I know that Windows by default have ping blocked. Now I added all ICMPv4 traffic to permit on all interfaces and IP’s on both machines. If I ping from RBM33G to PC1 and from RB450G to PC2, both works well.
As adittion if I try to ping from PC2 to RBM33G it not works.
You would be amazed how many don’t know that Windows blocks ICMP by default. Hence the reason I asked.
I think you are in the right direction for testing. Try segments and see what works and what does not. Using Torch to see what ICMP packet flowing and where may also help.
/interface bridge
add name=bridge1
/interface bridge port
add bridge=bridge1 interface=ether1
add bridge=bridge1 interface=ether2
/ip address
add address=192.168.100.1/24 interface=bridge1 network=192.168.100.0
/ip dns
set servers=8.8.8.8,8.8.4.4
/ip route
add distance=1 dst-address=10.0.60.0/24 gateway=192.168.100.2
And to finish with “Windows ping problem”, I replaced the PC1 for a linux device that you can ping it.
So, now the excersice is ping from PC2 (Windows) to PC1 (Linux).
How about ping between RBM33G and RB450G (192.168.100.1 ↔ 192.168.100.2), does that work? If not, then how exactly are they connected? From what you posted, I’d assume cable between RBM33G’s ether1 or ether2 and RB450G’s ether2. Which is also weird, because if RBM33G’s interfaces are bridged, it would make more sense for PC1 to use directly 192.168.100.2 as gateway.
Then how complete is RBM33G’s config you posted? Are there any firewall rules? Usual stateful firewall would have problem with how it’s connected, because it creates asymmetric routing:
in one direction, 192.168.100.200 sends packet to its gateway 192.168.100.1 and RBM33G sends it to 192.168.100.2
in other direction, RB450G sends packet directly to 192.168.100.200, because it’s in same subnet as RB450G’s 192.168.100.2 => it passes through RBM33G, but it’s only bridged and IP firewall doesn’t see => for stateful firewall it’s invalid packet
But if there really isn’t firewall on RBM33G, then it would work. Anyway, this should be simple to debug, if you can play with it. Packet sniffer is your friend. Keep the ping running, see how far it gets and you’ll know where to look for problem.
RBM33G have all config posted here except LTE interfaces that are disabled and something about default wireless security profile. I omitted both to reduce the code a bit.
So, no have any firewall rules configured on any device.
How is possible that if are not rules blocking traffic and all networks are declared on both devices I can’t get connection. I’m thinking that this is a MikroTik bug or something.
And the magic NAT rule that fixes it is what exactly?
The weird part is that not even ping to 192.168.100.2 works. It’s from PC2 (10.0.60.254), right? But its default gateway is 10.0.60.1, i.e. RB450G, which also has 192.168.100.2. So RB450G definitely knows where to find 10.0.60.254. It’s almost direct link between the two, except for Cisco, but it doesn’t look like it should interfere, because if it did, even dhcp wouldn’t pass.
Btw, both OSPF and those firewall rules can’t help, RB450G has all routes, for RBM33G you have the same manual ones, and if there’s no firewall filter, everything is allowed by default.
ping from 10.0.60.254 to 192.168.100.2 works => routing from 10.0.60.254 to 192.168.100.0/24 is ok
ping from 10.0.60.254 to 192.168.100.200 doesn’t work => there’s some problem beyond RB450G
masquerade changes source from 10.0.60.254 to 192.168.100.2 and it works => it looks like device 192.168.100.200 doesn’t have route to 10.0.60.254
So check config of 192.168.100.200, if it really has route to 10.0.60.254. Default gateway 192.168.100.1 covers that and you wrote that it’s there, but just make sure that it really is.
Otherwise I’m running out of ideas. If it’s lab, then experiment. Test if changing 192.168.100.200’s gateway to 192.168.100.2 works. Or if connecting it directly to RB450G without RBM33G helps. I don’t see why it should, but for the lack of better ideas…
In any case, nothing here is in any way complicated, it’s all the most basic networking, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t work.
