Why Mikrotik stuff is not hearing customers voice ???
How long this should take since 2012-1015, Mikrotik wasted 3 years !

In the same time most of other companies have implemented this feature even in low-end routers/switches !

+1 Igmp snooping: in Russia is very popular IPTV. The routers from other manufacturers are all well. Please add it.
In firmware 5.26 IPTV is not saturated with other ports in the bridge - everything is working properly, including Wi-Fi clients. On the firmware 6.xx while watching the IPTV on any client, once clogged channel Wi-Fi.

+1 IGMP Snooping to manage my IPTV stations.

When?!
it's very inportant!

+1 IGMP Snooping

+1

Much needed and long awaited feature. It's freaking stupid that in 2016 consumer grade zyxel router works with iptv better then pro-oriented mikrotik.

Please add this feature.

Dear admins when you give an answer on this subject ?

Dear admins when you give an answer on this subject ?

Mikrotik forum admins have chimed in on this subject many times - and if you want to know what it is, then go to a mirror and give the finger. That's pretty much the response. What they actually say is that igmp snooping is a switch feature, and a router is a router, so it already filters multicast properly for IP networks. This is true, but of course the mcast packet stream hits all switch ports / bridge ports of the LAN if you're using any layer 2 functions of the router....

Has anyone ever tried plugging a simple Linksys/Netgear/Belkin/etc cheap unmanaged switch to see if it supports IGMP snooping? (these probably don't either)

What they actually say is that igmp snooping is a switch feature, and a router is a router, so it already filters multicast properly for IP networks.

I would have understood that point if CRS series didn't exist.

Has anyone ever tried plugging a simple Linksys/Netgear/Belkin/etc cheap unmanaged switch to see if it supports IGMP snooping? (these probably don't either)

I tried with a couple of cheap stupid 8-port D-Link toys- they don't.

I would have understood that point if CRS series didn't exist.

I agree - a product marketed as a switch should definitely have such a feature. I think this is more depending on the switch chips they're using as the foundation of their products - I'm not sure whether Atheros chips (the ones in things like the 2011 series) are capable of IGMP snooping or if it's a matter of programming them to do so. Whatever the case, I'm not a fan of Mikrotik's switches as anything more than basic frame forwarders with some VLAN capabilites. I want to like them - but they haven't won me over yet.

I tried with a couple of cheap stupid 8-port D-Link toys- they don't.

I didn't think they would do it - they are basic little dumb devices, after all.

Of course the bridge feature is one place this could be implemented regardless of 3rd party chip capabilities. I don't personally have to deal with IGMP snooping issues (I live in the USA where the cable companies fight tooth and nail against streaming video services) but if I did need IGMP snooping, I'd just go get a used Cisco 2600-series switch for pennies.

I'm not sure whether Atheros chips (the ones in things like the 2011 series) are capable of IGMP snooping or if it's a matter of programming them to do so.

As I understand IGMP frames must be intercepted (mirrored to the cpu port) and then processed in software by CPU, which in turn should install the appropriate (dynamic) multicast-fdb entries and then time them out after a while.

Of course the bridge feature is one place this could be implemented regardless of 3rd party chip capabilities.

Another place where IGMP snooping is welcome is wireless interfaces with multicast helper on- as I understand the helper will currently convert each multicast stream into a number of unicast streams unconditionally, one stream per each registered client.

Another place where IGMP snooping is welcome is wireless interfaces with multicast helper on- as I understand the helper will currently convert each multicast stream into a number of unicast streams unconditionally, one stream per each registered client.

Another way people deal with Multicast over WiFi is to ramp up the basic rate to a higher speed and disallow slow links.... I would think that unicasting the stream X number of times could get expensive on air time if lots of clients are subscribed to the stream. Although, I guess 10x 300Mbps transmissions is going to be better than 1x 6Mbps transmission.....

Another way people deal with Multicast over WiFi is to ramp up the basic rate to a higher speed and disallow slow links.... I would think that unicasting the stream X number of times could get expensive on air time if lots of clients are subscribed to the stream. Although, I guess 10x 300Mbps transmissions is going to be better than 1x 6Mbps transmission.....

Why do I need multiple routers ? I want to have one that will carry out my tasks , cheap devices D-Link, TP-Link to cope with it without any adjustments, why is this not a simple function organized at mikrotik?
in Russia is very popular service IPTV (multicast) and 90% of ISP provide it for free, it is very convenient to move around the house looking at the TV , the and then finger the mirror , I did not understand

Why do I need multiple routers ?

You don't. Wireless multicast helper is perfectly fine for home use where you don't usually have big number of wireless clients registered at the same time. Just please note that the multicast-helper=default (which is the default) currently means disabled.

You don't. Wireless multicast helper is perfectly fine for home use where you don't usually have big number of wireless clients registered at the same time. Just please note that the multicast-helper=default (which is the default) currently means disabled.

I know how to set up the equipment , but it does not work as it should work .
multicast helper - full Does not help, Activity increases network , packets are all the ports , this leads to instability of the network

Still no news for IGMP Snooping ?

I know RouterOS is for Routing, but with product like CRS and especially the new HAP that look like the perfect Residential Gateway, IGMP Snooping is a must have.

IGMP Proxy work well to transfert Multicast receive from the ISP side to the client LAN side, but I don't want all the PC of the clients to receive the STB multicast as soon as a STB join one. But I don't want to block multicast on PC ports, causse we work on whole one PVR and Desktop App to receive the Multicast Stream.

On regular RG ( Residential Gateway ) like Comtrend WR-6895 or Smart-RG SR510N if a STB joint a Multicast Stream, only the LAN port of the RG where the STB is will receive the stream ( IGMP Proxy for L3 + IGMP Snooping for L2 switch of the RG ).

I will have 500 to 1000 RG to buy in the next year for our first managed home Wi-Fi solution.
It could be HAP and HAP lite, but without IGMP Snooping I will have to go with Comtrend or Smart-RG !

I would have understood that point if CRS series didn't exist.

Indeed. I need some switches and I've immediately discarded Mikrotik's CRS because it's little more than a glorified bridge of the 1980's featuring multiple ports and Gigabit Ethernet. But it's a really incomplete product, I'm afraid.

I'm sticking to HP Procurves for that.

+1 IGMP Snooping

Regarding the point raised earlier about possible limitations on the switch chip itself: this doesn't stop Mikrotik from implementing snooping on "/interface bridge" level.

For example, RB2011 gives adequate performance in bridge mode as a small consumer aggregation device. Linux already supports snooping in its bridge code, so it is a matter of Mikrotik giving some priority to porting the functionality.

+1 for IGMP Snooping with RB2011 routerboard.

Please, MikroTik. Please Please Please

Administrators why you ignore the wishes of customers ?

+1 for IGMP snooping

+1 for IGMP snooping

Hello, i have simple question. Will Mikrotik have IGMP snooping in v7? I won't stop using it, but like many people I would like to know.
greetings from Poland
PS I don't want to use it on RB4xx, 7xx, 9xx Wifi stuff but on 2011, 750 and newer better switches.

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365

There is nothing to see over there that's looks like a answer for the question in the post.

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365

ordinary users need a 1 router , rather than 2-3 . Why do you not understand? Most uses quick setup for the Internet and TV . but the TV does not work, it is very upsetting . I repeat the question that was asked several times whether it will work in 7 version ???????????????????????????

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365

ordinary users need a 1 router , rather than 2-3 . Why do you not understand? Most uses quick setup for the Internet and TV . but the TV does not work, it is very upsetting . I repeat the question that was asked several times whether it will work in 7 version ???????????????????????????

You said yourself, that a different device works with your TV. That other device does not have IGMP snooping. So why do you ask for this feature? 

Kemerovo:
Is your problem that the IPTV clients will not work at all, or is your problem that it works, but whenever using it, all ethernet interfaces are flooded with unnecessary traffic? It's my impression that your problem is the second one. It is true that the device you linked earlier does not support IGMP snooping, so I can see why Normis is confused about what your problem is.

If your problem is that the devices won't work at all, then it's true that your problem is not the lack of IGMP snooping (whether or not such a feature is good). I recommend starting a new thread requesting help in getting your IPTV clients working if that's your issue.

Normis:
Kemerovo's specific issue notwithstanding, it does appear that IGMP snooping is a very-much-requested feature, and I do think that it would be a very normal thing for layer2 devices to support. Without IGMP snooping, a switch just converts multicast into broadcast which can overload a network if there are many streams going on in parallel. This is quite a waste of resources, especially when only a few clients are subscribed to each stream (obviously you already know this very well - I point it out for the sake of those reading the thread who may not know the difference) ... Is there any reason why Mikrotik seems to be so opposed to implementing this feature?

If the reason is that the HW switches of various platforms may or may not be strong enough to implement it at the hardware switch layer, or that the implementation is different for each chipset in use, then I can see how this could get ugly - but certainly implementing it on the bridge shouldn't be constrained by this limitation. Yes, it would be better to do this in silicon, but if the feature is at least POSSIBLE in CPU, then it's a viable solution for those whose networks have significant amounts of multicast traffic.

Me, if I needed it so badly, I would just bite the bullet and add a switch with IGMP snooping, or if religiously opposed to multiple network devices, I would buy some other vendor's gear and not stubbornly live with bad network performance until Mikrotik meets my demands.

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365

I got a ZyXEL GS1900-16 for $60 and it does support IGMP snooping. After years of user requests IGMP/MLD snooping is still not available, even on CRS....

IGMP snooping development will not be sped up if one person will register many forum accounts and post the same request over and over again. 

At least we know you are working on it  

I used cheapest 8 port TPLink smart switch for that purpose, since it has IGMP snooping. It worked as aspected, no IPTV traffic flood on Mikrotik.

IGMP snooping support added in RouterOS 6.40, please test and report.