Does anyone know if 2.9.12 with the normal routing package supports prefix lists.
I have two BGP session out to two diferent CISCOs and have added this prefix list to the “prefix-list-out”:
/ routing prefix-list
add prefix-list=10.0.0.0 prefix=10.0.0.0/8 prefix-length=8-32 action=reject
The problem is that the CISCO are still getting the advertise the 10.0.0.0/8. Does any one know what I am doing wrong?
-Carlo
Can I bring this question up???
We run a 10.0.0.0/8 network and since it is a municipality network based on volantiers that support their own nodes we need to get those prefix-lists working since anybody can inject by mistake routes of the 192.168.0.0/24 or 172.16.0.0/12 type.
How can we prevent those appearing in the routing table of all nodes? Prefix-list does not work!
I know that in routing-test there is a command called filter but the packet is not stable yet!
Well, in my opinion the routing test package is much more stable than the normal one. I have done many installations with the former with no major problems so far.
Edit: routing filters are working replacement to prefix-lists
from which version and after you noticed such good stability
on routing-test package ?
2.9.7 and 2.9.17 are stable enough ™ 
Shouldn’t it be nice to have routerOS package fixed to properly support prefix-lists, rather than using the routing-test package? IMHO
It is more than certain that prefix lists do not work with 2.9.x RouterOS versions.
as said - the test package will eventually become the normal package. we do not update the normal package anymore. just try to pretend that it does not say test in it’s name and it will work 
Hi Normis, i’m in the very uncomfortable position of having a fairly large wireless network to manage (about 200 nodes) that is actually running with various MT versions, mainly from 2.9.11 to 2.9.18
I do need dinamic routing because i need to have to be able to manage failover, but so far i’m managing it with rip, which obviously doesn’t scale..
I have no metric problems yet, but i do have rip loosing some routes around.
I would like to use some smarter protocol, like OSPF, but i understand it’s bugged on the routing stable package.
I wasn’t able to run iBGP on the network either.
Are you suggesting to enable the routing test package (after upgrading all MT to 2.9.18) and use OSPF?
Can i assume OSPF does work in routing-test?
Thanks,
Ricky
Yep, OSPF and iBGP work in routing-test. We suggest you to use it instead of regular routing package.
Hello,
When can we expect Winbox support for the routing-test package?
Thanks,
Brad
next version has it
Hi Eugene, i upgraded to 2.9.19 and enabled the routing-test package.
I’m testing in lab, but i cannot seem to let the things work, and i feel a lack of documentation..
I’m trying to do iBGP, i’m quite used to bgp, but not to the MT one..
I’m using three routerboards, daisy chain (RB-A ethernet0 connected to one pc, using 192.168.1.1/24, and ethernet 2 connected to RB-B , ip 192.168.2.1
RB-B has ethernet0 connected to RB-A ethernet 2, with ip 192.168.2.254, ethernet2 has ip 192.168.3.1 and i connected to RB-C ethernet0 (192.168.3.254).
Second pc is connected to RB-C ethernet 2, wich has ip 192.168.4.1 (pc has 192.168.4.2)
I was able to establish the bgp sessions, seems all fine, except that each rb has in its routing table just its own routes and the neighbour ones, but does not seem to propagate.
i.e. RB-A has the correct enties of what’s announced by RB-A and RB-B, but no entries from RB-C
RB-B has all the routes, RB-A, RB-B and RB-C
RB-C has RB-C and RB-B connected routes only.
I enabled redistribute-connected, redistribute-static, the reflect option, even the client-to-client-reflect, but no luck.
I tried to search for documentation and in the forum for previous post, but i see no way out… any hint is really appreciated since rip is really making problems in our current setup (it tends to loose routes).
Thanks,
Ricky
Thanks to the people in the forum, i’ve solved the bgp problem =)
I have the first nodes in test now..
Thanks again
Ricky