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

Axiom Cyber Shield
by Philip Loenneker 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

Hi all, After seeing their presentation at the Melbourne MUM, we've been having a look at Axiom Cyber Shield. Is anyone on here using it and happy to provide some feedback, on-list or off-list? It certainly sounds like a good product, but I only seem to be able to find sales pitch information, not unbiased reviews. Regards, Philip Loenneker | Network Engineer | TasmaNet 40-50 Innovation Drive, Dowsing Point, Tas 7010, Australia P: 1300 792 711 philip.loenneker(a)tasmanet.com.au<mailto:philip.loenneker@tasmanet.com.au> www.tasmanet.com.au<http://www.tasmanet.com.au/>

3 7

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

RouterOS 6.40->6.42 upgrade didn't go so well.. How should things work now? :)
by Damien Gardner Jnr 29 Dec '18

29 Dec '18

Hey All, I have a bunch of CRS109's around the place which need to be upgraded from 6.40 to 6.42 The one in the living room which basically just does switching went fine. Silly me then went 'rad, lets do the core!'.. And all hell broke loose. After the upgrade, there was no bridge1 automatically created, and all my vlan interfaces were still on ether2-master. After much googling on my phone, and messing about, I have it mostly working, WITH RSTP turned off on the bridge I had to create, and with my VRRP interfaces shutdown, and the IP's from them moved back to the bridges they live on. However things are still quite hinkey, so I'm wondering how things SHOULD be setup post 6.41? So I currently have: + bridge_switchchip - vlan86 - vlan87 - vlan88 - vlan98 - vlan99 - vlan100 - vlan101 - vlan102 All ports are members of bridge_switchchip vlan100, is then a port in bridge_local, as that's our local LAN along with three wifi virtual-interfaces vlan102 is a port in bridge_vlan102, as that's the kids' LAN along with their wifi virtual-interface. it's also in a VRF along with one of the two pppoe dialers on this CRS The switch chip is then also doing a bunch of vlan rules: vlan87: ether1,2,5,6,cpu vlan98: ether1,5,cpu vlan99: ether1,5,cpu vlan100: ethernet1-8,cpu vlan101: ether1-3,ether5-7,cpu vlan102: ether1,2,4,7,cpu And it's also translating vlan100 to native vlan on ether2-5 SO... Pre 6.41, I simply had my vlan interfaces on the master port, had all my interfaces as slaves, and then configured my vlan mappings per port on the switch chip. I now have a bridge with all ports in it, and then vlans under that bridg.e However this seems to be causing problems since I have some of those vlans in bridges themselves? Disabling RSTP on bridge_switchchip let most things talk to most other things, although the kids VRF is not passing traffic as yet. I haven't shoved my own test box onto that network to diagnose it yet though. How SHOULD I be doing this? Should I be creating multiple bridge_switchip_vlanblah bridges, each with its own vlanid set? And only add the interfaces that should have those vlans to that bridge? Or is all this weirdness just a hassle with 6.42.9, and I should come off bugfix, and go to release? Thanks, Damien (Pulling my hair out, and considering pulling the config off my core CRS, and throwing it on the one in the garage that hasn't been upgraded as yet!!!) 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

6 27

QOS
by Paul Julian 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Hi all, how many people actually implement a QOS design within an ISP network which is for data heading from a DSLAM or router TO the customer ? I am interested to know of those that do are you dynamically managing the QOS using prioritisation of packets or are you hard setting speeds in multiple queues to manage the VOIP quality heading to the customer ? We have written a system which dynamically prioritises packets to the customer, it tears down the default queue created at PPPOE login time and then builds a new queue structure with a parent and two children, one for VOIP and one for everything else. It works very well, however the Mikrotik priority system is a little slow in reacting sometimes for VOIP and we still see some packets not getting through in front of a large download which is smashing the connection for example. We can obviously reduce traffic bandwidth in the non-VOIP queue but that would be a permanent thing so even when there was no VOIP traffic they still wouldn't see maximum bandwidth. We know how to handle both scenarios but I am just interested in how others handle it or whether they do it at all.... Regards Paul

3 12

Upgrade LHG LTE kit
by Kilburn Abrahams 03 Dec '18

03 Dec '18

Hi list, Band 28 (700mhz) is the craze today with providers upgrading their towers. I don't have a LHG LTE kit, but I was wondering if the internal miniPCI-e slot LTE card is removable so I can use a card that supports band 28. I was thinking Sierra card. No sure if the LHG has the drivers to handle other cards. Thanks Kilburn

3 2