Hello all.
Can someone please shed a light on an issue.
ROS ver: 6.27
board-name: CCR1036-8G-2S+
Mikrotik states in ‘ip route’ that route-tag:
route-tag (integer; Default: "") Value of route tag attribute for RIP or OSPF. For RIP only values 0..4294967295 are valid.
in http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:IP/Route
So 4294967295 (the highest number you can get using 32 bits format)
But when i try to apply a value the limit is: 65535 (highest number you can get using 16 bits format)
No matter what integer value i choose in ‘route-tag’ it just vanishes when applied.
What am i missing here??
sidenote: i really need route-tag in static to distribute it over ospf.
Thanks.
I replicated this on a virtual x86 image running v6.27 as well.
Furthermore, setting the tag on the command line gets the same behavior - command is accepted, but ignored.
The way the documentation is written, it sounds like static routes don’t have a tag attribute in ROS.
This is puzzling, because tags are very useful. We use tags to mark static routes we want to redistribute into OSPF, so I completely understand what you’re trying to do.
Is this a bug or a missing feature?
That’s exactly the point ZeroByte 
We overcome (for the moment) this issue using another (not so graceful) way.
Oddly enough using ‘route-comment’ matching the static route comment works. ( not in the example )
But it’s interesting that when you try to see the received routes ROS knows what a ‘route-tag’ is.
[admin@test] > /ip route print terse where route-tag=1
0 ADo dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=x.x.x.x gateway-status=x.x.x.x reachable via sfp-sfpplus1 distance=110 scope=20 target-scope=10 route-tag=1 ospf-metric=12 ospf-type=external-type-2
I think it’s a necessity having ‘route-tag’ working Mikrotik.
That idea had crossed my mind but I didn’t pursue it further. Interesting to see that it works, and if I start putting Mikrotiks into the network at my current company, then I’m going to remember this is how to do it.
I suspect that Mikrotik’s position on this will be “the functionality you want is achieved, so use comments and don’t worry about tags” so I wouldn’t hold my breath for route tags on static routes.
“the functionality you want is achieved, so use comments and don’t worry about tags”
Thank for your words ZeroByte, unfortunately i guess they’ll take that path 
