... or ROS v4.6 last?
Sorry for my English...

what do you want to wait for?

a new version. for example 4.7

but why? do you have any problem in v4.6 that need to be fixed?

RouterOS 5!

RouterOS 5!

huh?

but why? do you have any problem in v4.6 that need to be fixed?

Yes, I have some of the issues that I have not found on this forum. Also not found in the bug reports.
But due to poor knowledge of English, I can not properly articulate description. I can try. Normis, you from the Riga. You know Russian? Maybe I'll try to IM you communicate in Russian?

you can email us all descriptions in russian, we have people who know it well

ok

wrote to support

but why? do you have any problem in v4.6 that need to be fixed?

the model RB/750 (G) there is a problem in version 4.6, to version 4.5 is OK.

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... =rb750+ARP

etc.

I am waiting too for v4.7 because, the temp. issue on RB800 is still present in v4.6
any scheduler for v4.7?

velevt

but why? do you have any problem in v4.6 that need to be fixed?

Normis - are you kidding?
802.11n- does not working as expected
nstreme + polling does not working under 802.11n
wold you like more? it would be long list.
You should look up to UBNT with "N" working perfect!!

I stopped working routing rules in pptp-client connections. From the mikrotik remote network I see, and from the network behind mikrotik (masquerade) I do not see remote network. If the connection means to raise the windows, then all stops to check the login and password, an error number 619. In version 4.5 these problems did not exist.

but why? do you have any problem in v4.6 that need to be fixed?

Normis - are you kidding?
802.11n- does not working as expected
nstreme + polling does not working under 802.11n
wold you like more? it would be long list.
You should look up to UBNT with "N" working perfect!!

All that stuff works fine for us? I can't say if it's 100% optimized yet because the benchmark may not be set yet, but it works as well and faster compared to 11a???? Maybe you have poor antennas or something?

but why? do you have any problem in v4.6 that need to be fixed?

Normis - are you kidding?
802.11n- does not working as expected
nstreme + polling does not working under 802.11n
wold you like more? it would be long list.
You should look up to UBNT with "N" working perfect!!

Come on Normis - could you prove, that "N" protocol and nstreme+polling working perfect with MikroTik? Don't be shy, say something

I was able to solve the problem.
/system reset-configuration
and make a new conf, not restore backup.
It is strange that this problem appeared simultaneously in three different RB in three different ISP to upgrade to ROS 4.6

but why? do you have any problem in v4.6 that need to be fixed?

Normis - are you kidding?
802.11n- does not working as expected
nstreme + polling does not working under 802.11n
wold you like more? it would be long list.
You should look up to UBNT with "N" working perfect!!

Come on Normis - could you prove, that "N" protocol and nstreme+polling working perfect with MikroTik? Don't be shy, say something

There's plenty of proof in these forums of peoples screen shots of bandwidth tests etc. We have been using N with polling and nstream on mikroitk for a few months without issues and we love it. We have links between 1 km and 30 km all good. Speed allot better than 11A reliability fine.

We actually have had more issues with UBNT gear such as more hardware issues like lan ports only working at 10mbps etc, UBNT's Airmax is not yet as good as nstream for long distance or point to point links.

The good thing about UBNT is the equipment is cheap for client CPe's but in my opinion your just falling for the hype and believing too many idiots.

[/quote]

There's plenty of proof in these forums of peoples screen shots of bandwidth tests etc. We have been using N with polling and nstream on mikroitk for a few months without issues and we love it. We have links between 1 km and 30 km all good. Speed allot better than 11A reliability fine.

We actually have had more issues with UBNT gear such as more hardware issues like lan ports only working at 10mbps etc, UBNT's Airmax is not yet as good as nstream for long distance or point to point links.

The good thing about UBNT is the equipment is cheap for client CPe's but in my opinion your just falling for the hype and believing too many idiots.[/quote]

UDP is working good in N mode, thats all ....
I see for half people here it is working, for other it is not. For me it is not working either , cant pass more than 15mbits, high ping etc .... obvious issue posted overhere - same antennas , same link the ubnt worked for 1st time.
Beleive me i dont want to switch the equipment, but ... i donno where is the problem, but to stay in bussiness i have to switch ...
I still waiting for some info how to make the links work, but, i see only posts - yes its working . I spent several weeks and for me it is not, trie hw retries, locked MCS , tried chains etc ...
Nstreme is officially proven it is not stable with N mode...
I hope they will fix it like they fixed the bridge/cpu issue in the beggining of 3.x version and i will be able to start using N mode in Mtik also

Jan

UDP is working good in N mode, thats all ....
I see for half people here it is working, for other it is not. For me it is not working either , cant pass more than 15mbits, high ping etc .... obvious issue posted overhere - same antennas , same link the ubnt worked for 1st time.
Beleive me i dont want to switch the equipment, but ... i donno where is the problem, but to stay in bussiness i have to switch ...
I still waiting for some info how to make the links work, but, i see only posts - yes its working . I spent several weeks and for me it is not, trie hw retries, locked MCS , tried chains etc ...
Nstreme is officially proven it is not stable with N mode...
I hope they will fix it like they fixed the bridge/cpu issue in the beggining of 3.x version and i will be able to start using N mode in Mtik also

Jan

Everyone have the same problems. But MikroTik team is keeping they mouth shut!!!
Why Normis (and other MT team) not answering this post? - they know that problem exist, and don't know what to say!!!

We don't have those issues. We pass averagely between 75 - 100 mbps TCP over our MT n links some of which are 20 miles long.

I know the TCP bandwidth tests don't work very well in routerboards because the test itself tends to max out the cpu.

I suspect alot of this is down to antenns used. Incidentally were using the same pac wireless antennas UBNT use for their airmax stuff. Also we use UBNT cards.

We don't have those issues. We pass averagely between 75 - 100 mbps TCP over our MT n links some of which are 20 miles long.

I know the TCP bandwidth tests don't work very well in routerboards because the test itself tends to max out the cpu.

I suspect alot of this is down to antenns used. Incidentally were using the same pac wireless antennas UBNT use for their airmax stuff. Also we use UBNT cards.

What methods are you using on your longer links, nstreme, nstreme dual, dual antennas, dipoles etc?

Elvis