i would like to see a devellopment image.
where we could make test and integrate our own software.
mikrotik is based on a linux kernel so we could have a lot of extra software installed on it, like custom drivers. small http server with graphing... adsl drivers... just some stuff i found in the forum.

i myself would like to make a package to support some aditional LCD displays and maybe some GPLed adsl pci modems.
the source code is already there on the net... we just need to port it to mikrotik.

i used to be a astaro lover http://www.astaro.com http://www.astaro.org

astaro was a nice firewall but it only progressed really fast after the let the community help them with some aditional packages.

Everybody that makes a packages could upload it.
you guys test it. and include it in the main release.

no more work for you guys on the hardware list.
we can do that for you. just make great features....

what ya think????

small http server with graphing... adsl drivers

Already in version 2.9. ADSL card supported is sangoma.

But let's think of it carefully - what will be use of that packages, software and drivers if it would not integrate into management console and winbox? What would you do with that drivers if you will not be able to configure (and even enable) them? The answer is NOTHING.

yes we can do nothing with it if we can't at least integrate it in the console.
that's why i ask if there could be a devellopment release where in we can get a better understanding about the console and how to integrate the other drivers.

i'm just asking this for one reason....
everybody here on the forum loves mikrotik. i sure do.
i kicked out all our cisco stuff....exept the switches
and changed all our firewalls to mikrotik.

the one thing that i don't like... Not the features. not the stability...not the price... driver support.
i don't want to wait until a specific driver is high on your wish-list.
to get it supported.

more and more customers of us ask us not to install a pc as a firewall.
the complaints....

noise, to big... and so one...
so we asked the customers what they want, and they want small powerfull machines that DON'T LOOK LIKE A Pc...(don't ask me why)

Mikrotik is very suited for this perpose. install it on a Compact flash.
boot , config running.

but all those new embedded cases with hardware are sometimes not that supported.

people on the forum are asking for adsl pci modem support for about 6 months now. and still it's not released. i understand there has to be a lot of testing en devellopment. but some people just can't wait.

i myself installed 38 soekris firewalls with a internal adsl modem with monowall because the customer didn't want a external modem.

i only installed 8 soekris with a external modem with mikrotik on them because the customer didn't mind.

i personaly prefer mikrotik, but i have to listen to my customers.

so please....

let us help you devellop the stuff we need.

so we asked the customers what they want, and they want small powerfull machines that DON'T LOOK LIKE A Pc...(don't ask me why)

Look on the RouterBOARD product line

people on the forum are asking for adsl pci modem support for about 6 months now. and still it's not released. i understand there has to be a lot of testing en devellopment. but some people just can't wait.

Like I said before on this thread, Sangoma PCI ADSL modems are supported... for some months already...

i myself installed 38 soekris firewalls with a internal adsl modem with monowall because the customer didn't want a external modem.

Perhaps, you could hide one inside the box

As for your original question, AFAIK there is no plans of making it possible to develop something outside the MikroTik. Perhaps, ask John is you do not like this answer

but there are other things I would like to have incorporated into my mikrotik:
1) more drivers for wireless cards: for example new ralink cards are working perfectly with linux as such
2) ftp and http server....ftp is on it, but it doesnt even support ls -la
http server I managed to make crippleing the hotspot :)
3) web cam support, to see if someone is goin near my boxes :)

everybody needs different drivers and services.

for example i don't need anythign from the above message.
but as long as there is a need, it must be fullfilled.
by mikrotik or ourselves.

i prefer doing it ourselves, so let mikrotik make a great base what we can extend.

everybody needs different drivers and services.

just to drop in an opinion:

i like to have the MROS spezialized to the router task. little number of hardware supported, but very well supported hardware.
as few services a necessary and as good as possible.

(there are hundreds of open-source projects and other appliances for doing everything else and everything one would think of. and for "playing", i have - of course - my netbsd boxes. even some of the MROS parts are open-source projects.)

sorry for not beeing strict to the subject;-)

matthias

that is all ok, but the problem I have is that I allways have limited space...max one box...

so we asked the customers what they want, and they want small powerfull machines that DON'T LOOK LIKE A Pc...(don't ask me why)

Look on the RouterBOARD product line

The only really disturbing problems I find with RouterBOARD are:

1. It is really low performance platform, especially considering the high CPU usage that MikroTik shows for almost all tasks. What performance could be expected for example on 5GHz backhaul, using nstreme (that is, long distance)? My experiments so far show it can't even support one wireless interface at "full speed"...

2. It does not scale well - there is small number of interfaces that can be installed (available slots and power limits). It forces installations of "one per antena" configuration, and still can't provide sufficient performance.

3. RouterBOARD was dubbed to be good for firewalls, but it really is suitable as an entry-level firewall. Ethernet interfaces are not of the highest performing and RouterOS is not "very" fast on routing... - as an example, I have one RouterOS based router, that has only one Gigabit Ethernet interface [Intel) and shows 30-40% CPU utilization with approx 15 Mbps traffic, this will ip firewall connection tracking disabled (why is it on by default by the way??) - this is on 2.6GHz Pentium 4 - the only firewall rules (less than a dozen) are plain source/destination filters.

Of course, it is not proper to compare it to Cisco routers, but - I cannot deny them one feature - their highest priority task is to route, everything else, including for example response to PING is lower priority - and they do wonders on low-power hardware (in todays terms).

It would be great if MikroTik has sooner higher performance RouterBOARD - the integration and support are wonderful.

I do support the opinion of mag, that more conservative hardware support, with higher performance is prefered. After all, we don't run out desktops on RouterOS.

Daniel

that is all ok, but the problem I have is that I allways have limited space...max one box...

there are other appliances doing nearly everything in one single box (eg Pyramid), usually linux based. (personally i am more on the conservative side: one box - one task. and i dont trust these appliances ;-)

bye,
matthias

Here's a strange thought:

x86 PC emulator or abstraction layer in MT RouterOS, such as bochs or something like it.

The base system would remain tightly controled, much as it is now. But when we need something weird/special, and have the 'disk' space and extra processor cycles to allow it, nearly anything could be loaded on top of the emulator package.

The emulated systems virtual network interfaces could even be linked to some new interface type under MT ROS, making it possable to connect the VM any way we wanted.

The only thing I can think I would use this for, would be to provide backup radius serving, in places where I have limited space, but where it could lose contact with the main radius system, without losing internet connectivity.

I'm sure I could come up with other uses, as could others, no doubt.

My concern with this would be that there would need to be a high level of isolation, if a VM crashed, I wouldn't want it taking the whole box with it. Most emulators/VMs seem to be good about this, though.

Just a thought,
--Eric