You use linux kernel that support this feature, customers needed this featre, but you ignore feature requests. 
OK, if you do not need it , give me the settings for normal operation iptv
instead of empty words would be better to add a function that you are asking users have one year
As far as I remember information already was provided and you already started to use it?
Here are the configuration example again
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Routing/IGMP-Proxy#Examples
the flow goes on all ports , the CPU load is increased to 80 , the router crashes , filtering does not help
Open a new ticket with support with attached supout file after the crash. And simply do not mention anything about igmp snooping in that mail
sent, Ticket#2016090222000151
It surely goes to all ports, since you have one master port and the other slaves.
Filtering does not work on slave ports, only on masters, so your filter rules do not work as expected.
If you really want filters, get all ports out of the switch, use them individually, put them in a bridge and filter at bridge level.
This is the only solution for the moment. But you will be limited by your CPU and the fact that there is a bottleneck between switch and CPU.
Alternatively, you could put your console on a separate subnet/interface if it is directly connected to the router.
ok, thank you, describe please more detailed as it to do, it is possible the personal report
if will I filter multicastes for example on 3, 4 port, and there will be 20 clients on wi fi, all 20 a stream will go again??
When you disable switch configuration and add all slave ports to the bridge, then igmp-proxy should send multicast streams only on those bridge ports where client, that joined the multicast group, is connected. So bridge filters are not needed.
once again
if will I filter multicastes for example on 3, 4 port, and there will be 20 clients on wi fi, all 20 a stream will go again??
If you filter multicast on port 3,4 then of course it will not go to clients connected to those ports. It’s not exactly clear what you want to set up and why you need those filters.
if is a question not quite clear you, why you write an answer??
look http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/igmp-snooping/56655/1
and a problem is in that is needed that multicastes clients got only starting pleer, but not all in succession clients which are limited the use of one interface
can there be petition will accelerate a process and adequate answers for the questions of users???
Maybe the question is poorly asked ? Docmarius has clearly explained why in his opinion your filters for eth3 and eth4 do not work.
P.S.
OK. There is no IGMP snooping … we need to live with that fact … if it is such a problem you can always change yor router or read this http://www.snbforums.com/threads/mikrotik-ccr-igmp-snooping.30356/
read a post # 32
did I read your reference, tuning I did not find there, for what you it it was copied me???
ps
it is unnecessary to pretend to be whatever you understood, you all had understood, limitation a multicaste will give nothing, will correct a problem only igmp snoping
And what … ? Do you think that beeing quite rude will help to resolve problem ?
Mikrotik has no IGMP snooping … if you want to rosolve your problem you have to try other solutions.
Why I have cited you ? As your English is not perfect and you accuse others that they do not understand what you write to them. You seem to be quite bombastic at the moment.
P.S.
My English is also far from beeing perfect … I know this …
P.P.S.
Do not scare us … I do understand Russian
- If you do not have an answer on the question , save yourself from writing messages PLEASE)))))))
Great the first post … I will wait for next one …
kemerovo, Mrz is trying to help you.
Answer the questions please, maybe issue will get solved.
Normis … seems that RudeBoy is the reincarnation of Kemerovo as Kemerovo is “on vacation” to calm his nerves.