does Mikrotik support RFC5549

RouterOS Forwarding Protocols
1

Because The RIPE NCC has run out of IPv4 Addresses
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/the-ripe-ncc-has-run-out-of-ipv4-addresses

does Mikrotik support RFC5549?

2

Hi,
this question is interesting for me too. Nothing found in wiki. Unnumbered BGP would be nice.

3

At the moment, no, it is not supported.

4

I see that RFC5549 is now listed as supported at least since v7.1 here https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview but have found no other mentions. Is there a configuration guide or feature description, or is it as simple as passing AFI v4 over a v6 peering?

5

Config depends on the setup but in any case nexthop can be adjusted with routing filters.
It is also not limited just to BGP, you can add IPv4 static routes with IPv6 gateways.

6

Take a look at configuring NAT444 on a Mikrotik ( I am not referring to normal NAT44 ).

Info:

  • Each live IP address has 65,536 ports.
  • If you configure NAT444 to use 250 ports per inside IP address, a single live IP address can NAT444 ( aka NAT ) an internal /24 ( aka 192.168.0.1/24 ) network.

Example :
192.168.0.0 NAT444 can Nat 192.168.0.0 to a live IP address port range 0 - through 249
192.168.0.1 NAT444 can Nat 192.168.0.0 to a live IP address port range 250 - through 499
192.168.0.2 NAT444 can Nat 192.168.0.0 to a live IP address port range 500 - through 749
192.168.0.3 NAT444 can Nat 192.168.0.0 to a live IP address port range 750 - through 999
192.168.0.4 NAT444 can Nat 192.168.0.0 to a live IP address port range 1000 - through 1249

192.168.0.255

It works and you don't need a syslog logger for NAT translations.

I am using multiple blocks of 8 live IP addresses and each block of 8 consecurive IP address can NAT444 a RFC1918 /21 inside network.
It works well and is IMO NAT444 is faster than regular NAT44.


North Idaho Tom Jones

7

Can you provide an example of this? I have tested setting static IPv6 nexthops {set gw} on afi4 routes, which will go active; but in a router filter I cannot get an active route with any reachable IPv6 nexthop.

8

I’m also interested to see an example config for this.

I tried using a v4 AFI over an IPv6 only peering back in 7.3 but wasn’t able to make it work and didn’t have time to troubleshoot.

9

From what I can tell this is still not working as of v7.7beta8. Mikrotik opened two bugs, and I haven’t gotten notification that they are closed. Basically, they are

  • Next hop is failing to be automatically set on an AFI4 route
  • Setting a gw address with interface using filters also fails; the gateway appears in the route table as 0.0.0.0%

I also consider it a bug that Mikrotik haven’t updated the documentation to show that RFC5549 isn’t working, no matter how well static routes are functioning for us.

I have tried all combos of
set gw
set gw-interface
set gw %
set scope
set scope-target
set pref-src

10

I’m also interested in Unnumbered BGP as well as RFC5549.
Is there any updates?

11

+1 - Looking at using the 100GB routers in a datacenter env. Unnumbered interfaces would help in automation.

12

This still doesn’t work as of v7.10 beta. The logical configuration would be an IPv6 peer on both sides where AFI is IPv4 or IPv4+IPv6. However, the BGP daemon fails to learn IPv4 routes completely.

Static routing over v6 next-hop doesn’t work either. It’s flagged invalid.

Moreover, this lacks BGP unnumbered.

13

Any more news on this?