CCR - like switch ?

[egisas]

Hello,

Sorry for silly question
Brought to one of customers CCR1036. This is my first contact with MikroTik hardware and OS.
Everything looks nice and ok, but i have one question: is it possible to group some ports to one “virtual” switch or something like that?
I need to connect two other dumb switches to CCR, using fiber SFP.
Do i need to try some workaround like bridging, or can i use something else?

Thank you for patience,
Egidijus

[honzam]

CCR dont have switch chip. The only way is BRIDGED all ports together

[ste]

@honzam

CCR dont have switch chip. The only way is BRIDGED all ports together

Yes. Due to processing power software bridge is not slower than hw-switch.

[egisas]

@honzam

CCR dont have switch chip. The only way is BRIDGED all ports together

Already tried
As for now - i have no switches connected, so tried only to create bridge and adding interfaces.
But got some side affect - looks like nat’ing went wrong way after that, like nat’ing from inside to self external interface (like DNS record pointing to some services using self external IP). For this kind of problem from start i have used src-nat, like:
add action=masquerade chain=srcnat dst-address= dst-port= out-interface= protocol=tcp src-address=
But this solution goes down when i bridge internal interface with another (sfp) interface in new bridge interface.
Will substitution of internal interface to bridge interface will work (in this nat’ing command)? I’ll try this tomorrow with real switches, but at first tried to ask someone who can know

And thank you for fast response,
Egidijus

[ste]

@egisas

@honzam

CCR dont have switch chip. The only way is BRIDGED all ports together

Already tried
As for now - i have no switches connected, so tried only to create bridge and adding interfaces.
But got some side affect - looks like nat’ing went wrong way after that, like nat’ing from inside to self external interface (like DNS record pointing to some services using self external IP). For this kind of problem from start i have used src-nat, like:
add action=masquerade chain=srcnat dst-address= dst-port= out-interface= protocol=tcp src-address=
But this solution goes down when i bridge internal interface with another (sfp) interface in new bridge interface.
Will substitution of internal interface to bridge interface will work (in this nat’ing command)? I’ll try this tomorrow with real switches, but at first tried to ask someone who can know

And thank you for fast response,
Egidijus

You have to use the bridge as interface in nat not a physical interface included in the bridge.
An be aware. ROS6 is not finished so you might run into sw-problems.

[egisas]

@ste

@egisas

@honzam

CCR dont have switch chip. The only way is BRIDGED all ports together

.
.
.

You have to use the bridge as interface in nat not a physical interface included in the bridge.
An be aware. ROS6 is not finished so you might run into sw-problems.

Allreday tried some minutes ago (decided to hit it after posting message) - as for now, looks like working ok, at least nat’ing is back, will see how it goes with switches.
As for problems - i think i’ll have some, but at least CCR with 4 SFP’s cost’s customer less than 3 cisco SFP’s, not including some ASA and router They are willing to get some problems instead of more than 10x price increase. All routed services are not mission critical for them, so we will have some time to solve these problems. At least i hope bridging will sustain

Thank you for helping,
Egidijus