Hello all,
I use eve-ng to explore RouterOS features before deploying them in the field and I’ve come across a small hiccup while playing with the RouterOS 7 version that, while minor, is driving me nuts.
Whenever I boot a RouterOS 6.x image all the network interfaces of the router match the names that appear in eve-ng, so everything works out of the box. The most obvious thing is the DHCP client on ether1 when the router is connected to the NAT interface to access the external network.
In contrast, when I boot a RouterOS 7.x image the network interfaces do not match the names that appear in eve-ng; for example eth0 on eve-ng is matched with ether3 on the RouterOS instance instead of being assigned ether1. This disrupts the operation of the DHCP client, as it is operating on ether1 instead of ether3.
I’ve explored the causes and it looks that is related to how the MAC addresses for the interfaces are matched to the physical interfaces. In RouterOS 6.x the MAC address ending with 00 is matched to ether1, whereas in RouterOS 7.x the MAC address ending with 00 is matched to ether3.
I don’t think this is related to eve-ng, as it works well with RouterOS 6.x and I’ve also searched for possible solutions, but could not find any solution.
Can you please provide some ideas on how to solve this?
Thanks in advance!
Best,
Pere
I’m seeing the same behavior. In 6.49 it works as expected:
[admin@MikroTik] /interface ethernet> print
Flags: X - disabled, R - running, S - slave
# NAME MTU MAC-ADDRESS ARP
0 R ether1 1500 50:01:00:09:00:00 enabled
1 RS ether2 1500 50:01:00:09:00:01 enabled
2 RS ether3 1500 50:01:00:09:00:02 enabled
3 RS ether4 1500 50:01:00:09:00:03 enabled
4 ether5 1500 50:01:00:09:00:04 enabled
5 ether6 1500 50:01:00:09:00:05 enabled
6 ether7 1500 50:01:00:09:00:06 enabled
7 ether8 1500 50:01:00:09:00:07 enabled
In 7.2.3 the MAC addresses aren’t sequential:
[admin@MikroTik] /interface/ethernet> print
Flags: R - RUNNING
Columns: NAME, MTU, MAC-ADDRESS, ARP
# NAME MTU MAC-ADDRESS ARP
0 ether1 1500 50:01:00:08:00:01 enabled
1 ether2 1500 50:01:00:08:00:06 enabled
2 R ether3 1500 50:01:00:08:00:04 enabled
3 ether4 1500 50:01:00:08:00:02 enabled
4 ether5 1500 50:01:00:08:00:00 enabled
5 ether6 1500 50:01:00:08:00:07 enabled
6 ether7 1500 50:01:00:08:00:05 enabled
7 ether8 1500 50:01:00:08:00:03 enabled
Which screws up Eve-NG labels which bases the names off of MAC address, so the only ‘fix’ I’ve found is to rename the interfaces inside ROS and then commit the image back into Eve until this gets sorted out…
Eve-ng drivers and api scrips need modifications to work with V7. There was a similar thread about this some week ago. Also, be aware there might be certain side effects if not running using vmware vsphere (esxi) ie some features won’t work as expected. Check the eve-ng forum.
I’m not experiencing that with my installation of EVE using 7.2.3 on Hyper-V nor Proxmox.
[admin@Router01] > /interface/print
Flags: R - RUNNING
Columns: NAME, TYPE, ACTUAL-MTU, L2MTU, MAC-ADDRESS
# NAME TYPE ACTUAL-MTU L2MTU MAC-ADDRESS
0 R ether1 ether 1500 50:00:00:01:00:00
1 R ether2 ether 1500 50:00:00:01:00:01
2 R ether3 ether 1500 50:00:00:01:00:02
3 R ether4 ether 1500 50:00:00:01:00:03
I realize that this is unhelpful, but wanted to put the information out there if some were hesitant on using 7.2.3 images inside of EVE.
Hi, any news to this?
Since this is a pure EVE-NG related issue you should probably check out their own forums.
Hello,
Sorry for the late reply, but I found a workaround thanks to the Network Berg.
Apparently, using other QEMU networks drivers (i.e., i82559er or e1000-82545em) instead of the default ones (i.e., e1000) makes the assignment between RouterOS and eve-ng work as expected.
I hope it helps.
Pere
EVE-NG changed default templates for Mikrotik RouterOS as suggested.
Next release will use the e1000-82545em nic.
In the meantime, any user could just use from /opt/unetlab/html/templates, the command:
git pull
Below the behavior in both cases…
Regards,
Alain Degreffe
EVE-NG Ltd
Thanks for all info. I have EVE-NG lab under VMware Workstation and yet only played with ROS6 without much problems.
I have a P1 license reserved to play with another machine using ROS7 for future.
Regards.