Maybe somebody can help. Using Multicast for transferring Video. 400Mbit cause a load of 100% of the CPU.
Tested with the Switch default config of Router OS und deleted the IP Interface. Load of 100% of CPU. Normally when Router OS is working as Switch (all Ports HW Load) that shouldn´t happen.
The Hardware Encoder sending Streams with Multicast addresse 224.X.X.X.
Is this a bug and is there any workaround usending Multicast over CRS328 Switches without effecting the CPU?
Verify that the ports in question (all of them) are actually hardware accelerated … execute /interface bridge port print, the HW accelerated ports have flag H displayed in flags area. Note that all ports members of affected by multicast[*] need to be HW accelerated, if one single port is not, the whole multicast flood will hit CRS’ CPU.
[*] without any special config this would mean all ports members of given bridge. If you have VLANs set up, then it should be all ports from given bridge members of same VLAN in HW accelerated state to avoid load on CPU. I’m not sure where this leaves bridge interface without IP config … does it count as non-accelerated port or not? You can’t remove bridge from being member of self if everything is untagged. If you have VLANs, then you add (or not) bridge interface to VLANs as needed.
All Interfaces are Hardware Accelerated. So that souldnt be the problem. Every Port is shown with an H.
What could it also be?
Thank You!
When I capturing with Wireshark, I see also the Multicast package on Members which are not subscriping the Multicast. So IGMP Snooping ist not working, is that right?
Of course IGMP Snooping is activated. In our Cisco Enviroment its all working perfectly.
IGMP snooping seems to be borken on Mikrotik devices since Gaia gave birth to Uranus. It shouldn’t cause high CPU load by itself, but might be that CRS’ CPU gets hit with multicasts because of exactly the same reason. So try to get bridge interface (which gets created implicitly for every bridge and you can’t get rid of it) out of the multicast path. The only way I can think of is by implementing VLANs (even if just internal to the switch itself). Might be it can’t really be done if you insist on having management access to CRS via same interfaces as are used for multicast streaming …