I have a setup with a Point of Sale (PoS) machine[192.168.1.11], a file server [192.168.1.10], and the mikrotik router. Before, the PoS and file server were both plugged directly into the modem on the same private address scheme and all was well. With the install of the router, they can no longer communicate with each other. What I see happening traffic wise is the PoS needs to send a signal to the file server, but instead of sending packets (udp) to 192.168.1.10, it broadcasts them to 192.168.1.255, and the file server is not responding. The file server is plugged into eth5 and the PoS is plugged into eth3 (small network). I have all the ether ports bridged and masquerading as the 192.168.1.0/24 network.
Assuming my client doesn’t want to pay for a switch to plug both the PoS and file server into before they plug into the mikrotik, is there a way for the file server to see and respond to the broadcast? The PoS machine can’t process payments or end of day reports without communicating with the file server, and putting in a switch for two devices when I have 4 available ports on the mikrotik seems silly.
your splitting the subject from the other topic : )
a bridge should not have any IP addresses on it. A bridge should not have any firewall rules on it. A bridge should not have any NAT rules on it. Make sure they are all clean of that bridge1 (or whatever you called it) and then try again.
Post the following pieces and we’ll tell you whats wrong.
/ ip firewall nat
add chain=srcnat src-address=192.168.1.0/24 action=masquerade
comment=“masquerade for Private 1 Network” disabled=no
add out-interface=wlan1 or similiar. currently anything with 192.168.1.0/24 on it is going to get natted, no matter what interface it comes in or out of.
How would I change it so only it’s traffic to the other machine on the network isn’t NATted? My concern is I don’t override the masquerade settings for the wired connections.
In essence I understand what I have to do, but not what the effect will be.
of course they do, but he doesn’t want to spend the money and have a second device, understandable. a bridge is like a hub really.
That nat rule is currently natting things back and forth thru the bridge1 port, so just specify out-interface=wlan1 so that it’s only triggered when bridge1 isn’t the destination interface. You really only want to nat when you’re leaving wlan1 right ?
I had bad experience with bridges , mikrotik was crashed all the times ,I was bridge EOIP tunnels
,and 2 bridges port works well ,when I put 3 or more router reboot ,and hundred problems !
I need NAT when I leave WLan-1 and one of the eth ports, as I have a machine on the Lan side that needs internet access. Is there a way to allow NAT for the WLan and a specific ethernet port?
instead of natting the entire ethernet, nat the IP and port number. Your src-nat masq is for going outbound, so only use it when your leaving wlan1. Be as specific as you can for the specific nats, and then use the generic src-nat masq rule leaving wlan1 to catch the rest. The main probelm you have is that you are natting between bridge1 and bridge1, and telling it to make everything the routers address.
give me an example of the following IPs and I’ll help:
"I need NAT when I leave WLan-1 and one of the eth ports, as I have a machine on the Lan side that needs internet access. "
You mean internet traffic should hit 192.168.1.10 on port 1234 (dst-nat), or 192.168.1.10 should appear going out to the internet with a specific public IP (src-nat)? Give me a specific example of IPs and port numbers and I’ll write a rule for you.
Problem solved - It was never how it was traversing the router. The proprietary software needed to be accessed form te outside to re-synchronize with the home server. All I had to do was open ports.
Many thanks to everyone who chimed in trying to help.