Hi Mike I was just looking at your EoIP article https://shop.duxtel.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=45&osCsid=s28vgpuoilh98ipnv19b17qa80 and was thinking about how it relates to NV2 nowadays. My experience has shown that NV2 seems to support priorities (based on DSCP with a mangle rule) and also I can pass VLAN tagged traffic over it without any issues (I am told this wasn't always the case). With a pure PtP link is it necessary to use your supplied PtP/EoIP scripts or will NV2 do the job just fine now seeings as it seems to pass bridge ethernet frames unmolested? Jason Hecker -- <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au>
Hi Jason! Good question! My take on it is that although nv2 in conjunction with MT proprietary station-bridge mode seems to be more forgiving with respect to passing 'unmolested' packets EoIP does still have a 'safety' benefit of also preserving the original 802.3 ethernet frames transparently, and without any translation across the wireless L2 - of course the actual physical frames are still 802.11 wireless, but the original Ethernet frame is carried in original form. Thus /everything/ about the original Ethernet layer data is preserved, now and (supposedly ;) in future. That's why we still use the EoIP model for our point-point pre-configurations of wireless bridge kits :-} Cheers! Mike.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017 3:30 PM To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public@talk.mikrotik.com.apackets, u> Subject: [MT-AU Public] EoIP
Hi Mike
I was just looking at your EoIP article
https://shop.duxtel.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=45&osCsid=s28vgpu oilh98ipnv19b17qa80
and was thinking about how it relates to NV2 nowadays. My experience has shown that NV2 seems to support priorities (based on DSCP with a mangle rule) and also I can pass VLAN tagged traffic over it without any issues (I am told this wasn't always the case). With a pure PtP link is it necessary to use your supplied PtP/EoIP scripts or will NV2 do the job just fine now seeings as it seems to pass bridge ethernet frames unmolested?
Jason Hecker
-- <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@talk.mikrotik.com.au http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com.au
Hey Mike, Have you tried/had any experience using VPLS in place of EoIP tunnels? I had looked into it previously - the configuration is different but according to MikroTik the CPU overhead is much less. - Andrew On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mike Everest <mike@duxtel.com> wrote:
Hi Jason!
Good question!
My take on it is that although nv2 in conjunction with MT proprietary station-bridge mode seems to be more forgiving with respect to passing 'unmolested' packets EoIP does still have a 'safety' benefit of also preserving the original 802.3 ethernet frames transparently, and without any translation across the wireless L2 - of course the actual physical frames are still 802.11 wireless, but the original Ethernet frame is carried in original form. Thus /everything/ about the original Ethernet layer data is preserved, now and (supposedly ;) in future.
That's why we still use the EoIP model for our point-point pre-configurations of wireless bridge kits :-}
Cheers!
Mike.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017 3:30 PM To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public@talk.mikrotik.com.apackets, u> Subject: [MT-AU Public] EoIP
Hi Mike
I was just looking at your EoIP article
https://shop.duxtel.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id= 45&osCsid=s28vgpu oilh98ipnv19b17qa80
and was thinking about how it relates to NV2 nowadays. My experience has shown that NV2 seems to support priorities (based on DSCP with a mangle rule) and also I can pass VLAN tagged traffic over it without any issues (I am told this wasn't always the case). With a pure PtP link is it necessary to use your supplied PtP/EoIP scripts or will NV2 do the job just fine now seeings as it seems to pass bridge ethernet frames unmolested?
Jason Hecker
-- <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> _______________________________________________ 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
FWIW we always use VPLS on internal networks/wans for this reason, it's far more efficient in both packet overheads and ROS resources (doesn't really tax ros much at all). For any kind of wireless bridging we use it as well as it allows for a much nicer network design, as you can build them like a normal routed MPLS network. Just make sure if you're going to use it in a larger network you have designed to accommodate the MTU, else you'll have all sorts of problems. Obviously it's pretty much out of the question for internet based tunnels too so that's where eoip comes back into play. -----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of Andrew Cox Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017 1:12 AM To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public@talk.mikrotik.com.au> Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] EoIP Hey Mike, Have you tried/had any experience using VPLS in place of EoIP tunnels? I had looked into it previously - the configuration is different but according to MikroTik the CPU overhead is much less. - Andrew On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mike Everest <mike@duxtel.com> wrote:
Hi Jason!
Good question!
My take on it is that although nv2 in conjunction with MT proprietary station-bridge mode seems to be more forgiving with respect to passing 'unmolested' packets EoIP does still have a 'safety' benefit of also preserving the original 802.3 ethernet frames transparently, and without any translation across the wireless L2 - of course the actual physical frames are still 802.11 wireless, but the original Ethernet frame is carried in original form. Thus /everything/ about the original Ethernet layer data is preserved, now and (supposedly ;) in future.
That's why we still use the EoIP model for our point-point pre-configurations of wireless bridge kits :-}
Cheers!
Mike.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017 3:30 PM To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public@talk.mikrotik.com.apackets, u> Subject: [MT-AU Public] EoIP
Hi Mike
I was just looking at your EoIP article
https://shop.duxtel.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id= 45&osCsid=s28vgpu oilh98ipnv19b17qa80
and was thinking about how it relates to NV2 nowadays. My experience has shown that NV2 seems to support priorities (based on DSCP with a mangle rule) and also I can pass VLAN tagged traffic over it without any issues (I am told this wasn't always the case). With a pure PtP link is it necessary to use your supplied PtP/EoIP scripts or will NV2 do the job just fine now seeings as it seems to pass bridge ethernet frames unmolested?
Jason Hecker
-- <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@talk.mikrotik.com.au http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.co m.au
_______________________________________________ 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
Haven't really done much experimentation with that in this context - I can imagine that VPLS would be more effective over WAN type 'cloud' networks, but not sure if it makes so much difference over a p2p link with just two endpoints :-} Cheers! Mike.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of Andrew Cox Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017 4:12 AM To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public@talk.mikrotik.com.au> Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] EoIP
Hey Mike,
Have you tried/had any experience using VPLS in place of EoIP tunnels? I had looked into it previously - the configuration is different but according to MikroTik the CPU overhead is much less.
- Andrew
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mike Everest <mike@duxtel.com> wrote:
Hi Jason!
Good question!
My take on it is that although nv2 in conjunction with MT proprietary station-bridge mode seems to be more forgiving with respect to passing 'unmolested' packets EoIP does still have a 'safety' benefit of also preserving the original 802.3 ethernet frames transparently, and without any translation across the wireless L2 - of course the actual physical frames are still 802.11 wireless, but the original Ethernet frame is carried in original form. Thus /everything/ about the original Ethernet layer data is preserved, now and (supposedly ;) in future.
That's why we still use the EoIP model for our point-point pre-configurations of wireless bridge kits :-}
Cheers!
Mike.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au] On Behalf Of Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) Sent: Friday, 24 March 2017 3:30 PM To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public@talk.mikrotik.com.apackets, u> Subject: [MT-AU Public] EoIP
Hi Mike
I was just looking at your EoIP article
https://shop.duxtel.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id= 45&osCsid=s28vgpu oilh98ipnv19b17qa80
and was thinking about how it relates to NV2 nowadays. My experience has shown that NV2 seems to support priorities (based on DSCP with a mangle rule) and also I can pass VLAN tagged traffic over it without any issues (I am told this wasn't always the case). With a pure PtP link is it necessary to use your supplied PtP/EoIP scripts or will NV2 do the job just fine now seeings as it seems to pass bridge ethernet frames unmolested?
Jason Hecker
-- <https://www.upandrunningtech.com.au> _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@talk.mikrotik.com.au http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.co m.au
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Andrew Cox -
Jason Hecker (Up & Running Tech) -
Mike Everest -
RJ Plummer