I can't believe it has been 2 years since the original post on this thread and we still are EXACTLY in the same spot we were when we started. For God's sake, we put men on the moon using a computer with less computing power than an RB250G. You would think that SOMEONE by now would be able to figure ...

I don't see the point of doing vlan using the bridge function. This just has to be slow. Why not use the switch chip ? Gesendet von meinem XT890 mit Tapatalk 2 Where would I use the switch chip? I am not picturing what you are suggesting. Please elaborate for me. *Later Edit*. I just looked up more...

You are correct that you should be able to add the VLANs to the Ether 1 interface directly - if it is not already marked as a port on a bridge. If you have problems placing the VLAN interfaces directly on the Ether 1 port after ensuring that the port is not involved in a bridge then it would be use...

Something looks odd on Router B. You have the VLANs assigned to a bridge and that bridge has no ports assigned............... As regards routing VLANs - yes, since the system is a router it will add routes for all connected interfaces including virtual VLAN interfaces. If you do not want certain tr...

I really like the MT products and OS but one thing that frustrates me is the sometimes vague explainations to use certain features like VLANs. I have been trying to create a network as follows; ROUTER A: ether1 = VLAN trunk with several VLANS ether 2,3,& 4 = various Access ports from VLANS ROUTE...

7 months since this post.
Nobody has anything to say on this?
No one has experienced this problem besides me?
MT is not interested in this as a potential bug that should be considered for a fix?

Update: I was able to write a script to alleviate the problem. The script periodically checks the connection list for connections matching the remote access server's configured IP and host address. Then compares the entry's src-address to remote-address that the access server thinks it is connected ...

Upon further reflection on this, I think I may know why this is happening. I have no data being sent in the other direction; no packets being sent to the host. So the remote access server has no idea that the connection was lost. So it holds the connection open. I guess the access server will allow ...

I have set a log file up in a remote-access server; /port remote-access add port=serial0 tcp-port=10001 log-file=data.log I am sending and receiving data thru the serial port from a telnet client on a host machine. The log file only records data that is incomming to the serial port, even though I ha...

I have an RB411AR configured to allow me to telnet to the serial port; /port remote-access add port=serial0 tcp-port=10001 This gives me an ethernet/wifi to serial adapter and works fine. However, if the Lan or Wifi link to the RB411AR is disconnected, I am unable to sucessfully reestablish a sucess...

I don't really understand the reason for the secrecy on the MNDP. Except for reasons of "we dont want to spend the time to support it" (which is a reasonable excuse), I would think that publishing this protocol could only be helpful to promoting Mikrotik adoption. Who else but those of us ...

janisk,
I stand corrected.
I did not realize that the problem is a microsoft support of Linux issue rather than a MikroTik support of Hyper-V.
Maybe I should switch to VMWare...

Maybe I missed it..
Almost a year has passed since this topic was created and there is still no solution or response from mikrotik?
I too am trying to get RouterOS on my Hyper-V system and am unable to do so sucessfully.
I guess MikroTik us uniterested in supporting RouterOS running on Hyper-V.

Wow! :shock: Did I just read in a previous post "Don't ask MikroTik to support ....." This issue appears to me to be pretty straight forward.. The argument of "future support" and "vendor abandonment" is ridiculous.. We could say the same thing about MikroTik and thier ...