- Public - talk.mikrotik.com.au

MUM Australia 2015 - announced!
by Mike Everest 04 Dec '14

04 Dec '14

Hi All, Next MikroTik User Meeting is officially announced and ready for registration - http://mum.mikrotik.com/2015/AU/info MUM will be held in Melbourne at Ibis Hotel Therry street on May 15th - anyone have some presentation ideas? :-) DuxTel will also be running certification training before and after, so a great chance to get your MTCNA, MTCWE, MTCINE and/or MTCTCE certificate :-) http://training.duxtel.com See you there! Cheers! Mike.

9 12

Re: [MT-AU Public] MUM Australia 2015 - announced!
by Ben Jackson 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

+1 for polo's. +1 for hosting the event in Sydney :) On 3 Dec 2014 11:01, Paul Julian <paul(a)oxygennetworks.com.au> wrote: > > +1 for that ! > > RegardsPaul > > Andrew Cox <andrew.cox(a)bigair.net.au> , 12/3/2014 11:00 AM: > And they should make them in Polo's! > > - Andrew > > On 2 December 2014 at 20:28, Mike Everest <mike(a)duxtel.com> wrote: > > > Straw poll ;) > > > > "What colour for the MUM-AU t-shirt ?" > > > > Cheers! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of > > > Mike Everest > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 9:03 PM > > > To: 'MikroTik Australia Public List' > > > Subject: [MT-AU Public] MUM Australia 2015 - announced! > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Next MikroTik User Meeting is officially announced and ready for > > registration > > > - http://mum.mikrotik.com/2015/AU/info > > > > > > MUM will be held in Melbourne at Ibis Hotel Therry street on May 15th - > > > anyone have some presentation ideas? :-) > > > > > > DuxTel will also be running certification training before and after, so a > > great > > > chance to get your MTCNA, MTCWE, MTCINE and/or MTCTCE certificate :-) > > > http://training.duxtel.com > > > > > > See you there! > > > > > > 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.mikrotik.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

3 3

MUM Australia 2015 - announced!
by Alex Moorhouse 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Got my ticket, can't wait :)

1 0

[Fwd: routing and marking and rules, oh my!]
by Karl Auer 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Was wondering why my messages to this list weren't showing up. Figured out I was sending from wrong address :-( Anyway: I need to do something in RouterOS that I feel should be simple, but I can't seem to get my head around route rules and packet marking to make it happen. What I want to do is ensure that all traffic arriving on interface A is routed out interface B. All other traffic should be routed normally. That's it! Simple example, anyone? Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer(a)nullarbor.com.au) work +61 2 64957435 http://www.nullarbor.com.au mobile +61 428 957160 GPG fingerprint: 231A B066 CF91 1216 4F0F F2AC CE25 B8AA 46DC CC4F Old fingerprint: 1DB8 0599 13F0 E774 3811 6CA6 D6D0 AFA9 D91A 004C

4 3

Multicast and Natting
by Alex Samad - Yieldbroker 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Any one tried multicast and natting. I can start a MC session but the MC packets get to the routers and are not sent on (downstream) Not sure why..

1 0

[Fwd: Re: simple, sensible modem for pppoe-passthrough bridge]
by Karl Auer 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

Felt I really wanted this heard, too. I really like the TD-8817. -------- Forwarded Message -------- On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 17:17 +1100, Mike Everest wrote: > Seeking recommendations for a good dsl modem that supports all of the > typical dsl variants that also supports a decent pppoe passthrough bridge > mode. No wireless, no multiple ethernet etc - just adsl port and 1 ethernet > port is ideal :-D Bang for buck, you can't go past the TP-Link TD-88xx models. I've used the 8816 and 8817 units. Someone here recommended the 8840 though I haven't used that one. One ethernet port, support for ADSL everything, and they retain an accessible IP address even when in bridge mode which is very useful. They run relatively cool compared to a lot of other TP-Link stuff, but you do need to give them some space (which you should do for any electronics, really). They come configured in bridge mode by default, which is handy if you don't want to configure anything (though I usually do - the access IP address and stuff, for example). And they have a USB port. Just connect your laptop via USB and your laptop magically grows a new Ethernet port through which you can control the TP-Link unit - while it is in bridge mode, and without interrupting whatever else it is doing. And all for $25 or so. I really have to scratch to find a bad word to say about these. They do sometimes take a while to retrain. > I recently bought a couple of draytek vigor 120, and hope I don't upset > anyone by describing it as a piece of crap. My experience is that if you get a good one, it's very very good, but all too often you get a bad one and then it's very, very bad. I wouldn't buy another, though we have one in place that hasn't missed a single beat now for over two years. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer(a)nullarbor.com.au) work +61 2 64957435 http://www.nullarbor.com.au mobile +61 428 957160 GPG fingerprint: 231A B066 CF91 1216 4F0F F2AC CE25 B8AA 46DC CC4F Old fingerprint: 1DB8 0599 13F0 E774 3811 6CA6 D6D0 AFA9 D91A 004C

2 1

[Fwd: Re: simple, sensible modem for pppoe-passthrough bridge]
by Karl Auer 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

And this. But this is the last resend, promise. -------- Forwarded Message -------- On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 18:38 +1100, Kilburn Abrahams wrote: > We had done a further bit of DSL testing with different ISP providers and > manufacturers. In the end we ended up using Billion 7800 series, in our > case 7800NXL. > [...] > We use them on 150+ sites. We have started to pull out onsite PoE switches > and replace with Microtik then use the billion in pppoe passthrough bridge > mode. So far as good. OK - but you paid for a device with wireless, FOUR gigabit ethernet ports, and a heap of software features - almost all of which you will now throw away by putting the device into bridge mode and delivering a slow outside link into just one other device. They almost certainly pull more power and they are considerably physically larger. For Mike's application, these units are just overkill, and they cost *at least* four times as much as the TP-Link 8817. Not dissing Billion here - I'm sure the units are great - but I think they are out of place for Mike's application. Do they have a unit with the 7800NXL's relibility, its ADSL interface, 1x 10/100 instead of 4x GE, no wireless and minimal software? That would be the ideal unit - and it would cost $25 instead of $100. > I don't like to loud mouth other manufactures, but tplink, dlink and others > business models do not allow enough time for bug hunting or they continue > to add features (draytek) and make the firmware unstable. What on Earth makes you think Billion doesn't do exactly the same?!? This is a $100 unit - every corner that can be cut has been cut. If it's good, it's in spite of everything :-) The same is true of the TP-Link products too, of course. The TD-W89xx range is rubbish - runs hot as hell, reboots for no reason, forgets its config... sound familiar? > Billion also makes a chaep 7700 but I would not touch it. Indeed. And it STILL costs twice as much as the TP-Link, which has proven itself pretty reliable. When it comes to super-low-end hardware like this, testing and price are king. Every manufacturer has some models that are lovable and some models we learn to hate. If you find a unit that works well in the right price range, you run with it - and watch like a hawk for undocumented component changes, decrease in build quality, shorter deployed life etc etc, and you test test test. That's why forums like this are so good - you can profit from other people's experience, and only test the stuff that is already known not to be crap. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer(a)nullarbor.com.au) work +61 2 64957435 http://www.nullarbor.com.au mobile +61 428 957160 GPG fingerprint: 231A B066 CF91 1216 4F0F F2AC CE25 B8AA 46DC CC4F Old fingerprint: 1DB8 0599 13F0 E774 3811 6CA6 D6D0 AFA9 D91A 004C

1 0

SMS on a Sierra Wireless MC8705
by Russell Hurren 26 Nov '14

26 Nov '14

Hi everyone I have a couple of RB411U's with Sierra Wireless MC8705 <http://shop.duxtel.com.au/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=196>'s (3G cards) at remote sites acting as out-of-band console servers for the onsite routers. The client is paying for the 3G service, and they've gone with the cheapest service they could find, which gives them 100MB/month and no public IP. I'm having to keep a tunnel permanently open to reach them, which is causing it to go over the download limit each month. I had the idea of using SMS to wake them up, but I couldn't figure out how to configure them to handle SMSs. When I try to enable Receive, the port (usb2) briefly shows "Used By - SMS Tool" and then I get the message "Couldn't change SMS Settings - timeout (6)". They're connected to the Internet using an LTE interface in 3G mode, not PPP. Do I need to drop the LTE connection for the SMS to work? (This wouldn't be a problem, but I'd have to recall one to test it, as they're 450km away and I don't have any other way to access them.) Anyone have any ideas? Russell Hurren Managing Director Zero Point Networks PTY LTD +61 8 6262 9376

3 4

Multiple transit provider configuration help
by Paul Julian 23 Nov '14

23 Nov '14

Hi All, I am hoping somebody can offer some advice here as my brain doesn't seem to be able to function correctly at this point in time..... Currently we have one main upstream transit provider, we talk to them using BGP from our primary border router, we only receive a default route from them as we really don't need anything else at this stage. Internally we use OSPF for routing around our network, so the OSPF config on that border router is told to distribute the default route, everything works fine, all the routers know to get out to the net they go through that border router. We now want to configure our secondary border router with another upstream transit provider as a backup, we will use BGP to connect to them also on this second router, it is also part of the internal OSPF network like the primary border router. What I can't get my brain to work out is how to I setup the OSPF on this secondary router so that I can propagate the default route from that at a higher distance or whatever so that all the internal routers know they can get out there if the primary one fails, but only if it fails. On the secondary we are prepending our AS to make it look less desirable as we really only want this for emergencies and won't provision enough capacity to use it as a daily driver. Currently we run the following settings in the OSPF instance on the primary router: Redistribute Default Route - always (as type 1) Redistribute Connected Routes - as type 1 Everything else is set to no, metrics are set to defaults, we also run filtering which is configured to keep things correct. I am thinking that we may need to use some OSPF filters to increase the cost of the secondary default route but I was hoping somebody may be able to advise what settings I will need and what will work the best in this scenario which is really just a backup transit connection. Thanks in advance ! Regards Paul

2 2

Data Quotas
by Ben Jackson 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

Hi all, I’m looking for a way to set a download quota on a Mikrotik router for guests at some rental accommodation. Had a google about and didn’t find anything that made sense to me. I guess I need to use the “hotspot” feature? The guests will be connecting via wi-fi and getting dhcp-assigned addresses so it can’t be done with “pre-known" or static IP’s. I did look to see if the UniFi AP's I am using have this feature, and they supposedly do but I have had no luck getting it to work, even after following the cheat sheet. I also feel that this type of thing is better placed to be controlled on the router. Thanks, Ben Jackson w: www.elogik.net m: 0404 924745 e: ben(a)elogik.net <http://www.elogik.net/>

3 9