Yeah sorry should've elaborated. The PPP profile is putting the interface into an interface list and there is a mangle rule for ingress packets in that interface list to go into VRF. It doesn't cover off things like routing the PPP remote address in the VRF or networks behind the PPPoE client (using the routes field on profile) which I've had to script on-up and another on-down to tidy up. Just seems all a bit 'dirty'. Sounds like the way I'm doing it is most efficient for Mikrotik. Just hope somethings in the pipe line for this to be built in.
On 25 May 2017, at 8:51 pm, Mike Everest <mike@duxtel.com> wrote:
G'day,
Maybe add to VRF with routing mark instead of interface? You can use mangle rule to add routing mark based on source address range, or 'all ppp' interfaces, or any other available parameters.
Cheers!
Mike.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of Dave Browning Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2017 8:11 PM To: public@talk.mikrotik.com.au Subject: [MT-AU Public] PPPoE VRF
Howdy,
I've built some janky script that's applied 'on up' to a PPP profiles that puts the dynamic PPPoE interfaces into a VRF. Anyone got any better ways to do that? Any word if MT are going to add this as an option to PPP profile? Seems a fairly common use case.
Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@talk.mikrotik.com.au http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com.au
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@talk.mikrotik.com.au http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com.au