Hi there!
I am new to Mikrotik and would like to be assisted in my configs. I really like the Mikrotik capability.
I have two WAN connections and 4 VLANS. 3 VLANS 10,20 and 30 are on the Switch ether 2,3 and respectively. VLAN 40 is on ether 3 of the R1. VLAN 99 is the management VLAN.
The problem I have is that I cannot ping the gateway for any of the VLANS e.g. hosts on 10.10.10.0/24 cannot ping 10.10.10.1.
I cannot connect to the Switch using the 10.99.99.2 as the ping says error.
I have exported the current configs for both the Router and the Switch and would appreciate to be guided.
Why do you waste our time with that post,
a. the 8G must be an old model as its not on the website
b. if you read the posts and specifically post #4 clearly states a 7G model.
I think anav did not clearly communicate what he (probably) meant:
The CRS112 does not have hardware support for bridge VLAN filtering, and the CPU in that device is quite weak, so using bridge VLAN filtering on it is not really practical, and you are best off setting up VLANs using the CRS1xx/2xx switch chip method.
The CCR1009 also doesn’t have hardware support for bridge VLAN filtering, but the CPU in that device is quite powerful by comparison, and so it can handle it. Furthermore, since the currently available CCR1009 models do not have a switch chip, there is no other way of setting up VLANs that can be hardware offloaded, and therefore there is no disadvantage to using bridge VLAN filtering on those devices (i.e. any other method will not reduce CPU usage and the load on the device).
That I agree with and understand. But the way it was written above could have been misconstrued by someone newer to mikrotik. And I was fearful he was referring to the older hardware that did have a switch chip in it. While the newer version does not. Which of course did not require such a poor reply.
I read what he had wrote, and am familiar with what he has. What I was fearful of was that you may of confused it with the older model with the switch chip when you made your suggestion. I have seen this on the forum several times(Not you specifically, but the model). Unfortunately, without personally knowing you, we cannot possibly know exactly whats going through your mind. I also have about 25 of the same model as him in the field, mixed along with about 200 or so others.
This forum is here to help people, and its very easy to get tunnel vision on subject matters. Just trying to help clarify for other readers. Berating people is not necessary, nor helpful.
Stop making excuses, you simply needed to state that you had missed what the OP wrote period.
Instead of making a million excuses that dont fly.
You invented shit that doesnt exist, so I am simply informing you to stop making problems that are not there.
You can use the CCR with Software VLANs as well…
In general you can create VLANs either in hardware or in Software…
There are 3 ways you can do that, 1. Bridge VLAN Filtering ( it will consume CPU resources for devices that do not support it ), 2. Switch Chip VLANs ( for devices with Switch Chip, old methodm configuration depends on the switch chip model ) 3. Software VLANs ( /Interface VLAN )
It all depends on what you need to accomplish…
For example, lets say you have a CCR1009 and a CRS 328 switch, you can create VLANs on the Switch using Bridge VLAN Filtering, and on the CCR the Port ( Trunk ) connected with the CRS328 would be done in Software .. So you could create your VLANs on the SFP Port of the CCR1009 under /interface VLAN and connect it to the Trunk port of the CRS328…
Actually there are two ways (numbers 1. and 2. above) to securely pass VLAN-tagged frames between two bridged/switched ports.
The third variant mentioned above (as number 3.) is complementary to any of methods 1. or 2. when ROS (router, switch, …) needs to take part in a particular VLAN (as a L3 entity).
Use of method 3. in sense of passing VLAN-tagged frames between ports is more of an abuse. However before mehod 1. came to ROS, it was the only way of dealing with VLAN-tagged frames on devices without switch chips. It does offer some other possibilities for hacks (such as changing VLAN ID when passing traffic between ports … which is not possible with method 1. and only a few switch chip models can do it when using method 2.).