*Please note: The ports are isolated and communicate only with the first port. This device functions as an extender, not a traditional switch
Should mean that:
Port 2 connects to Port 1 ONLY
Port 3 connects to Port 1 ONLY
Port 4 connects to Port 1 ONLY
This is confirmed by the Block Diagram:
Though the asterisk with "Default Configuration" should imply that it can be changed, even if I could not find anywhere whether this is possible and how this could be done.
BUT the brochure says:
Advanced SwOS Lite Management
Manage your network effortlessly via Web with SwOS Lite, providing:
• Interface monitoring
• VLAN support
• Traffic shaping
• SNMP reporting
• Fault detection for GPEN links
The reference to SwOS lite must be some marketing induced babbling, the device has not an OS stated on the page and has only 64kb flash.
So VLAN(s) should not be an issue, I understand the whole stuff as "you need something else (a switch on the other end of the cable connected to port 1, that will also provide the 802.3/bt power) to connect from - say - port 4 to port 3".
So, if the above is correct, if you want to connect to one of the cameras on ports 2 and 3 from the wAP Ax on port 4, the connection should be:
wAP AX<-> eth cable<->GPeRx4 Port4<->GPeRx4 Port1<->eth cable<->Switch<->eth cable<->GPeRx4 Port1<->GPeRx4 Port3<->eth cable<->Camera
I do not need something very smart. I use today the PowerBox Pro and, at least for now, it works as expected, but I have other plans for it since it runs ROS and can do much more than being a simple managed switch. Also, the PB Pro does not inspire a lot of confidence regarding the way it will handle the outdoor conditions on the long term. It does not have any sort of seals or anything like that. Yes, the design makes it so that rain or snow cannot get it, but the ethernet ports have no protection at all against moisture. The GPeRx4 looks way more robust and has rubber seals to prevent moisture-related issues.
I know that hAP AX has the same design as PB Pro and it also outside, but if this fails it’s not really a huge issue. If, on the other hand the PB Pro fails, then cameras will fail as well and there i have bigger issues because they are part of the security system as well as included in many automations (like access gates opening based on the cars number plates).
My use case:
camera 1 –> vlan 10
camera 2 –> vlan 10
wAP AX –> vlans 10, 20 and 30
The goal would be to use ETH1 as uplink to another switch.
I don’t mind if clients of the wAP AX cannot connect to the cameras.
Thanks again for the help!
Below the topology. The cameras (VLAN 10) will connect to the NVR and automation server that are plugged in the bottom switch. The wAP AX clients will also connect to the other parts of the network (and internet) via the switch.
From what I understand from the small amount of details posted on the product page, the GPeRx4 seems like a "VLAN agnostic" device, i.e. if a VLAN tagged packet enters it on any of ports 2, 3, 4 it will exit from port 1 "untouched", so it should work in your case, BUT checking again, in the manual:
it is clear that it actually runs SWoS Lite, so no problems with VLAN's.
Configuration
This device operates on the SwOS Lite operating system.
Set your IP for PC to 192.168.88.2/24;
Connect your PC to any unused Ethernet port;
Open your web browser, the default IP management address is 192.168.88.1, with username: admin and no password (or, for some models, check user and wireless passwords on the sticker);
Disclaimer: I don't have a GPeRx4, so I'm speculating.
It seems to me that this is pretty much the same as setting horizon on bridge ports in ROS. So any device, connected to ports 2-4 will freely communicate with anything beyond port1 ... but won't be able to communicate with devices connected to the rest of port2-4. But that all works without explicitly using VLANs. Since device beyond port1 can communicate with any of devices connected to ports 2-4, this means that GPeRx4 is still a switch (so it doesn't send frames to all ports, only to port where destination MAC is connected), but has some kind of filtering configured. The only thing to be seen is whether this kind of filtering is seen in management UI (and can thus be changed or removed) or not.
You are not the only one, and that is exactly the proof that the documentation sucks.
A reasonably knowledgeable person (let alone a long time expert like you) should be able to extract this kind of info from documentation.
And I will repeat - should any of the good Mikrotik guys ever see this thread that, besides the wrong URL in the manual/help for the product page, there is a blatant omission on the product page.
Note
The device has an operating system preinstalled and licensed. No separate purchase is necessary and the product is ready to use. The device includes free software updates for the life of the product or a minimum of 5 years starting from date of purchase.
which is completely missing on the GPeRx4 page.
Many people will probably say "Oh, come on that is not such relevant information", and they would probably be right, BUT to me it still shows a kind of generic sloppiness in the way official documentation is half-@ssedly written (and never checked/proofread).
Thanks, this little device seems interesting, particularly for cameras, besides its use outdoor and powered by 802.3/bt, It could be used as a sort of "concentrator" powered via the two pins (so "passive") with any 48V power supply and capable of powering three 802.3/af (or at) cameras.
This approach would in many cases reduce substantially the lenghts of the PoE powered cables (so saving on DC Power loss) and reduce the number of cables (from the central switch to where the device is placed) from three to one, and this - particularly when re-cabling an old building Is definitely an advantage.
Passive PoE, both 4 wires and 8 wires. I’ve even tested with a RBGPoE injector from Mikrotik with a 48V power supply and worked just fine.
For PoE it needs at least 48V as input (passive or active, does not matter).
It does not power on with 24V PoE.
It does not come with a power supply.
it runs SwitchOS Lite Lite. This means some of the features of SwOS Lite are missing:
POE
ports 2-4 can be configured as Auto/Force On/Off
there is no: PoE prio, voltage level, nor stats about current voltage/current usage
No port isolation menu. Everything is hardcoded
No LAG
Does support port lock, but no mirroring or other functions
No RSTP
No IGMP snooping
It does support VLANs which work as expected and with the same features found in other SwOS Lite devices.
It does support SNMP
What I have not tested is powering it directly via the 2 pins, because those look like they accept a bayonet similar to the breadboard jumper wires. There is no screw to secure the connection.
The missing RSTP might explain the ports isolation and the fact that they can only communicate with the uplink port.
The build quality is very good. Aluminium for the frame and hard plastic for the cover. It does have a rubber seal for the top and also a rubber seal with slots for 4 wires on the bottom which can be tightened to avoid any ingress of dust/moisture. Small note: the holes only allow the cables to go though without the RJ45 connectors. So they connectors must be crimped after they are inserted though the rubber grommet in the bottom.
All-in-all, it works as expected for me and I am happy with the purchase.
If you are looking to extend your network and need an outdoor solution, this is an excellent option.
Maybe the good Mikrotik guys put on the block diagram the asterisk and "default" because the chip is actually programmable but they have not (yet) made a provision for it in the "Feather Edition".
The good thing of those connectors it is that they can be powered at 24V (actually 24-57V) instead of the 48-57V of the PoE.
They probably have given precedence to minimizing size of the thingy over practical use, it is a decision that (IMHO) sucks and sucks big, even if with the newish "pass-through" RJ45 connectors crimping a cable has become much easier, it is still inconvenient when you are on top of a ladder or in similar situations.
And, to nitpick, if there are 4 holes (actually seemingly only "hole markings" [1]) in the grommet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZQeoi_hVt0&t=191s
and you have 4 ethernet cables, where should the cable/wires carrying the (non PoE) voltage supposed to pass?
The thingy would likely become not anymore (if it is now) IP 68[2].
[1] raise your hand, everyone that brings a suitable tool capable of making a perfectly round hole in a rubber grommet when installing up on a pole or similar (or that makes the holes properly in the workshop before installation)
[2] allow me to doubt that such a flimsy multi-cable bottom grommet, even with only the 4 ethernet cables through it (perfectly installed) will be actually IP68 (or will mantain IP68 level waterproofing for long, the minimum for IP68 should be one hour submersed at 1 m depth).
the 4 holes have 4 small rubber plugs which you need to remove when inserting a cable. This makes sense if you use less cables, because then when you tighten the nut, the rubber is squeezed against the cables as well as the plugs for the unused holes. So it offers a nice protection against dust/moisture.
there is no 5th hole for the power cable if you want to use the separate pins. But honestly it looks like those were more of an afterthought and i do not think they planned on those actually being used.
there is a way to make it easier for you if you are up on a ladder. This is how i did it as well. You crimp one end of the cable (the one that will plug into the GPeRx4 and you leave the other end. Then, you insert the end without the plug though the rubber grommet from the top. After that you can crimp the other end while you are on the ground. This, of course, works if you have a sort cable run. If the cable is already fixed, then there is no real solution other than crimping it after being inserted, which is a pain.
I’m waiting now for Mikrotik to release an outdoor AP in the same form factor and with the same IP rating. I’m using a hAP AX today and it does a good job, but, as said before, i doubt it will last very long, because there is very limited protection against dust/moisture.
Yep, the DC connectors are the kind I personally hate, so-called "spring fingers", of which there are two kinds, one, the "intelligent" kind, that has a small lever/press point that allows to easen the clamping on the wire easily to remove it if needed and the "stupid" kind (that seems like those Mikrotik ones) that are very easy to insert the wire in but, if you need to remove it you need a lot of patience and a pin or a tiny (optician/watchmaker) screwdriver to losen contacts without risking deforming them when extracting the wire (another thing not very easy to do up on a ladder).
I may be old fashioned (besides old) but in my day if you promised:
a. that a device is IP68
b. that the same device can be powered with a separate cable
you had to provide means to mantain IP68 level when this cable is used.
Besides the fact that - often (but not always) - the IP68 certification is taken lightly, almost as a joke, generally speaking for "plain outdoors" devices the 8 is not a very smart idea, if waterproofing, for whatever reason, fails you have water (or only moisture/condensation) trapped inside the device where it can do any kind of damages over time.
Personally I prefer a "more honest" IP55 or 65 or even 54 AND a drain/vent hole at the bottom.
In pure theory an IP68 or 69 box containing an electric/electronic device should be sealed in a controlled environment with low levels of humidity, if you seal it while standing on a ladder outside on a misty day you could introduce in it enough moisture (that cannot later escape anymore) to compromise it.
I did not test powering it via the separate pins. The whole setup seems like an afterthought and there were no provisions made to make sure the device will keep its IP rating. Also, although I have a 24V power supply, I did not want to cut the barrel plug from the wires. Still, in the end, I suppose most will be using it via PoE so for me this is not a showstopper. But it’s definitely an afterthought.
Yes, there are still some limits and maybe things that could be improved, but it’s night and day difference compared with the PowerBox Pro i was using before. Maybe IP68 is a bit optimistic, but I only use it outdoors on a fence pole. If this gets submerged, then the IPx8 rating is the least of my concerns as then my house will be flooded
