[Mikrotik Users] Btest server

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Anyone willing to put up a btest server for me for a few minutes?

Should need to pull more than 100mb/s for <60seconds.

Message me privately if you can help.

Thanks.

Ethan Dee
e...@globalvision.net
8647043600



--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] BGP Question

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

anomaly on one of the paths, and your asymmetric traffic will 
>>> show
>>> weird stuff).
>>>
>>>> Do not be afraid to assume I have no idea what I am doing. I have
>>>> followed every rule I can find online so obviously I'm doing something
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/1/2017 9:45 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>>>>> I wish there was a simple answer to your question...
>>>>>
>>>>> But... there are some more questions
>>>>>
>>>>> With the setup you have described.
>>>>>   Are you running iBGP sessions between all the routers ?
>>>>>  if not.. then you are not properly configured.
>>>>>
>>>>> In today's day and age, one needs to do Traffic Engineering to have the 
>>>>> type of
>>>>> traffic flow one desires.
>>>>>   I wish there was a 'one solution' that fits all situations.. but 
>>>>> there isn't
>>>>>   one.
>>>>>   Each IP Transit provider is doing their own 'style' of Network 
>>>>> Traffic
>>>>>   Engineering
>>>>>   One has to understand that first and then try to compensate for it.
>>>>>  One should ask their upstream for a list of their BGP 
>>>>> Communities, that gives a
>>>>>  good starting point.
>>>>>  Using the upstream's Looking glass, if available is also a great 
>>>>> tool in
>>>>>  verifying the traffic engineering
>>>>>
>>>>> simply passing ASN's does not work (most of the time, but varies with 
>>>>> upstream)
>>>>>
>>>>> BGP Traffic engineering is more like steering a Boat Rudder than steering 
>>>>> a
>>>>> car... :)
>>>>>
>>>>> If what is listed above makes sense to you, then you have some starting 
>>>>> points
>>>>> to read up and understand BGP
>>>>> If the above does not.. then I suggest you get someone to help you with 
>>>>> the
>>>>> setup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>>>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>>>>
>>>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>>>
>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>>> From: "Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users" 
>>>>>> To: "Mark Grigsby via Mikrotik-users" 
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 9:06:27 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [Mikrotik Users] BGP Question
>>>>>> I am multihomed. I have a router that peers with charter and advertises
>>>>>> a few subnets. (Let's call it C)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a router that peers with AT&T at a tower (lets call it A)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a router that peers with Spirit at a tower (lets call it S)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AT&T seems to have quite a low preference to the world. And I have no
>>>>>> idea what I'm doing. Though I feel like I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All three routers are mikrotik. How do I tell the world to forget about
>>>>>> Charters advertisements unless you can no longer see AT&T?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be 
>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Mikrotik-users mailing list
>>>>>> Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Queuing for half duplex

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

What are you looking at specifically? Sounds like you could set up an 
asymetric simple queue.

On 11/1/2017 1:22 PM, Roy via Mikrotik-users wrote:
> Anyone got a pointer to how to set up queuing on a Mikrotik for a
> half-duplex circuit like a wireless link?  I would like to add some QOS
> to a radio.
> ___
> Mikrotik-users mailing list
> Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] BGP Question

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

t; tool in
>>> verifying the traffic engineering
>>>
>>> simply passing ASN's does not work (most of the time, but varies with 
>>> upstream)
>>>
>>> BGP Traffic engineering is more like steering a Boat Rudder than steering a
>>> car... :)
>>>
>>> If what is listed above makes sense to you, then you have some starting 
>>> points
>>> to read up and understand BGP
>>> If the above does not.. then I suggest you get someone to help you with the
>>> setup.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>>
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users" 
>>>> To: "Mark Grigsby via Mikrotik-users" 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 9:06:27 AM
>>>> Subject: [Mikrotik Users] BGP Question
>>>> I am multihomed. I have a router that peers with charter and advertises
>>>> a few subnets. (Let's call it C)
>>>>
>>>> I have a router that peers with AT&T at a tower (lets call it A)
>>>>
>>>> And a router that peers with Spirit at a tower (lets call it S)
>>>>
>>>> AT&T seems to have quite a low preference to the world. And I have no
>>>> idea what I'm doing. Though I feel like I do.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing works.
>>>>
>>>> All three routers are mikrotik. How do I tell the world to forget about
>>>> Charters advertisements unless you can no longer see AT&T?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be 
>>>> clean.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Mikrotik-users mailing list
>>>> Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

[Mikrotik Users] BGP Question

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

I am multihomed. I have a router that peers with charter and advertises 
a few subnets. (Let's call it C)

I have a router that peers with AT&T at a tower (lets call it A)

And a router that peers with Spirit at a tower (lets call it S)

AT&T seems to have quite a low preference to the world. And I have no 
idea what I'm doing. Though I feel like I do.

Nothing works.

All three routers are mikrotik. How do I tell the world to forget about 
Charters advertisements unless you can no longer see AT&T?




--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

[Mikrotik Users] Graphing specific traffic

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

I am looking to be able to find how much traffic is going to specific 
places i.e. google, amazon. netflix, etc. And possibly graphing that 
data as well.

I use mikrotik at my core and edge.

Can anyone recommend a product for this?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Speed Limit

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Wow this is great.
Gotta love Mikrotik!


On 10/03/2017 07:58 AM, David Hulsebus via Mikrotik-users wrote:

Ethan,

Here's something we are testing. So far so good. It does limit each http
and https connection to 4M and doesn't hit the processor as hard as
simple queues . It provides priority to dns traffic. This is by no means
complete it is a test in progress.

/queue tree
add max-limit=100M name="all bandwidth" parent=global priority=1
add max-limit=50M name=Download packet-mark=client-dw-packet parent="all
bandwidth" priority=2
add name=queue1 parent=global
add max-limit=10M name=http-dw packet-mark=http-dw-pk parent=Download
priority=3
add max-limit=10M name=dns-dw-pk packet-mark=dns-dw-pk parent=Download
priority=1
add max-limit=5M name=other-dw packet-mark=client-dw-packet
parent=Download priority=6
add max-limit=2M name=Upload packet-mark=client-up-pk parent="all
bandwidth" priority=1
add max-limit=2M name=dns-up-pk packet-mark=dns-up-pk parent=Upload
priority=1
add max-limit=2M name=http-up packet-mark=http-up parent=Upload priority=2
add max-limit=1M name=other-up packet-mark=client-up-pk parent=Upload
priority=6
add max-limit=2M name=http-udp-pk packet-mark=http-dw-pk-udp
parent=Download priority=3
add name=TOTAL_DOWNLOAD parent=ether4 priority=1

/queue type
add kind=pcq name=pcq_down_4M pcq-classifier=dst-address
pcq-dst-address6-mask=64 pcq-rate=4M pcq-src-address6-mask=64
add kind=pcq name=pcq_up_1M pcq-classifier=src-address
pcq-dst-address6-mask=64 pcq-rate=1M pcq-src-address6-mask=64

/queue tree
add name=4M_CLIENT_DOWNLOAD packet-mark=4M_PACKET parent=TOTAL_DOWNLOAD
queue=pcq_down_4M

/ip firewall address-list
add address=172.16.2.254 list=4M
add address=172.16.2.252 list=4M
add address=172.16.2.251 list=4M

/ip firewall mangle
add action=mark-connection chain=forward comment=TESTING
new-connection-mark=4M_CONNECTION passthrough=yes src-address-list=\
      4M
add action=mark-packet chain=forward comment=TESTING
connection-mark=4M_CONNECTION new-packet-mark=4M_PACKET passthrough=yes
add action=mark-connection chain=forward comment=client-dw-conn
disabled=yes in-interface=bridge1 new-connection-mark=\
      client-dw-conn passthrough=yes
add action=mark-packet chain=forward comment=client-dw-packet
connection-mark=client-dw-conn disabled=yes new-packet-mark=\
      client-dw-packet passthrough=yes
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment=client-up-conn
disabled=yes in-interface=bridge1 new-connection-mark=\
      client-up-conn passthrough=yes
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting comment=client-up-pk
connection-mark=client-up-conn disabled=yes new-packet-mark=\
      client-up-pk passthrough=yes
add action=mark-packet chain=forward comment=http-dw-pk disabled=yes
log=yes log-prefix=HTTP_DOWNLOAD_MARK_PACKET \
      new-packet-mark=http-dw-pk packet-mark=client-dw-packet
passthrough=no port=80,443 protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=forward comment="UDP http-dw-pk"
disabled=yes log=yes log-prefix=HTTP_DOWNLOAD_MARK_PACKET \
      new-packet-mark=http-dw-pk-udp packet-mark=client-dw-packet
passthrough=no port=80,443 protocol=udp
add action=mark-packet chain=forward comment=http-up-pk disabled=yes
new-packet-mark=http-up-pk packet-mark=client-up-pk \
      passthrough=no port=80,443 protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=forward comment=dns-dw-pk disabled=yes
log=yes log-prefix=DNS_MARK_PACKET new-packet-mark=\
      dns-dw-pk packet-mark=client-dw-packet passthrough=no port=53
protocol=udp
add action=mark-packet chain=forward comment=dns-up-pk disabled=yes
new-packet-mark=dns-up-pk packet-mark=client-up-pk \
      passthrough=no port=53 protocol=udp
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting connection-mark=no-mark
disabled=yes dst-port=53 new-connection-mark=\
      youtube_conn passthrough=yes protocol=udp
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting comment=http_conn
connection-mark=http_conn disabled=yes dst-port=80,443 \
      new-packet-mark=http_packet passthrough=no protocol=tcp


On 10/2/2017 12:16 PM, David Hulsebus via Mikrotik-users wrote:

What version of the OS are you running? We are testing on V6.40.1 right
now. We are using qtree's to mark and assign a priority to different
traffic types and then setting up pcq's to limit individual IP's. Not
entirely sure it will be as scaleable as we want yet. Be happy to post
what we've done when I get back in today.

Dave Hulsebus


On 10/2/2017 11:46 AM, Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users wrote:

Does anyone here know how I could speed limit individual ip's within a
subnet as opposed to the subnet or interface as a whole?

Say I wanted everyone in 10.1.0.0/24 to only be allowed 10mb/10mb
individually.

Can I do that in RouterOS?



--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailma

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Speed Limit

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Well they are not nat'd (I gave a fake subnet range).

And no I am talking about limiting them individually.


On 10/02/2017 12:06 PM, Lynn Haag wrote:


If I understand your question correctly.  I would do it by routing all 
the /24 network through a single IP, then limit that IP in a simple 
queue.  I think that you are wanting to limit the entire subnet to 
10mb/10mb, not every IP in the subnet...?


Please feel free to call us if you need assistance.

Thanks,

Lynn

Lynn Haag, BSIE, P.E.

Network Engineer, MTCNA, CSE

President,

ea1 <http://www.engineeraustin.com/>

Engineer Austin, LLC

A Texas Licensed Engineering Firm

Business Information Systems Engineer

l...@engineeraustin.com <mailto:l...@engineeraustin.com>

765.532.2710m

512.481.2710w

ea2 <http://www.engineeraustin.com/>

Private and confidential as detailed here 
<http://www.engineeraustin.com/legal.html>.  If you cannot access 
hyperlink, please email sender.


-Original Message-
From: mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shawn C. 
Peppers via Mikrotik-users

Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Ethan E. Dee ; Mikrotik Users 


Subject: Re: [Mikrotik Users] Speed Limit

With PCQ/Mangle or you could just create a simple queue for each /32 
ip in the /24 subnet.


Shawn C. Peppers

Video Direct

866-680-8433 Toll Free

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.video-direct.tv&c=E,1,v1XLU_Ke-ueHbtkwPGcx2-xTvB8GgB3fOgbGESFYSbRU2F3x6WRhQkVeOZaEy5fAzejVM-l1Ac0ueKQ83oVxiNWy8Q2iFZ0qy-ImpzgAZvywJA,,&typo=1

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users 
mailto:mikrotik-users@wispa.org>> wrote:


>

> Does anyone here know how I could speed limit individual ip's within a

> subnet as opposed to the subnet or interface as a whole?

>

> Say I wanted everyone in 10.1.0.0/24 to only be allowed 10mb/10mb

> individually.

>

> Can I do that in RouterOS?

>

>

>

> --

> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to 
be clean.


>

>

> ___

> Mikrotik-users mailing list

> Mikrotik-users@wispa.org <mailto:Mikrotik-users@wispa.org>

> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/l

> istinfo/mikrotik-users&c=E,1,RG1_Dl2CqschqsGm2qhZS7qBdJ7j60wwYupeeQgu-

> oFwHXQMH1hp8T_xtMNEa3OS7rSKvS3bkmpkYiFmYfdUcNCS9t95AVUDR_yDTQqzlRCCgYL

> f&typo=1

___

Mikrotik-users mailing list

Mikrotik-users@wispa.org <mailto:Mikrotik-users@wispa.org>

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users&c=E,1,kd2ycD5ca_zFol48PIeBaLGvXk-e8-UTR9Ozm21mmH-BCWaCNuOEuiP4il87P_hyOsyjzS0iHHH2oXqZi2_6xq_LerY2VwR7i55gcbG5ZrehEwAH75U,&typo=1



___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Speed Limit

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Could you assist me this, the instructions I found online seem a bit 
dated and the commands are not identical.


On 10/02/2017 11:50 AM, Shawn C. Peppers wrote:
> With PCQ/Mangle or you could just create a simple queue for each /32 ip in 
> the /24 subnet.
>
> Shawn C. Peppers
> Video Direct
> 866-680-8433 Toll Free
> http://www.video-direct.tv
>
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone here know how I could speed limit individual ip's within a
>> subnet as opposed to the subnet or interface as a whole?
>>
>> Say I wanted everyone in 10.1.0.0/24 to only be allowed 10mb/10mb
>> individually.
>>
>> Can I do that in RouterOS?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Mikrotik-users mailing list
>> Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

[Mikrotik Users] Speed Limit

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Does anyone here know how I could speed limit individual ip's within a 
subnet as opposed to the subnet or interface as a whole?

Say I wanted everyone in 10.1.0.0/24 to only be allowed 10mb/10mb 
individually.

Can I do that in RouterOS?



--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Question about ospfV3

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Logs don't show issues with ospfv3.
MTU is the same.
One side has this firewall rule but that's it:


Firewall ipv6


On 01/03/2017 12:33 PM, Jesse DuPont via Mikrotik-users wrote:






I'm with Scott - seems like multicast is getting dropped one
direction.



IPv6 Input firewall maybe (on the end that doesn't show the
neighbor)?

Are the MTU's the same on both ends?

What does the MikroTik log show on both routers?



Did you torch the ifaces at both ends? Should see both the outgoing
multicast and the incoming, too (2 separate lines in torch).

















*_Jesse DuPont_*



Network
Architect

email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net

Celerity Networks LLC


Celerity
Broadband LLC

Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc


Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband





On 1/3/17 8:49 AM, Ethan E. Dee via
Mikrotik-users wrote:




I have two rb1100AHx2.

They are directly connected and ipv6 is on. They can both ping each
other fine.

Setting up ospfv3, one shows it has a neighbor and neighbors shows the
correct router ID.

The other shows no neighbor. And the two do not join routing tables.

No password is set.

I am scratching my head on this one.

Any thoughts?


SW version 6.37.1



--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users










___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users





___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

[Mikrotik Users] Question about ospfV3

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

I have two rb1100AHx2.

They are directly connected and ipv6 is on. They can both ping each 
other fine.

Setting up ospfv3, one shows it has a neighbor and neighbors shows the 
correct router ID.

The other shows no neighbor. And the two do not join routing tables.

No password is set.

I am scratching my head on this one.

Any thoughts?


SW version 6.37.1



--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] RB 3011UiAS-RM

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Very reliable.
We've got them at our tower sites.
We've got a dual router setup at a tower with 100+ wireless customers 
coming off a hex router with a failover ubiquiti erl as well. hasn't had 
to fail over once in over a year.


On 12/19/2016 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman via Mikrotik-users wrote:

I think that's probably the #1 use case for most Mikrotiks...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Sam Morris via Mikrotik-users 
mailto:mikrotik-users@wispa.org>> wrote:


Have any of you used one of these? We're looking for routers for
intermediate, smaller tower sites. The layout will basically be:

PoP1---ST1---ST2---ST3---ST4---ST5---ST6---PoP2

ST=small tower

The idea being that we use something on the ST locations that will run
OSPF so that if a link goes down in the middle for some reason, OSPF
will route packets automatically to the PoP that it's still able
to reach.

So say for instance if this happened:

PoP1---ST1---ST2---ST3---ST4-x-ST5---ST6---PoP2

(x=link down)

the traffic from ST5 and ST6 will only try to go to PoP2, whereas the
traffic from ST1 through ST4 would go out PoP1. That 3011 router
kind of
seems like overkill, but the price isn't bad ($145) and it should
handle
any amount of traffic that would get thrown at it through these
smaller
tower sites.

Thanks
Sam
___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users





___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] OSPF errors on router

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

I saw this a few weeks ago.

I went into my 'tik cloud router switches and closed every vlan that the 
ports weren't actively using. That solved it.



On 12/13/2016 11:50 PM, Robbie Wright via Mikrotik-users wrote:

I saw this issue pop up again. The duplicate router ID thing caught me.

We've got a main tower that has a vlan to a dozen other sites, each 
running an MT with OSPF. Each vlan has a ptp ospf interface, not 
broadcast, with a unique /30 public IP space. We only run one instance 
of OSPF on our main tower router, with only one router ID.


I'm thinking maybe the one router ID across all the vlans is causing 
the issue? Functionally, everything is working fine. But our logs are 
blowing up with the "Discarding packet: locally originated" error.



Robbie Wright
Siuslaw Broadband 
541-902-5101

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Steve Barnes > wrote:


Justin I think I have followed all those steps.  I am using 6.29
exclusively.  Is there issues with that release?

*Steve Barnes*

General Manager

*PCSWIN.COM *

Howard Power Performance

*From:*mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org
] *On Behalf Of *Justin
Wilson - MTIN
*Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:47 PM


*To:* Mikrotik Users mailto:mikrotik-users@wispa.org>>
*Subject:* Re: [Mikrotik Users] OSPF errors on router

Some things to make sure of before banging your head.

1.Make sure *every* router participating in OSPF is on the same OS
version.  They don’t have to be the latest greatest, just the
same.  one router in a pool of 50 can taint the database.  Even if
it’s one version behind of ahead.

2.Make sure your loopback IP addresses (you are using loopbacks
correct?) are listed as the router ID.

3.If these are true point-to-point backhauls change the OSPF type
to PTP.  This cuts down on the chatter on the link.  Once OSPF
establishes a session it stops talking as much as if it were in
broadcast mode.

4.Double check your IPs and subnet masks.

80some% of the OSPF issues I see are a result of mismatched router
OS versions. Bringing everything to the same version solves a ton
of issues.

Justin Wilson

j...@mtin.net 

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO

xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman

Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:25 AM, Steve Barnes mailto:st...@pcswin.com>> wrote:

Not completely.  Not sure we don’t have a small Comm issue to
a backhaul. However the outages have gone away just get 2-3
errors a day but it is not causing any OSPF issues or
outages.  Thinking of just adding a Filter rule to block them
and go on with life.

*Steve Barnes*

General Manager

*PCSWIN.COM *

Howard Power Performance

*From:*mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org
]*On Behalf Of*Mike
Hammett
*Sent:*Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:14 AM
*To:*Mikrotik Users mailto:mikrotik-users@wispa.org>>
*Subject:*Re: [Mikrotik Users] OSPF errors on router

Did you figure this out?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com 



*From:*"Steve Barnes" mailto:st...@pcswin.com>>
*To:*"Mikrotik Users (mikrotik-users@wispa.org
)" mailto:mikrotik-users@wispa.org>>
*Sent:*Thursday, September 3, 2015 11:57:17 AM
*Subject:*[Mikrotik Users] OSPF errors on router

I am getting the attached errors in my event log on one
tower.  No ports are flapping on the backhaul.  Both Mikrotiks
are on 6.29.  Both routers CPU is <10%.  As soon as this error
passes they will work 100% for hours, even days.  I am
confused and lost.  PTP conection was Broadcast and have
changed to point to point.  What to look at?



*Steve Barnes*

General Manager

*PCSWIN.COM *

Howard Power Performance


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users


___
 

Re: [Mikrotik Users] MPLS/VPLS/EoIP/etc.

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Would you be willing to help me with a test?


On 12/13/2016 12:01 PM, Kevin Myers wrote:


Ethan,

What you probably want to look at if the routers are going to be 
MikroTik is deploying VPLS over EoIP – we’ve done this a lot as a way 
to extend a provider MPLS network to deliver private services over 
standard Internet links. MPLS requires layer 2 so that it can put 
labels between the L2 and L3 headers which is why you’ll need EoIP 
underneath. Then, you can deploy VPLS on top of LDP/OSPF which is 
multipoint and comes with inherent loop protection via split horizon.


You’ll need a full mesh of EoIP tunnels between sites and then you can 
turn on OSPF/LDP/VPLS. Also be mindful of your 1500 byte MTU limit and 
either plan to fragment or limit MSS for TCP accordingly. VPLS 
normally requires an MTU of 1530 so you’ll lose some in the overhead 
of EoIP and VPLS.


What you need to be aware of if you’ve never deployed an extended L2 
domain is that site to site performance may not be quite as good as a 
routed network depending on what apps need to be available, so things 
like AD, File Shares, etc may not run as fast as they will on a routed 
network. You might want to setup a basic test for the applications you 
need to deliver before going down the road of a full VPLS deployment.


*Thanks,*

**

*Kevin Myers*

*MTCINE # 1409
MTCRE,  MTCTCE, MTCWE, CCNP, MCP *
/Network Architect / Managing Partner/
+1 (601) 287-3868 - Mobile (GMT -6)
+1 (303) 590-9943 – Office (GMT -6)
ipa.kevin.myers – Skype

iparchitechs_ms_logo_msp-header-166x46

**

*#1 Ranked MikroTik consulting firm in North America*

*Expert consulting in | BGP | MPLS | OSPF | ISP | Data Center*

**

-Original Message-
From: mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ethan E. Dee 
via Mikrotik-users

Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Mikrotik Users
Subject: [Mikrotik Users] MPLS/VPLS/EoIP/etc.

I am kind of new to the idea of have LANs span across WANs.

A very basic idea I'm trying to accomplish is to have 3 sites that can 
share a L2 network without having to route (as far as the internal 
devices can tell).


Also I don't own any of the routers in between. Like for example, one 
site is Level3 Fiber, one site is Charter 60x4, one site is 3 meg DSL.


(don't get hung up on that part)

What are some good ideas for this. Can't find a similar scenario anywhere.

Would appreciate any input.

--

This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be 
clean.


___

Mikrotik-users mailing list

Mikrotik-users@wispa.org <mailto:Mikrotik-users@wispa.org>

http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users



___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] MPLS/VPLS/EoIP/etc.

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Yeah,
I'm talking about running broadcast traffic. Not two different subnets.
Isn't EoIP only a PTP. Looking more for a PTMP.

On 12/13/2016 11:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
We did this with IPSec on MT. The subnets of each location must be 
different so the routing policy in the Tik knows what to do with the 
packets. If you are talking being able to run broadcast traffic across 
them then EoIP is the only answer I know of.


On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:00 AM Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users 
mailto:mikrotik-users@wispa.org>> wrote:


I am kind of new to the idea of have LANs span across WANs.
A very basic idea I'm trying to accomplish is to have 3 sites that can
share a L2 network without having to route (as far as the internal
devices can tell).
Also I don't own any of the routers in between. Like for example, one
site is Level3 Fiber, one site is Charter 60x4, one site is 3 meg DSL.
(don't get hung up on that part)
What are some good ideas for this. Can't find a similar scenario
anywhere.
Would appreciate any input.


--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to
be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org <mailto:Mikrotik-users@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users



___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

[Mikrotik Users] MPLS/VPLS/EoIP/etc.

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

I am kind of new to the idea of have LANs span across WANs.
A very basic idea I'm trying to accomplish is to have 3 sites that can 
share a L2 network without having to route (as far as the internal 
devices can tell).
Also I don't own any of the routers in between. Like for example, one 
site is Level3 Fiber, one site is Charter 60x4, one site is 3 meg DSL. 
(don't get hung up on that part)
What are some good ideas for this. Can't find a similar scenario anywhere.
Would appreciate any input.


--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.


___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Load Balancing by Traffic Type with Regex

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Is the gateway reachable through the in interface of the mikrotik.
Is the ether2 switch2 in any way related to wan2? Because it could be 
looping the traffic.
Are your default routes in tact?

On 12/07/2016 10:15 AM, Hexis via Mikrotik-users wrote:
> I am doing some work on a small fixed wireless network, and they have 2
> connections, neither of which are fiber. They are attempting to push
> most of the streaming traffic out one provider while allowing everything
> else to go through the other. I implemented routing marks based off of
> an example in the Mikrotik wiki in order to accomplish that, marking
> based on layer7 regex for example:
>
> Code: Select all
> /ip firewall mangle print
> add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting comment=Facebook disabled=no \
>   in-interface=ether2-switch2 layer7-protocol=facebook new-routing-mark=\
>   to_WAN2 passthrough=no
>
>
> I then have a route that matches the routing mark:
>
> Code: Select all
> /ip route
> comment=WAN2 distance=1 gateway=xxx.xxx.xx.x \
>   routing-mark=to_WAN2
>
>
> After activating these rules, things starting matching the regex Layer 7
> rules fine, CPU load was stable, but I noticed that the traffic on WAN2
> (where most of the marked connections were going) was showing perfectly
> equal TX and RX traffic on the interface. This maxed out the upload on
> the connection and caused massive packet loss. Anyone have any idea why
> the traffic would have been looping like that?
>
> ___
> Mikrotik-users mailing list
> Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Speed test issue.

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

I will check it out.

On 11/01/2016 04:21 PM, Robert Andrews wrote:
> What if you use the dslreports speed test?
>
> On 11/01/2016 01:11 PM, Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users wrote:
>> May I ask who the providers were?
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2016 01:10 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
>>> I had a situation for the past year that was very similar.  I had a 
>>> 1 gig port but was only paying for 500Mb from my transit provider as 
>>> I only had 500Mb from my upstream. My router would pass 400Mb of 
>>> traffic at night but a speed test to speedtest.net and other sites 
>>> gave me 25MB max. Even plugged into the router and MT btest were all 
>>> over the place.
>>>
>>> Talked to my transit provider and ask them for an appointment and 
>>> had the engineer take off all queues from my path and then I did 
>>> speed tests.  Prior to the test 25/25 MB.  They took off the Queue 
>>> at one end and it went to 25/480.  Took the queue off the other end 
>>> and it went to 400/480 (traffic overhead took the rest).  They 
>>> worked for 2 hours turning queues off and on.  Nothing worked till 
>>> they deleted the queues and rebuilt them.   Then they applied the 
>>> new queues and all has been right with the world.  Customer speed 
>>> tests are much better as well.
>>>
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> Wireless Operations Manager
>>> New Lisbon Broadband
>>> NLBC.COM
>>> PCSWIN.COM
>>> 765-584-2288 ext:1101
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org 
>>> [mailto:mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ethan E. Dee 
>>> via Mikrotik-users
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:43 PM
>>> To: Mikrotik-users@wispa.org; David Funderburk 
>>> Subject: [Mikrotik Users] Speed test issue.
>>>
>>> I have a very strange issue that I've not seen before and it's got 
>>> my head spinning.
>>> It has to do with sites like speedtest.net and speedtest.xfinity.com.
>>> We have a tower site where if I plug my laptop in to the tower on 
>>> the switch (connected 1gig Full) or anywhere in the public or 
>>> private network extending off that switch, speedtest.net will show 
>>> 8-13mb/s up and down. Sometimes will burst to 20-30mb/s for a second 
>>> and then drop.
>>> I have tried a few speedtest sites and gotten the same results. Also 
>>> it's regardless of time of day and who else is on.
>>> Now if I run the mikrotik speedtest from that tower location or 
>>> behind any CPE to the core bgp routers a few hops away, I get about 
>>> 50-80 on the download (depending on other factors).
>>> I thought surely the mikrotik speedtest were just lying, but then as 
>>> I check every stat and graph all the way to the core, sure enough it 
>>> is actually pulling that.
>>> To make matters worse, I found a free mikrotik bandwidth test server 
>>> online so that the bandwidth test has to go out through the internet.
>>> Just in case it was my upstream providers causing issues.
>>> Got the same 50-80mb/s no problem using that test.
>>> Can anyone try to explain what I'm running into? I can't find a 
>>> pattern.
>>> Except that I can prove the capacity is there by using the bandwidth 
>>> test on mikrotik. But speedtest.net is a big discouragement to me 
>>> and my customers are asking questions. We've tried several servers 
>>> and sites.
>>> Same results.
>>>
>>> Attached are some resulting screenshots. In one of the mikrotik 
>>> screenshots you'll see the tx at around 10mb/s that is what I 
>>> limited it to for that test to try to get a higher number on the 
>>> download side.
>>> The second screenshot is letting them both run wide open. Also 
>>> disregard the graphs as I started and stopped the test and changed 
>>> settings a number of times that's why it is so dynamic.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to 
>>> be clean.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Mikrotik-users mailing list
>> Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users
>>

___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Speed test issue.

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

May I ask who the providers were?


On 11/01/2016 01:10 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
> I had a situation for the past year that was very similar.  I had a 1 gig 
> port but was only paying for 500Mb from my transit provider as I only had 
> 500Mb from my upstream. My router would pass 400Mb of traffic at night but a 
> speed test to speedtest.net and other sites gave me 25MB max. Even plugged 
> into the router and MT btest were all over the place.
>
> Talked to my transit provider and ask them for an appointment and had the 
> engineer take off all queues from my path and then I did speed tests.  Prior 
> to the test 25/25 MB.  They took off the Queue at one end and it went to 
> 25/480.  Took the queue off the other end and it went to 400/480 (traffic 
> overhead took the rest).  They worked for 2 hours turning queues off and on.  
> Nothing worked till they deleted the queues and rebuilt them.   Then they 
> applied the new queues and all has been right with the world.  Customer speed 
> tests are much better as well.
>
> Steve Barnes
> Wireless Operations Manager
> New Lisbon Broadband
> NLBC.COM
> PCSWIN.COM
> 765-584-2288 ext:1101
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org 
> [mailto:mikrotik-users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ethan E. Dee via 
> Mikrotik-users
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:43 PM
> To: Mikrotik-users@wispa.org; David Funderburk 
> Subject: [Mikrotik Users] Speed test issue.
>
> I have a very strange issue that I've not seen before and it's got my head 
> spinning.
> It has to do with sites like speedtest.net and speedtest.xfinity.com.
> We have a tower site where if I plug my laptop in to the tower on the switch 
> (connected 1gig Full) or anywhere in the public or private network extending 
> off that switch, speedtest.net will show 8-13mb/s up and down. Sometimes will 
> burst to 20-30mb/s for a second and then drop.
> I have tried a few speedtest sites and gotten the same results. Also it's 
> regardless of time of day and who else is on.
> Now if I run the mikrotik speedtest from that tower location or behind any 
> CPE to the core bgp routers a few hops away, I get about 50-80 on the 
> download (depending on other factors).
> I thought surely the mikrotik speedtest were just lying, but then as I check 
> every stat and graph all the way to the core, sure enough it is actually 
> pulling that.
> To make matters worse, I found a free mikrotik bandwidth test server online 
> so that the bandwidth test has to go out through the internet.
> Just in case it was my upstream providers causing issues.
> Got the same 50-80mb/s no problem using that test.
> Can anyone try to explain what I'm running into? I can't find a pattern.
> Except that I can prove the capacity is there by using the bandwidth test on 
> mikrotik. But speedtest.net is a big discouragement to me and my customers 
> are asking questions. We've tried several servers and sites.
> Same results.
>
> Attached are some resulting screenshots. In one of the mikrotik screenshots 
> you'll see the tx at around 10mb/s that is what I limited it to for that test 
> to try to get a higher number on the download side.
> The second screenshot is letting them both run wide open. Also disregard the 
> graphs as I started and stopped the test and changed settings a number of 
> times that's why it is so dynamic.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.
>
>

___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users

Re: [Mikrotik Users] Speed test issue.

[Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users]

Your speedtest gave me the same thing.

Also, I used the TCP speedtest on the mikrotik as well and only saw 
minimum difference if any.


Does the TCP speedtest in mikrotik resemble speedtest.net? Or no?


On 11/01/2016 01:09 PM, Justin Miller wrote:
So something to consider is - the test sites use tcp which has ack’s 
and signaling based on those but the mikrotik btest defaults to udp 
which has none of that.  btest udp is a measure of pps but not of the 
round trip like tcp.


You are not so far away that you can’t use our site at 
vaskywire.speedtest.net <http://vaskywire.speedtest.net>


*Justin Miller*

 VA SkyWire, LLC
 3114 W Marshall St, Ste A
 Richmond, VA 23230
 Office: (804) 521-4212
 Desk: (804) 591-0500 ext 101
 Fax: (804) 591-1559
jus...@vaskywire.com <mailto:jus...@vaskywire.com>

On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Ethan E. Dee via Mikrotik-users 
mailto:mikrotik-users@wispa.org>> wrote:


I have a very strange issue that I've not seen before and it's got my 
head spinning.
It has to do with sites like speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net> and 
speedtest.xfinity.com <http://speedtest.xfinity.com>.
We have a tower site where if I plug my laptop in to the tower on the 
switch (connected 1gig Full) or anywhere in the public or private 
network extending off that switch, speedtest.net 
<http://speedtest.net> will show 8-13mb/s up and down. Sometimes will 
burst to 20-30mb/s for a second and then drop.
I have tried a few speedtest sites and gotten the same results. Also 
it's regardless of time of day and who else is on.
Now if I run the mikrotik speedtest from that tower location or 
behind any CPE to the core bgp routers a few hops away, I get about 
50-80 on the download (depending on other factors).
I thought surely the mikrotik speedtest were just lying, but then as 
I check every stat and graph all the way to the core, sure enough it 
is actually pulling that.
To make matters worse, I found a free mikrotik bandwidth test server 
online so that the bandwidth test has to go out through the internet. 
Just in case it was my upstream providers causing issues.

Got the same 50-80mb/s no problem using that test.
Can anyone try to explain what I'm running into? I can't find a 
pattern. Except that I can prove the capacity is there by using the 
bandwidth test on mikrotik. But speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net> 
is a big discouragement to me and my customers are asking questions. 
We've tried several servers and sites. Same results.


Attached are some resulting screenshots. In one of the mikrotik 
screenshots you'll see the tx at around 10mb/s that is what I limited 
it to for that test to try to get a higher number on the download side.
The second screenshot is letting them both run wide open. Also 
disregard the graphs as I started and stopped the test and changed 
settings a number of times that's why it is so dynamic.



--
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be 
clean.



Tests.zip>___

Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org <mailto:Mikrotik-users@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users




___
Mikrotik-users mailing list
Mikrotik-users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik-users