My last message in your forums: tired of wasting my time with you and my money on unfinsihed products...

Okay! Hope you're not return to this forum and ask something about mikrotik. And it would be shameful for your life.

No devices are perfect! you need to know how you can put them into their best position in your network.

And i always support mikrotik.

You are nervus, because RB3011 is not yet stable?
They will fix it soon

The 2011 had big problems for months from start. Suddenly the switch did not work correctly. We had big issues. So is life with MT and UBNT. You have to wait and read forum. Never use new HW on live network. You still can buy 2011 and 850gx which work great and reliable.

Guys, let him go. Mikrotik devices are not for everyone and not usable without some level of knowledge. None can take the knowlege just from writing repetitive questions here on the forum.

I am sure that decision of picacho99 was right and I am fully supporting it.

Good bye picacho99 and live in peace.

My last message in your forums: tired of wasting my time with you and my money on unfinsihed products...

At budget prices can anyone name a product that will give you totally "finished products" without any glitches or any short coming from the advertised sales promotional material ?

bon voyage !!!!!!!

All products not offering firmware updates are "finished", take it or leave it style.
Maybe this is what he wanted

All products not offering firmware updates are "finished", take it or leave it style.
Maybe this is what he wanted

maybe or "too much anti-mikrtotik-inspired websites read befefore sleep" case/condition(usual for some of competing companies resources. sometimes in plain/direct, sometimes in "soft"(but punitive)forms).

I've just did the oposite
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-AC- ... alse#M7056

Inox, not clear what you did. Your link is not publicly accesible...

Inox, not clear what you did. Your link is not publicly accesible...

you need to register on the page and enable access to beta forums

I've just did the oposite
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-AC- ... alse#M7056

I've replaced a Mikrotik link with signals ~ -53dbm with 2xPbe 5Ac400 ISO and is a very big mistake.
First, signal is worse, second, speed is half. Same channel, twice align. Also DFS time is over 600s.
Link with mikrotik was far more better and was Netmetal + ubnt 19dbi sector and as station 30dbi antenna + Rb911G and speed is 150-170mbps TCP.
The next day I've moved the trafic on the old link and I will keep it. Good thing I keept the radios in place.

unfinsihed products

is it because this subforum is about RC and BETA versions?

My last message in your forums: tired of wasting my time with you and my money on unfinsihed products...

Can I show you the finger?

Dear picacho99...
Just for your update and for your records remember these facts:-
1. In very short time MikroTik become one of the Network leaders.
2. MikroTik team is the most active and fast team with solutions and software updates.
3. I worked with a lot of network brands for last 20 years and did not faced best than MikroTik in price and quality.
4. You have to make test for new products before you work it on real live. every brand facing bugs and all users for all the world send they reports to they brands and ask for solutions.
5. bye bye for you and I challenge to do what you needs without Mikrotik brand with same quality and same cost ....believe me you will be loser.
Thanks MikroTik for your support and efforts with all your software and hardware. I will support you.
regards for all

so far competing vendors too much pushed to "impress managers/shareholders" to put extra new features into box, rather than finish and make usable Basic, fundamental things First, which make very doubtful investments into their gear "at all".
if anything they care about is .... marketing and (trolls-fueled)PR and both firmware and hardware remain neglected and developed puerely from "Image"/PR-centric approach, with pretencious(or ambitious? whch is equallty dangerous both for company and their consumers)extremes - nothing really Good comes from that.
they should focus on their products, not on efforts to impress their bosses or bluff before shareholders. they can put BS to owners of company, but not consumers. not anymore.
my point is: Mikrotik WAY better in that respect. they develop platform with Consistency, with attentions(over some time/manpower)to mission-critical features. way before packing "something new" into. same apply for manageability and survivability of gear and shamefuly for security features, albeit small/negilible in both platform.
and security-wise: since competitiors focused on exploiting/embracing mainstream linux distribution and cornerstone - they Ought to keep it Secure and thus UPDATED and with fixed security flaws. which already is not always possible within backported fixes to legacy distro and imply that they SoC SDK - had to be Updated to move UPSTREAM for new distro to fix most dreadful security holes(present "by design" in older, despite moderately-efficient mitigation, deployed to legacy platforms/distros).
p.s.
amount of intel, gathered and exfiltrated both by their gear and "online resources" make highly unreasonable even too look toward their products(just like 90% other american goods are, sadly. even few moderately good ones).

I've just did the oposite
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-AC- ... alse#M7056

I've replaced a Mikrotik link with signals ~ -53dbm with 2xPbe 5Ac400 ISO and is a very big mistake.
First, signal is worse, second, speed is half. Same channel, twice align. Also DFS time is over 600s.
Link with mikrotik was far more better and was Netmetal + ubnt 19dbi sector and as station 30dbi antenna + Rb911G and speed is 150-170mbps TCP.
The next day I've moved the trafic on the old link and I will keep it. Good thing I keept the radios in place.

Dont know where your bad signal comes from. In general UBNT and MT deliver the calculated signal strength.
The 600s CAC time are defined in the ETSI EN... requirements. So you should blame the regulations for the rules and MT for not fulfilling the rules and yourself for cheating.
We use a mix of equipment and try to take that equipment which fulfill our needs. With .ac MT has fallen asleep for a while so we started using UBNT. We like the idea of a second wireless card for background band scanning to see what is happening and we see the need for RF Filters with the increasing interference. On the router side we use MT as it works atable and is more flexible.
So no need to be religious. Test your requirement and take what ever fit your needs.

After I changed some channels I get -56dbm and still the speed was under 100mbps. Modulation was high but as soon trafic rise, the link become instable. I might be the software afteral...

playing with ANI, DFS, calibration may be slightly improve things, but actually hardware difference was more important than defaults or wi-fi module firmwares.
eg better antennas, better LNA, lower-loss cables and etc.

You are nervus, because RB3011 is not yet stable?
They will fix it soon

What's your definition of "soon"? Maybe within this century? CCR1036 isn't even stable / performing yet, nevermind the 3011

You are nervus, because RB3011 is not yet stable?
They will fix it soon

What's your definition of "soon"? Maybe within this century? CCR1036 isn't even stable / performing yet, nevermind the 3011

I'm just curious....

What isn't stable for you on the CCR1036? We have clients on 6 continents that are very happy with the performance and stability of the CCR1036 as an edge or core router. And they aren't just being used in WISPs, we have them in Large enterprise data centers, cloud data centers and traditional ILEC/CLEC wireline telcos.

Certainly there will always be some bugs, but then again, I've been working on a multi-million dollar Cisco Nexus deployment that Cisco promises will be stable in the next code cycle - however, we have yet to see it and it's been 4 years and over 10 code versions.

Having worked with just about every service provider and enterprise chassis that Cisco makes, I wouldn't put them up on a pedestal, they are every bit as buggy as any other network vendor.

You are nervus, because RB3011 is not yet stable?
They will fix it soon

What's your definition of "soon"? Maybe within this century? CCR1036 isn't even stable / performing yet, nevermind the 3011

The RB3011 is Mikrotik's first ARM. Give it time. It is a stepping stone onto the next generation of CCR.

The CCR1036 is very stable as long as you keep the temperature below 80C. Once it gets pass 80C things start to go crazy. The usb port on the other hand isnt stable as my raspberry pi froze when plugged to it but works fine on the ERPRO.

i do wish mikrotik routerOS was more flexible in letting you install software like you can on ubiquiti edgerouters. I have both CCR and ERPRO and i prefer the CCR even though i can run things like clamav, squidguard with filters on the ERPRO, this is because mikrotik pushes for performances but ubiquiti dont, to them a dual core 64 bit MIPS with hardware acceleration is "good enough", they dont even bother implementing the 8 or 16 core variants of the MIPS they use in order to keep up. As a pure router mikrotik is more flexible and allows you to do things you just cant with ubiquiti and ubiquiti's performance tests are only layer 3 routing tests with hardware acceleration, mikrotik's performance chart is much better as it has some realistic scenarios.

Nowadays routers are being more than just routers, they perform more tasks than just routing. In my opinion the CCR series makes for good potential but mikrotik didnt utilise a lot of its capability. I want expansion ports but i dont need the router to come with everything. I also hope that mikrotik would make it possible to install things on their routers even if its just java or some library but if it would make their routers a lot more useful they should go for it as one of the reasons for embedded is that it uses less power, less heat but as far as power savings go routers use no less or more energy than when idle or load so might as well put them to good use as they're always on. While mikrotik do release good products i feel like they just ignore me which is why i dont recommend mikrotik. If the cooling on the CCR can be improved with tape they really got to start listening.

Tssss. Ridiculous.

Mikrotik is great and has lots of updates and support, plus a great forum where you can get the help you need (community), but it is also a "advanced" product and not for everyone.

I would say, one drawback is you need to know what you are doing when setting it up, it is more difficult than other products, but then again you have lots more options and can do a lot more advanced things than with more regular products.
It all depends on your need and what you are trying to do. I had problems in the start, but as with everything, most firewalls or routers work in the same way, it just takes time to get used to the "thinking" within the product, how they do things, how you use a GUI or terminal windows. This is more tedious with Mikrotik than say other products, but then again, cisco is not much better either, and way more expensive.

I have tried a ubiquiti link Powerbeam PBE-5AC-300 and it was so easy to set up, it was like using a Dlink home device, it does work great and has a, good enough connection speed. But anyone can set that up without any problems. A similar mikrotik device would be capable of so much more, but the more complex products you have the more work you need to put into it.

Mikrotik is much more like a real firewall where you have control of everything, even if you do not need all the options (I sure do not) but they are there. That is nice, as long as you know what you are doing

And if you need a stable product, more so than latest and greatest hardware, do not use BETA, and use hardware that has been tried and tested, simple as that.

anything and anyone had "strong" and "weak" sides and mikrotik had some reasons/points in both devices, firmware and business design. if someone - prefer Other kind of things in each part of - they free to pick Another vendor/products.
so far is generally more chinese vendors ought to compete with, but 4/5 of them not present in EU market and 2/3 - never sell things in NA(and 1/3 never reached SA yet too). as for ubnt and alikes - they had different priorities and thus not really fit into same catagory/market, despite ambitions for, but had some nice decisions and design in past days. so far all NA companies much more care about marketing than engineering so even support, service support in result. why improve things/product, if you may bump 5x more (per invested efforts)from marketing/sales boost ? they tend critiz MT support, but outside NA - their "support" even more ghostly/non-existent and service/RMA/repair frequently not a option(and buying such things not a option aswell in number of cases).
as for shifting to ARM - its Major trend in networking(and generally in "embedded" business) and become cornerstone even in Low-END devices so 1004k replaced by A32 multicore devices and miips64 and ppc32 - by A35 and A53 mixes. and pezy, octeon, tilera - going to bring manycore a72 or a53 things/beasts aswell(with huge offloading/DSP and low-latency fabric/bus/interconnect).
so far within 2 years - ARM arch may gain up to 80% networking market i think.
if OpenPower alliance members not push stronger(same about imagination/MIPS)with their Power9-based forks/chips/SoC.

You have to wait and read forum.

ok 4 years have passed on the situation has changed as you need to wait 10 , 15 or 20 years may be that developers heard the wishes of customers ????

most probably IGMP-snooping will not be available in RouterOS 6.x. However, if
you can, you could try to create tunnels (like VLAN or EoIP) to pass multicast
data over the routed network and use IGMP-proxy.

Regards,
Janis K.

//////
when this feature will be !? how long to wait ? I will remind you once a week if you do not take into account the wishes of customers

Is there a link in this forum with basic examples?

This is my first mikrotik and I have 3 days with it (not an expert, but trying to understand it).

I have a problem, I have a 750UP as balanacer with two wan with failover working already but we have a web server inside my lan that can not be reach from outside.

RB720 192.168.1.0/24 ip 192.168.1.254 (gateway) my webserver 192.168.1.4

wan1 192.168.2.0/24 ip 192.168.2.1
wan2 192.168.3.0/24 ip 192.168.3.1

Please HELP !!

I've done port forwaring already without exit.

# jan/02/1970 01:30:27 by RouterOS 6.7
# software id = CAGZ-SXJ9
#
/interface ethernet
set [ find default-name=ether1 ] name=ether1-gateway
set [ find default-name=ether2 ] name=wan1
set [ find default-name=ether3 ] master-port=wan1 name=wan2
set [ find default-name=ether5 ] master-port=wan1 name=ether5-slave-local
set [ find default-name=ether4 ] master-port=wan1 name=local
/ip hotspot user profile
set [ find default=yes ] idle-timeout=none keepalive-timeout=2m mac-cookie-timeout=3d
/ip pool
add name=default-dhcp ranges=192.168.1.200-192.168.1.253
/ip dhcp-server
add address-pool=default-dhcp disabled=no interface=wan1 lease-time=10m name=default
/ip address
add address=192.168.1.1/24 comment="default configuration" interface=wan1 network=192.168.1.0
add address=192.168.1.254/24 interface=local network=192.168.1.0
add address=192.168.2.5/24 interface=wan1 network=192.168.2.0
add address=192.168.3.5/24 interface=wan2 network=192.168.3.0
/ip dhcp-client
add comment="default configuration" dhcp-options=hostname,clientid disabled=no interface=ether1-gateway
/ip dhcp-server network
add address=192.168.1.0/24 comment="default configuration" dns-server=8.8.8.8 gateway=192.168.1.254
/ip dns
set allow-remote-requests=yes
/ip dns static
add address=192.168.88.1 name=router
/ip firewall mangle
add chain=prerouting dst-address=192.168.1.0/24 src-address=192.168.1.0/24
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=wan1 \
    new-connection-mark=WAN1_CONN
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=wan2 \
    new-connection-mark=WAN2_CONN
add chain=prerouting dst-address=192.168.2.0/24 in-interface=local
add chain=prerouting dst-address=192.168.3.0/24 in-interface=local
add action=jump chain=prerouting connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=local jump-target=policy_route
add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting connection-mark=WAN1_CONN new-routing-mark=TO_WAN1 src-address=\
    192.168.1.0/24
add action=mark-routing chain=prerouting connection-mark=WAN2_CONN new-routing-mark=TO_WAN2 src-address=\
    192.168.1.0/24
add action=mark-routing chain=output connection-mark=WAN1_CONN hotspot=auth new-routing-mark=TO_WAN1
add action=mark-routing chain=output connection-mark=WAN2_CONN hotspot=auth new-routing-mark=TO_WAN2
add action=mark-connection chain=policy_route new-connection-mark=WAN1_CONN per-connection-classifier=\
    both-addresses-and-ports:4/0
add action=mark-connection chain=policy_route new-connection-mark=WAN1_CONN per-connection-classifier=\
    both-addresses-and-ports:4/1
add action=mark-connection chain=policy_route new-connection-mark=WAN2_CONN per-connection-classifier=\
    both-addresses-and-ports:4/2
add action=mark-connection chain=policy_route new-connection-mark=WAN2_CONN per-connection-classifier=\
    both-addresses-and-ports:4/3
add action=mark-connection chain=policy_route new-connection-mark=WAN2_CONN per-connection-classifier=\
    both-addresses-and-ports:4/4
/ip firewall nat
add action=masquerade chain=srcnat comment="default configuration" out-interface=ether1-gateway
add action=masquerade chain=srcnat out-interface=wan1
add action=masquerade chain=srcnat out-interface=wan2
add action=dst-nat chain=dsnat dst-port=80 protocol=tcp to-addresses=192.168.1.6 to-ports=80
/ip route
add check-gateway=ping distance=1 gateway=213.180.204.3 routing-mark=TO_WAN1
add distance=1 gateway=10.0.0.1 routing-mark=TO_WAN1
add check-gateway=ping distance=2 gateway=93.158.134.3 routing-mark=TO_WAN2
add distance=2 gateway=10.0.0.2 routing-mark=TO_WAN2
add distance=1 gateway=10.0.0.1
add distance=2 gateway=10.0.0.2
add check-gateway=ping distance=1 dst-address=10.0.0.1/32 gateway=213.180.204.3 scope=10
add check-gateway=ping distance=1 dst-address=10.0.0.2/32 gateway=93.158.134.3 scope=10
add distance=1 dst-address=93.158.134.3/32 gateway=192.168.3.1 scope=10
add distance=1 dst-address=213.180.204.3/32 gateway=192.168.2.1 scope=10