Butch, thanks for that information! I've marked that message priority "high" so I don't lose it in my mailing list archive.
I do get your point, that RouterOS was optimized for routing; there's just nothing else that fits its price points and form factors (especially outdoor Routerboards), so even if it's a little inefficient, it may still be cost-effective for some traffic levels. The discussion began with questions about multiple NATs and routing within a network; I'd expect the VLAN configurations to get at least as much throughput as full-scale routing. It won't compete with Ciena but their boxes don't cost $100 and run on 6 watts. At 10/13/2012 03:58 PM, Butch Evans wrote: >On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 12:30 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > I've enjoyed it. I still hope somebody at some point figures out > > just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or > > AirOS. Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now. (They're all Linux under the skin, > > after all.) > >It can be done (sort of) in Linux. Which, of course, RouterOS has at >it's core. The problem, though, is that Mikrotik's software is called >RotuerOS for a reason. These devices are built to be routers. While >what you are talking about is (at some levels) a hybrid of routing (at >layer 2) and switching. I realize that is an oversimplification, but >bear with me. RouterOS is certainly capable of doing much of what you >want, but it is not intended to behave as a switch. It will, however, >have to do it in software, which IS bridging. You can, for example, >create the following configurations: > >Ether1 - "trunk" port for vlans 10,20,30 >Ether2 - Untagged traffic for vlan10 >Ether3 - Tagged for vlan20 >vlan30 is for managment of the device > >The vlans would be configured as: >vlan 10 - created on ether1 only (E1V10) >vlan 20 - created on ether1 (E1V20) and ether3 (E3V20) >vlan 30 - created on ether1 only (E1V30) > >Now for the software "routing" configuration. >You need a bridge device that includes the following: >bvlan10 - includes E1V10 and ether2 >bvlan20 - includes E1V20 and E3V20 >bvlan30 - (management) includes E1V30 only > >This configuration, while it uses bridges to "tie" the ports together, >would not send broadcast traffic between bridges. Even on the trunk >port side (ether1). > >IP addressing would be on the bridge devices (if you want them to be >visible at layer 3). Obviously, bvlan30 would need an address. >Strictly speaking, you could simply eliminate the bridge for vlan30 and >add the layer 3 stuff at E1V30, but personally, I like the consistent >behavior of allowing the bridges to be the communication interface. > >Because RouterOS is designed to be a router and not a switch, the >ability to create a port that handles both tagged and untagged traffic >becomes rather ugly. It can be done, but it is a horribly ugly >configuration and it uses bridges. This, of course, depends somewhat on >exactly what you are trying to accomplish. > >Because of the limitations of the backend software and the design >purpose of that software, RouterOS would work fine at certain places in >a CE network, but it certainly doesn't fit at the core. The same is >true of other routers. > -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
