My NAS has a 10GBE port and I wand to make it work with ethernet1 (which is 2.5GBE) in my RB5009.
NAS IP is static, while the box is configured as a bridge for all 9 ports.
My PC is connected to the very same RB .
I can see the link is up and running (see screenshot).
But It seems it is not working as far as ARP (or IP) is concerned: the MAC address doesn’t show up in any place in the RB nor it is reachable via IP.
If I move the cable to any other port in the RB, then I can see it at either MAC or IP level.
If I move my (1GBE) PC port to ethernet1 I can see it is working at either level.
If I plug my 10GBE mini-GBIC into the SFP+ port and move the NAS cable there, I still see everything working for both my NAS and my PC.
It seems it could be the NAS port not working properly at the ARP (and thus IP) level while correctly negotiating the 2.5 Gbps link.
And it works flawlessly at 10 Gbps.
Interesting question, indeed.
I think you hit the spot.
According to docs, it supports “1x 10Gigabit Ethernet (10G/1G/100M)”.
And it looks like the kernel agrees, somehow as 10Gbase-T is not advertised, though.
$ ethtool eth0
Settings for eth0:
Supported ports: [ TP MII ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supported pause frame use: No
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Supported FEC modes: Not reported
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised pause frame use: No
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised FEC modes: Not reported
Link partner advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Half 1000baseT/Full
Link partner advertised pause frame use: No
Link partner advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Link partner advertised FEC modes: Not reported
####
Speed: 10000Mb/s <<<< 10Gbase-T
####
Duplex: Full
Port: MII
PHYAD: 0
Transceiver: external
Auto-negotiation: on
Cannot get wake-on-lan settings: Operation not permitted
Link detected: yes
The weird point for me is that the RB5009 reports a successful negotiation at 2.5GBase-T. Which is all but successful as there is no actual ARP traffic over that interface.
If am not mistaken, the SFP+ reports 2.5BaseG-T as available.
Do you think this can be seen as bug in RouterOS?
It seems that autonegotiation failed to do proper thing. The lower part (link partner advertising) stops at 1G baseT full … and yet RB somehow ended up enabling 2.5G baseT …
There are A LOT of posting about the 2.5G implementation on RB5009, and most of them not in a positive way.
It is quite possible some bugs exist in RouterOS on this, or the “interoperability” with other vendors is not rock solid.
Some users seems to have a stable working 2.5G setup with a RB5009, for others…
