificate from OpenVPN server

Ticket#2014042266000552 I have a very basic configuration involving VRFs: /ip address add address=192.168.1.1/24 interface=ether2 network=192.168.1.0 /ip dhcp-client add add-default-route=no dhcp-options=hostname,clientid disabled=no \ interface=ether1 /ip route add distance=1 gateway=192.168.1.1 sc...

Ticket#2014042266000516 I've just upgraded a VPN concentrator to 6.12 and discovered that the intermediate certificate is not being sent anymore. Previously (6.11) the root certificate was also incorrectly sent, but ignored by the clients, now neither is sent, thus breaking client connections. Here ...

I copied 6.0rc11 on a RB750 which already had 6.0rc11 and rebooted, after the boot completed ssh wasn't working (connection refused, "/tools ssh" missing). Also resetting the configuration to the default one leaded to failures and ultimately the ethernet ports became all disabled. I had to...

Negative, the power saving related issue is present even with 802.11n disabled. make sure that you use the latest RouterOs version when you are testing that problem. I tested either with 6.0beta2 and 5.17, I'm going to test with 5.18 but if the problem persist will you try to troubleshoot these iss...

If you run them in single chain mode (disable chain 1 for both ht tx and ht rx) they work fine.

Negative, the power saving related issue is present even with 802.11n disabled.

Normis, please have a look at this updated thread http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 6&p=320723 , the issue with power saving clients is very well reproducible and deterministic and might be related to these other performance issues.

anyone with problems, post output of this command: Sorry, I didn't have a RB751 at hand to do the tests. I just had a fresh RB751G-2HnD delivered to me, I installed 5.17 and 6.0beta2, in both cases the problem with N900 power saving consistently showed up. The N900 completely stopped responding to ...

I confirm there are several issues with RB751 wireless. My setup is the following: RB751 with ROS 5.14 configured with B+G+N, italian regulatory domain (20 dBm), very clean 2.4 GHz spectrum 2 clients within 1 m range: A Dell D830 with an Intel 4965AGN running Linux A Nokia N900 The Dell client, thou...

I'm testing with 5.0rc3, now the reported issue isn't happening again, however (as it happened with 4.x) the channel is closed after the first command.

Isn't it possible to keep the channel open according to how OpenSSH does?

Why can't you run Dual Stack?

When the address space is exhausted what IPv4 address would you use? There will not be any even if you want to NAT everything on a single one.

And no, double NAT is neither acceptable nor legal here in Italy for ISPs.

Bye,

I don't vote for NAT64 for one simple reason. We don't actually need it, at least not yet, I think there are higher priorities. I agree with you, NAT64/DSN64 will not be indispensable until the address space is exhausted, in the meantime it it more important to have full support for dual-stack feat...

Hello, I noticed a regression in RouterOS beta/rc up to rc1 in the way SSH server handles SSH protocol. After some debugging I found out that the SSH server is not answering with either SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_SUCCESS or SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_FAILURE to the SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST message, although it is sending ...