I don’t get it. I’ve been reading/experimenting for over 12 hours now and I am still absolutely nowhere.
Excuse my frustration.
Ultimately, I want to use queues to share bandwidth fairly among several ports on my 2011 while also providing top priority for voip on one port. But I haven’t even gotten to that.
I’m just trying to define my ports and get an IP to the various devices. It works fine in the default config with a bridge combining the two switches (each bridging its own ports). But when I eliminate the bridge and try to set up each individually, things go to crap.
It seems I can only define one working DHCP server. That DHCP server has to be assigned to an interface. So how do I get a 2nd (or subsequent) interface an IP??? If I set up a 2nd, it flags as “invalid” with no explanation at all.
You can have multiple DHCP servers.
In order to use them simultaneously though, you need to bind them to different interfaces, in your case bridges.
If you could share a sample config and a drawing of what you’re trying to achieve, we would be able to be more helpful.
I don’t think I want bridges, do I? I think (from advice I got on a different thread) that I have to eliminate bridges and route each port individually to effectively queue.
I’m not sure what you mean by a sample config… I’m starting with default so there’s really nothing I’ve done that works.
I’m also not sure what kind of drawing would help.
I’m so lost I don’t even know how to ask for help, sorry
I can’t get anywhere with this thing. I started over and simply tried port forwarding a single port… dead simple stuff. Couldn’t do it. I can see the port but no data. This stuff is so simple on any other router… here I’m just beating my head. I find other topics describing the exact situation/problem and people try to help but in the end, no resolution.
Whether it’s bridge or a physical interface, it does not matter. For each individual DHCP server you have to assign an interface. A bridge in the sense of Router OS is a logical interface that runs RSTP (by default) and is interconnected logically (L2) to other ports (whether ethernet or wlan, it does not matter).
To provide a config, you could login via CLI (telnet is enabled by default) and type export.
This will export the whole configuration.
I get that… I’m just saying I don’t know what the point of providing a config is when it is just the default. I’m not at the machine at the moment, but I can certainly do that.
What am I trying to achieve? Well, first I just want to understand. But ultimately this is what I want:
ETH01 - WAN
ETH02 - Admin PC
ETH03 - Server
ETH04 - WAP
ETH05 - N/C
ETH06 - VoIP box
ETH07 - DEVICE
ETH08 - DEVICE
ETH09 - DEVICE
ETH10 - DEVICE
The four “DEVICE” entries are just low-priority items that need network access but require absolutely no priority. VoIP needs highest priority. Then I want the other three to share - in some fair fashion - the available bandwidth, up and down. I could do everything but the last bit on my consumer router but the QoS and other settings were too limited. I could prioritize them and I could cap them, but I couldn’t “share”. Ie. if one computer was downloading a large file, the others were severely hampered unless I gave them higher priority, in which case they would hog the bandwidth at the others’ expense. I want to guarantee each 1/3 bandwidth (up/down), but not limit any one to 1/3 if the other(s) aren’t currently using theirs.
In part this is preparing for a slightly more complex situation, where I expect to be sharing our bandwidth with another party. In that case, it becomes more important that they get half and I get half, but again I don’t want either to be limited to half when the other isn’t using their full allotment.
I’m a bit confused now. Wasn’t the thread about multiple DHCP servers?
From what you described, I don’t think you need that. You could always match traffic based on a source IP address, mark it and put it in an outbound queue.
It was about multiple DHCP servers, but only because I was under the (mis)understanding that I had to eliminate the bridge to use queuing, and if I eliminated the bridge I’d have to have a DHCP server for each interface.
Looking back, I see where the confusion arose. There was some advice I got that said I couldn’t use “fast tracking” with queing, and in the paragraph I was reading that, it could be read that bridging = fast tracking. So I equated the two. I re-read it, and if you didn’t have the knowledge otherwise (and I didn’t), I still read it that way. I’ve since learned that “fasttrack” is a specific feature of this router.
In hindsight, its really a “duh”. I started with a misunderstanding and that really had me chasing down a strange path.
The wiki contributed to my confusion. The Queue page makes NO MENTION of fasttrack at all. So following the examples that really should have worked, but didn’t, let me to cement the belief that I had to do something far-from-default-config. And that seemed to mesh with the early advice I (thought I) got that it started with eliminating the bridge.
After 2 days of futility, day #3 proved more fruitful. I finally stumbled on the fasttrack page and realized I had to disable the fasttrack firewall rule and then I could begin queuing… with one dhcp server and bridges intact.
I have a lot of learning to do, but at this point I have a working router doing the basics of what I’m after.
In no small part, thanks to your posts in the forums
The wiki needs a TON of work. I could even help - with my limited knowlege - because a lot of it is simply poor grammar and/or careless typos. But - against the whole point of a wiki - it isn’t open to editing.
I could understand your frustration. There are great Wikis out there, but some of them are not that good. As far as I know most of them are written on a voluntary basis. Many of the people on this forum have written Wiki pages. I don’t know though why it’s not possible to edit or at list suggest changes…
The great thing with RouterOS, at least what I like about it, is that you could experiment a lot and this I gained most of my experience. This though could be either a blessing or a curse, depends how you look at it…
