No problem - you might potentially be able to extend that script to pull the MAC for the logged in user by pulling the “Caller ID” for that username, and do a /tool fetch to a php page running on the radius server that could capture the mac address plus the lease given at that time and write it to the RADIUS database directly. It shouldn’t be too hard.
Obviously we shouldn’t have to do it, I was hoping for an official solution from MikroTik sooner and it has not appeared yet. However, as of yet we have not yet gotten a single abuse report for an IPv6 address, but I think that is only a matter of time.
IPv6 is at the Implementation stage only so abuse report is still very low compared to IPv4. But Still the Norms and Regulations here force the ISP to collect all the Delegated and Remote Prefix in IPDR for Complaince purpose.
Hope Mikrotik Team will understand the difficulties and will do the needful at the earliest.
As i tested with other brand routers like CISCO, JUNIPER, HUWAAI and all are ready and working only this issue is seen in Mikrotik Routers from very long time.
I also observerd that many request have been done by many ISPs and WISPs in the forum but still it not answered propoerly by anyone yet.
I am also contacting Mikrotik Support for the same, hope something positive may come from their side…
I understood that for such a feature request to have any impact, you need to go to your MikroTik distributor (where you buy the equipment) and ask them to submit a business case to MikroTik sales where they explain how much business they lose because this (or some other) feature is not available in RouterOS.
That is what counts. Not individuals making requests to MikroTik sales or even less here on the forum.
When the sales people at MikroTik notice they lose some big sales because a minor feature is not available, they will ask the developers to implement it.
When you go to MikroTik as an individual, you get the “nobody is ever asking for this” reply. Of course from a sales standpoint that can be explained, because you already bought your router and you notice a problem, and them fixing it is not going to bring them any money, maybe only some goodwill.
I noticed that before when asking for some IPv6 features, the reply usually is that “the customers do not ask for IPv6” so clearly I am not regarded a customer (as I am asking for it!), the distributors are the customers. Which they confirmed.
Just wondering if anyone is successfully using BFD as a gateway check on a static route? I am assuming this can be configured as a standalone option (as in, does not require BGP or other protocols as well) but packet captures show no BFD packets are sent (RB1100). Packet captures shows BFD packets are arriving from the other end (Juniper MX960).
In RouterOS, BFD only works in combination with a routing protocol. The setup of BFD only defines parameters like the rate and the number of missed packets before the link is declared down, but the actual activation of BFD takes place in a routing protocol (BGP Peer or OSPF Interface).
The BFD traffic starts when the routing protocol has activated a peer, and the routing protocol is informed when BFD detects a dead peer.
For gateway checks, you can use PING or ARP as config items, or you can use Netwatch or make a custom scheduled script that performs whatever action you want.
Hi Mikrotik Team,
Please add the module ISG available at Cisco to the Mikrotik system
In our country, the regulations are such that traffic separation must be done. ISP Replace the Mikrotik router with Seiko. Please add module ISG Add
in routing filter the is a bug!
i created two chain: in-v4 and out-v4
Going in templates, the two chain are allowed to be chossen by input.filter but not by out put filter
[admin@test-100G] /routing/bgp/template> set 0 input.filter=
in-v4 out-v4
If I force the chain by writing the name it is not executed by the filter:
[admin@test-100G] /routing/bgp/template> set 1 output.filter=“out-v4”
this doen’t do anything.
