I guess I found the issue... using ether1 as mast port for all other ports seems to have solved the issue (but I still need some extensive testing). When I use sfp1 as master port for all other ports VLAN's were behaving strange (access port still contained VLAN tags).

Seems like you need MAC based VLAN's.

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CR ... Based_VLAN

Where is that "birdge-local" comming from... I don't see it defined anywhere ? Also looking at the topic starter... I would think the config is correct but I've a similar one and it neither works ? The question is however simple... define a VLAN on the CRS, link a DHCP client or server to ...

The configuration I used to test was indeed limited to a single port to make testing easier, however I didn't realise the consequences of it. I started however initially with all ports having sfp1 as master port so I tried that configuration again... but it doesn't make any difference :( Given the a...

Is anyone doing a bit more with a CRS than what you would do with a managed switch ? I'm trying something very basic like putting a DHCP client on a VLAN and don't get it working because the CRS is not untagging traffic on the ports (which is just a simple concept of an access port). If someone is w...

After having reported this issue to TP-Link (my core swicth) and doing some investigation it finally turned out that my laptop wasn't capturing VLAN information. Once I edited the registry to make this information visible to Wireshark... I found out that the CRS is NOT untagging my packets ??? This ...

Theory (partially) busted... I enabled UDP checksum validation in wireshark and packets leaving the CRS are always valid. This brings me again to my initial question... how does my core switch know which VLAN id the untagged packet originally had ? And why is it dropping those where it doesn't match...

After some tests and running Wiresharks, I found out that my core switch is "eating up" the DHCP request from the CRS ! This is however only happening if the Original DHCP request was tagged with a VLAN id different from the one internally on my core switch. CRS (VLAN id 50) - no switch bu...

Digging a bit deeper on this issue, I found the thread http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49224 which states that the Mikrotik DHCP client starts with 0x8000 and switches after 15 seconds to 0x0000 which seems to be correct based on a new Wireshark I just ran on the CRS. Question rema...

Please find attached the export. It is the result of a reset configuation and running script above (till the DHCP client). The DHCP client remains in "searching"... until I change all VLAN id references to either 100 (my internal LAN - running a Microsoft Server 2K8R2 DHCP server) or 255 (...

1) How easy is the management? How do I manage them? Web GUI? Free controller software for central management (including ticket/voucher based access) is included. You can install this on any laptop (or even in the cloud) - it only needs to be running for configuration unless you need guest services...

Tired of this mystery and the possible influence of my core switch (and my ISP running in VLAN id 255 over my home swicthes) I unplugged my home network from the ISP's cable modem and directly connected the CRS to it with the above configuration. Now I didn't get an IP-address, no matter which VLAN ...

I do this with a combination of a Mikrotik (RB450G) and UBNT Unifi's.

I don't have any experience with Mikrotik and wireless stuff but I guess it can be done as well.

Part of the mystery has been solved... or maybe just not. The laptop that had issues with the ping request is a Windows 8 with Hyper-V enabled, hence it has a virtual switch. Once I deleted this configuration, the ping worked fine. I don't know however if this is a good thing as the laptop did work ...

Since I'm new to the CRS series, I'm trying to get VLAN's working but I experience some very strange issues. First of all, this is my test setup; /interface ethernet set [ find default-name=sfp1 ] name=sfp1 master-port=none set [ find default-name=ether2 ] name=ether2 master-port=sfp1 # Interfaces V...

Since you only need two seperated switches I wouldn't make it to complex (VLAN's on a CRS is still a nightmare for me).

Just define two groups of ports, each with their own master switch port... that's all you need.

I'll try to do some tests one of these days... but the problem is dat I don't have a spare Routerboard to test with.

The switch is a TP-Link SG3216 ... a managed 1 Gbit switch. I also don't see why running two VLAN's over ether1 should be problematic, "strange" or asking for problems ? I also don't see why the interface would negotiate differently having two VLAN's over it or not (but I will test that as...

setup1.jpg setup2.jpg While the trunks are not required in setup2 I left as much as possible identical between the two setups. In setup1 two VLAN's are defined on eth1 on the RB45G In setup2 the same VLAN's are defined on eth5 as well on the RB45G (in theory I would only need VLAN 100 on eth1 and V...

But the bandwith is not an issue... using another test site (by which I mean a server location in speedtest.net) runs 115 Mbits fine with this setup and almost no CPU usage ? In addition, the different VLAN's should seperate the traffic... it should not matter what goes in or out on which interface ...

Having an RB450G, I did run my providers connection on one interface (eth1) and my internal network on another interface (eth2). While optimizing this setup, I created a trunk to a single interface (eth1) with both my provider and internal network (tagging happens on the managed switch). While every...

I had the same issue on my Windows RT 8.1... adding the registry entry also solved it.

Reading http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2643584 it however means that the SSTP implementation is flawed on RouterOS.

I recently setup an IPv6 tunnel via HE which is working fine, however I now noticed that I'm wide open to the internet, despite the fact that I defined an input drop rule in my IPv6 firewall. All the traffic seems to pass via another rule which accepts protocol 58 (icmpv6) ? What's wrong, or what am...