IF the bridge is the config part that is causing you grief at any point in time (locked out etc) having ether4 still on the bridge is not going to help you so you are being too smart for your own good.
The path that works is to give yourself a switch port connection to your PC on the management vlan as it has now, and use ether4 for emergency off bridge access.
Just my two cents… last time I will mention it.
Yes, the router automatically will untagg ports in the /interface bridge vlan settings when PVID is placed on the /interface bridge port settings.
I prefer to manually insert it so that I can visually cross match both sets of settings with each other and dont have to make assumptions or fill in blanks.
Personal preference.
The default in RouterOS v7 is ingress-filtering=yes, but in v6 is ingress-filtering=no (I always thought it was an odd choice as in almost all cases filtering is good). As with many other settings the default values do not appear in /export.
ok. So, what do you suggest to do? Should I entirely separate ether4 from the bridge and assign it a subnet as if it were a port of a router on its own?
Thanks
I do ingress filtering on bridge ports, leave bridge to do only its core function, no dhcp no INGRESS filtering etc…
Up to you want you want to do. To be clear the only thing required on the bridge vlan settings is to enable vlan filtering after config is done. (and on bridge itself possibly change name).
No, that is not what he means. He does use vlan-filtering. He just does not use the base bridge interface itself for anything (other than as a carrier for the vlans). No ip address, no dhcp, etc. He uses only vlan interafaces under the bridge as interfaces that carry data, have ip addresses, and services such as dhcp and dns.
Personal preference, I know what works doing it the /interface bridge ports and /interface bridge vlans with many different configurations. I have far less experience what could happen the other way as the percentage of that usage is so low…thus many boundary conditions would less likely to be tested by users.
Lastly, if one did need untagged ports (access ports and hybrid ports, not sure what that setting would do!
As stated I want the core bridge to only doing bridging and not be concerned with dhcp or discriminating traffic flow… The only time I would consider something additivie to the bridge is the unique times Bridge Filters makes sense… Which I have not run up against but others have.
