[Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-06 Thread Butch Evans
I have a problem with IPv6 and simple queues. I have 3 routers in line: R1: ipv6 address is 2001:470:1f11:394::1/64 ipv6 route: dst-address=2001:470:c30a:600::/56 gateway=fe80::20c:42ff:fe78:9176%LAN R2: ipv6 addresses 2001:470:c30a:600:20c:42ff:fe78:9178/64 ether3 fe80::20c

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-06 Thread Josh Luthman
Try default instead of default-small (the actual default) for type. On Jun 6, 2011 9:45 PM, "Butch Evans" wrote: > I have a problem with IPv6 and simple queues. I have 3 routers in line: > R1: > ipv6 address is > 2001:470:1f11:394::1/64 > > ipv6 route: > dst-address=2001:470:c30a:600::/56 gateway=

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-06 Thread Josh Luthman
Whoops, make sure you drop the supp...@mikrotik.com in your reply! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > Try default instead of default-small (the actual default) for type. > On Jun 6,

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-06 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 21:47 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: > Try default instead of default-small (the actual default) for type. As expected, no change. Thanks for the idea, though. FWIW, both default-small and default are both fifo queues. -- **

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-06 Thread Josh Luthman
True but I see very mixed results with that change. On Jun 6, 2011 10:03 PM, "Butch Evans" wrote: > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 21:47 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: >> Try default instead of default-small (the actual default) for type. > > As expected, no change. Thanks for the idea, though. FWIW, both > de

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-06 Thread Scott Reed
The key difference I see in your original post is that you use queues that don't work and /IPv6/ mangle that does. Does MT only recognized v6 addresses in areas that are called IPv6? If that is the case, they need an IPv6 Queue section really soon. On 6/6/2011 10:04 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: T

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-06 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 22:19 -0400, Scott Reed wrote: > The key difference I see in your original post is that you use queues > that don't work and /IPv6/ mangle that does. Does MT only recognized v6 > addresses in areas that are called IPv6? > If that is the case, they need an IPv6 Queue section

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-07 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 21:26 -0500, Butch Evans wrote: > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 22:19 -0400, Scott Reed wrote: > > The key difference I see in your original post is that you use queues > > that don't work and /IPv6/ mangle that does. Does MT only recognized v6 > > addresses in areas that are calle

Re: [Mikrotik] Bug in 5.4?

2011-06-07 Thread Blake Covarrubias
> SO...can someone send me the URL again for the bug reports? I will be > happy to submit this, but I can't find the emails with the URL in it. http://bugs.mikrotik-routeros.com/ -- Blake Covarrubias ___ Mikrotik mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.c