January 2018 - Public - talk.mikrotik.com.au

Re: [MT-AU Public] Radar detection Chaos Since 6.40.4
by Mike Everest 31 May '19

31 May '19

Hi Harry, thanks for the comments! (have you tried subscribing to the public list? What happens when you try to add a subscription?) That is only the LIPD class license document but it does not list the relevant standards. The standards list some of the ETSI specifications which according to MT include radar detect operation. From MT perspective, they claim that DFS implies Radar Detect in the relevant standards. I have no doubt that it DOES make that link in the EU specification, but since our AU compliance requirements also refer to some ETSI standard then it is possible that our rules are also affected by the recent updates to relevant ETSI standards simply by association and since ACMA have not explicitly excluded that revision... This is what I am attempting to ascertain ;) So far, I have not been able to find the direct relationships and have been doing the rounds of some compliance folks to try to get to the bottom of it all. It may take some time :-1 Cheers, Mike. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Why Choose DuxTel for all your MikroTik needs? 10 good reasons: http://duxtel.com/why_duxtel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Follow our tweets for news and updates: http://twitter.com/duxtel > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Fiotakis [mailto:Harry.Fiotakis@tasmanet.com.au] > Sent: Monday, 23 October 2017 10:39 AM > To: Mike Everest (mike(a)duxtel.com) <mike(a)duxtel.com> > Cc: Philip Loenneker <Philip.Loenneker(a)tasmanet.com.au> > Subject: RE: [MT-AU Public] Radar detection Chaos Since 6.40.4 > > Morning Mike, Phil forwarded me the latest correspondence as I still have not > been approved on the mailing list :( > > https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01438 (Radiocommunications > (Low Interference Potential Devices) Class Licence 2015) > > 5250-5350 Must use DFS > 5470-5600 Must use DFS > 5650-5725 Must use DFS > > No Radar Detect required (it is not implied) > > We will have to seek official clarification on that if Mikrotik require it, but > with it forced on we are downgrading Mikrotik radios or simply not using > them. > > > Regards, > > Harry Fiotakis | TasmaNet > 40-50 Innovation Drive, Tas 7010, Australia > M: 0418 540 806 P: 1300 792 711 > Email: harry.fiotakis(a)tasmanet.com.au > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Loenneker > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:30 AM > To: Harry Fiotakis <Harry.Fiotakis(a)tasmanet.com.au> > Subject: FW: [MT-AU Public] Radar detection Chaos Since 6.40.4 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of > Mike Everest > Sent: Monday, 23 October 2017 9:50 AM > To: 'MikroTik Australia Public List' <public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au> > Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] Radar detection Chaos Since 6.40.4 > > Further update on this issue, > > I've had a bit of correspondence with them, but they are 'fighting' it. Latest > comment from them is that "ETSI standard mentions when you use DFS and > those ranges you need to use the Radar-detect. Radar detect is happening > only for 1 minute." > > The line they are taking is that since our LIPD class license specification says > that DFS must be enabled for the sub 5785 channels, then radar detect must > also be enabled. I've been trying to pore through all the relevant ACMA > documentation so that I can find some definitive paragraph that clarifies the > situation, but so far have drawn a blank. > > I need someone who has some specific familiarity with the relevant rules and > standard that can find something that will convince them to turn it off - any > takers? :-} > > Cheers, Mike. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com.au

5 26

Fwd: xDSL SFPs
by Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) 27 Aug '18

27 Aug '18

That's flat out wrong. Have a look at the PDF on http://www.acma.gov.au/ Industry/Suppliers/Regulatory-arrangements/EMC- Electromagnetic-compatibility/emc-standards-list and see page 5. All IT equipment - no exceptions - must be tested (by an approved tester) to and comply with CISPR-32 and get a C-Tick for use in Australia. Upshot is don't import and use or sell the SPF modules unless the supplier has ensure it's complied. Duxtel know all about this - they supply all their Mikrotik gear (including boring old routers with no Wifi) with pretty little compliance stickers. On 9 August 2017 at 17:05, Paul Julian <paul(a)oxygennetworks.com.au> wrote: > Agreed, the VC-231's are Tick approved, PSU and Bridge, we use a lot of > them when deployed as a NTU for a VDSL2 DSLAM Implementation or as a point > to point VDSL2 link. > > C tick or A tick approval is only required when connecting > telecommunication devices to public communication networks, C tick or A > tick approval is required for radio communications devices, so if it's a > telecommunications device connected to a private wire you don't need > approval, if it's a radio communications device you need approval no matter > what. > > The ACMA make it pretty clear on their website if you aren't sure. > > http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/bringing-communications- > equipment-into-australia > > Regards > paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of > Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) > Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 4:52 PM > To: MikroTik Australia Public List > Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] xDSL SFPs > > That's partly true. As it's an active device it still needs C-Tick > approval for electromagnetic compatibility and susceptibility reasons. > There are likely even considerations for electrical isolation as it can > connect two sites on different AC phases and potentials. Considering it's > pumping HF energy into a long wire it's like a radio transmitter anyway so > it definitely needs to comply. > > On 9 August 2017 at 16:45, Paul Julian <paul(a)oxygennetworks.com.au> wrote: > > > If it's a private CAT3 cable there are no approvals required as it's > > just a private link. > > > > We use the Planet VC-231 bridges for that sort of thing, they are > > pretty good and will do 100/100 over a couple of hundred metres with > good cable. > > > > Regards > > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of > > Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) > > Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 4:41 PM > > To: MikroTik Australia Public List > > Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] xDSL SFPs > > > > Yes the belt and braces and correct way is to find a version that > > someone has had approved for use in Australia. I don't think anyone > > has done that yet! It'd be nice if the manufacturer did the legwork > > but they only do FCC and CE. > > > > On 9 August 2017 at 16:33, Russell Hurren > > <russell(a)zeropointnetworks.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I've just had a client call me and ask for a WiFi repeater to go in > > > the house next to their motel. There's already CAT3 running between > > > the buildings, so something like that would be a good option for me. > > > I'd be willing to order a pair and give it a try, but I'm not sure > > > about the legality - I presume it'd need an A-Tick approval? > > > > > > I've got a CRS125 in the main building and I could put a hAP ac in > > > the house and it'd be a nice clean option, compared to using > > > something like a Planet VC-231. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf > > > Of Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) > > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 July 2017 8:37 > > > To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au> > > > Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] xDSL SFPs > > > > > > That said, the http://www.proscend.com/en-gb/product/sfp/180cr.html > > > looks interesting for linking buildings that have old CAT3 cabling > > > in between. I reckon I could have used that sort of thing in a few > > > places instead of wireless. Has anyone tried these sort of VDSL2 > > bridges? > > > > > > On 26 July 2017 at 10:20, Philip Loenneker <Philip.Loenneker@tasmanet. > > > com.au > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If anyone would care to donate a unit, I have a service I can test > > > > it > > on. > > > > And as an RSP, we have direct access to the NBN portal to request > > > > reactivation if it gets blocked :) > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On > > > > Behalf Of Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 July 2017 10:17 AM > > > > To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au> > > > > Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] xDSL SFPs > > > > > > > > I think we're all pretty excited about the prospects of those > > > > VDSL2 and G.Fast SFP modules (I am getting FTTC so G.Fast is > > > > probably on the cards one day). I guess you can be the guinea pig > > > > and be the one to risk explaining to your ISP why your port should > be unlocked. > > > > ;) > > > > > > > > On 26 July 2017 at 10:09, Damien Gardner Jnr <rendrag(a)rendrag.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > If you plug in a modem which does not support G.vector, the port > > > > > will get shut down within ~10 minutes, and requires a support > > > > > request from your > > > > RSP > > > > > to NBNco to have the port re-enabled. They don't specifically > > > > > detect > > > > modem > > > > > model and shut down if they don't know the model though, as far > > > > > as I > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > IPOE on ADSL is an interesting one, that'd make setup very easy! > > > > > > > > > > On 26 July 2017 at 10:05, Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) < > > > > > jason(a)upandrunningtech.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Be careful, I remember reading that modems not tested and > > > > >> authorised for NBN use can cause the port to be locked. Until > > > > >> someone goes to the expense of having them tested and approved > > > > >> for use in Australia (cough .. Mike?) you may not get much joy. > > > > >> They might work on a bog standard ADSL line. > > > > >> > > > > >> Speaking of which, I might be late to the party but I noticed > > > > >> that > > > > Telstra > > > > >> ADSL now supports IPoE as well as PPPoE/A. I reset an old > > > > >> cheapie/dodgy TPLink modem the other day for someone and > > > > >> without doing anything the PC connected did a DHCP request and > > > > >> got a public IP/DNS! When I set the modem up to do IPoE it > > > > >> picked all that up as well but for some reason wouldn't NAT or > > > > >> proxy the DNS. Wrote the modem off and we proceeded to order an > NBN service. > > > > >> > > > > >> On 26 July 2017 at 09:57, Damien Gardner Jnr > > > > >> <rendrag(a)rendrag.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Anyone else ordered one of the 180-T's yet? innet24.de are > > > > >> > now > > > > selling > > > > >> > them, but are waiting on a firmware update (due out next > > > > >> > week) before they're shipping more units. Looking forward to > > > > >> > getting one and > > > > seeing > > > > >> how > > > > >> > they go on NBN, if I can remove one device from the network > > > > >> > at home, > > > > >> I'll > > > > >> > be very happy! > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On 19 May 2017 at 08:08, Thomas Jackson > > > > >> > <thomas(a)thomax.com.au> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks for the responses everyone > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Looks like we're using the double-sided tape again this > > > > >> > > time around > > > > :) > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Sent from mobile > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Thomas Jackson > > > > >> > > Managing Director > > > > >> > > +61 2 8378 5555 > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On 18 May 2017, at 12:54 pm, Mike Everest > > > > >> > > > <mike(a)duxtel.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I thought I'd chip in some commentary here since there is > > > > obviously > > > > >> > > plenty > > > > >> > > > of interest :-} > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > There are at least two products around that implement > > > > >> > > > some form of > > > > >> vDSL > > > > >> > > in > > > > >> > > > an SFP module, but there are lots of hurdles preventing > > > > >> > > > release to > > > > >> AU > > > > >> > > market > > > > >> > > > which are partly commercial (vendor requests significant > > > > >> > > > - circi > > > > >> > USD100K > > > > >> > > - > > > > >> > > > commitment prior to even proving viable operation on any > > > > >> > > > given > > > > >> network) > > > > >> > > and > > > > >> > > > partly technical (vDSL definition is somewhat 'loose' in > > > > >> implementation > > > > >> > > such > > > > >> > > > that there is no guarantee that something that works well > > > > >> > > > with one > > > > >> > vendor > > > > >> > > > DSLAM will also work with every other) > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > At DuxTel, we've been trying to work out a solution for > > > > >> > > > many > > > > months, > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > > > although we are closing on a potential outcome, there is > > > > >> > > > no firm > > > > >> date > > > > >> > for > > > > >> > > > market readiness. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > One thing that we know of thus far: > > > > >> > > > - devices are real, and actually exist ;) > > > > >> > > > - devices work with MikroTik RouterOS to the extent that > > > > >> > > > they are > > > > >> > > recognised > > > > >> > > > by SFP drivers and 'inserted module' parameters are > > > > >> > > > reported > > > > >> correctly > > > > >> > > > - MikroTik are 'on board' to develop further support to > > > > >> > > > implement > > > > >> some > > > > >> > > form > > > > >> > > > of configuration interface for routerOS and this type of > > > > >> > > > device > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Here is what we don't have yet: > > > > >> > > > - commercial agreement with manufacturing vendor/s to > > > > >> > > > support > > > > >> > > development of > > > > >> > > > solution to work with any given vDSL service (read: NBN) > > > > >> > > > - compliance testing documentation to support RCM > > > > >> > > > eligbility for > > > > AU > > > > >> > > > environment > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > What needs to happen before they are made available to > > > > >> > > > the AU > > > > >> market: > > > > >> > > > - compliance testing and certification > > > > >> > > > - testing (and probably some driver/firmware development) > > > > >> > > > to work > > > > >> with > > > > >> > > NBNCo > > > > >> > > > DSLAMs and other DSLAM vendors > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > The big hurdle to the above is in coming to some > > > > >> > > > commercial > > > > >> agreement > > > > >> > > with > > > > >> > > > one or more vendors that satisfies their need to cover > > > > >> > > > costs of > > > > >> final > > > > >> > > stages > > > > >> > > > of development and compliance testing. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > My assessment of where this is all at is that the > > > > >> > > > manufacturer/s > > > > >> have > > > > >> > > > developed some 'proof of concept' hardware that seems to > > > > implement a > > > > >> > > general > > > > >> > > > form of vDSL (with ADSL fallback) BUT (and that's a big > > > > >> > > > BUT) there > > > > >> is a > > > > >> > > lot > > > > >> > > > of technical work to be done to deliver sufficient > > > > >> > > > confidence that > > > > >> they > > > > >> > > will > > > > >> > > > work reliably over any particular or general vDSL network. > > > > >> > > > That > > > > is > > > > >> not > > > > >> > > even > > > > >> > > > beginning to consider whether they are likely to meet any > > > > particular > > > > >> > > > regulatory compliance requirements for AU or any other > > > > jurisdiction > > > > >> ;) > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > So short story is: they are coming, perhaps, but probably > > > > >> > > > not any > > > > >> time > > > > >> > > soon > > > > >> > > > :-J > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Questions (on or off list) are welcome! > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Cheers, Mike. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > > > Public mailing list > > > > >> > > > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > > > >> > > > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk. > > > > >> > mikrotik.com.au > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > > Public mailing list > > > > >> > > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > > > >> > > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mi > > > > >> > > k > > > > >> rotik.com.au > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Damien Gardner Jnr > > > > >> > VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust > > > > >> > rendrag(a)rendrag.net - http://www.rendrag.net/ > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > We rode on the winds of the rising storm, We ran to the > > > > >> > sounds of thunder. > > > > >> > We danced among the lightning bolts, and tore the world > > > > >> > asunder _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > Public mailing list > > > > >> > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > > > >> > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mik > > > > >> rotik.com.au > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Public mailing list > > > > >> Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > > > >> http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk. > > > > mikrotik.com.au > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Damien Gardner Jnr > > > > > VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust > > > > > rendrag(a)rendrag.net - http://www.rendrag.net/ > > > > > -- > > > > > We rode on the winds of the rising storm, We ran to the sounds > > > > > of thunder. > > > > > We danced among the lightning bolts, and tore the world asunder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Public mailing list > > > > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > > > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mik > rotik.com. > > > > au > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Public mailing list > > > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com. > > > au > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Public mailing list > > > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com. > > > au > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> > > _______________________________________________ > > Public mailing list > > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com. > > au > > > > > > > -- > <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > Public(a)talk.mikrotik.com.au > http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com.au > > -- <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> -- <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au>

8 19

CRS-109, Vlan Translations, and SFP's.. Am I missing something?
by Damien Gardner Jnr 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

Hi Folks, (Sorry, this is a bit long, but hoping I'm just missing something bleedingly obvious..) Playing with one of the VDSL SFP's this evening, working quite nicely. However hitting a weird snag. On the Huawei HG658 i was using, I had vlan100 set on the PTM bridge, so was simply doing ingress/egress translations of vlan 0 to vlan 99 on the switch chip in the CRS109. (Vlan100 is already in use in my network, so my PPPOE bridge network ended up on vlan 99) Something like: /interface ethernet switch vlan add ports=ether1-master-local,ether2-huawei-bridge,switch1-cpu vlan-id=99 /interface ethernet switch egress-vlan-tag add tagged-ports=ether1-master-local,ether2-huawei-bridge,switch1-cpu vlan-id=99 /interface ethernet switch egress-vlan-translation add customer-vid=99 customer-vlan-format=untagged-or-tagged new-customer-vid=0 ports=ether2-huawei-bridge service-vlan-format=untagged-or-tagged /interface ethernet switch ingress-vlan-translation add new-customer-vid=99 ports=ether2-huawei-bridge That way the bridged VDSL traffic on native VLAN from the huawei ends up in VLAN99 on the RouterOS CPU interface (And ether1-master-local which goes to my other CRS-109 which sometimes brings up a separate PPPOE session). Plugging in the VDSL SFP, I knew I needed to do the vlan 100 tagging myself, so figured I can simply do VLAN translations 100<>99, instead of 0<>99 on the sfp1-slave-local interface (ether1-master-local is master port to all ports on the CRS-109). I'm using similar to this on another CRS at work doing Vlan translations on my uplink port, and it's working fine on the ether1 port.. Is the SFP port special in any way? Adding the appropriate rules similar to above to add vlan 99 being re-written as vlan 100 on SFP side as below, doesn't end up with any traffic passing: /interface ethernet switch vlan add ports=ether1-master-local,ether2-huawei-bridge,sfp1-slave-local,switch1-cpu vlan-id=99 /interface ethernet switch egress-vlan-tag add tagged-ports=ether1-master-local,ether2-huawei-bridge,sfp1-slave-local,switch1-cpu vlan-id=99 /interface ethernet switch egress-vlan-translation add customer-vid=99 customer-vlan-format=untagged-or-tagged new-customer-vid=100 ports=sfp1-slave-local bridge service-vlan-format=untagged-or-tagged /interface ethernet switch ingress-vlan-translation add customer-vid=100 new-customer-vid=99 ports=sfp1-slave-local I'd have thought this SHOULD work? If I pull the SFP1 interface out of the switch chip (i.e. master=none), and create vlan100 under it, and then assign the pppoe interface to sfp1_vlan100, it comes up instantly. If I leave it IN the switch chip, and instead just add vlan 100 to sfp port, and then use vlan100 for the pppoe dialler, it also works - but I don't want PPPOE traffic on vlan100 internally, as that's the LAN.. Is this maybe a hiccup with the CRS109's switch chip vlan translations, that you can't do translations between two vlan ID's which it's using internally or somesuch? Thanks, Damien -- Damien Gardner Jnr VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust rendrag(a)rendrag.net - http://www.rendrag.net/ -- We rode on the winds of the rising storm, We ran to the sounds of thunder. We danced among the lightning bolts, and tore the world asunder

4 4

PPPOE and Fast Path
by Paul Julian 12 Jan '18

12 Jan '18

For those of you running Mikrotik as a PPPOE LNS what are you doing with Fast Track/Fast Path when you are using dynamic simple queues for users ? We seem to have hit and miss results with it, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If we have a simple queue not matching any upload traffic we have to disable fast path and it works again. Any thoughts or experiences in this area ? We even have some routers where some customer queues work ok and others don't match upload traffic with default settings for fast path. Strange... Regards Paul

3 2

Internet Usage Reporting device
by Paul Julian 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

Hi all, Happy New Year BTW ! I am looking to put together a solution which we can provide as a diagnosis service for our customers to help them analyse what is happening on their Internet connection. There are a number of products which can give you information on such things like PfSense, Untangle, BandwidthD etc, but basically I am after something that can report things to the customer, or us actually so that we can then put together a report and recommendations. The sort of things we want to report on are: - Top talkers - Bandwidth used - Application usage We are not interested in tracking end user usage or anything, it's more just so that the customer knows what their Internet is getting used for and how much. I would really love to put this into a Mikrotik Routerboard but can't see how it's possible. I know we will need some type of proxy running like Squid or something, but it's the information gathering and reporting that are important. At this point my best solution seems to be a NUC running windows with Untangle on it and a mAP-2nD or something to redirect the traffic transparently to the NUC Proxy. Has anybody done a project like this before or does anybody have any better suggestions than what I am thinking of at the moment ? Thanks Paul

6 13