Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
OlofL
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:37 pm

Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:04 pm

Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

I heard rumours on RouterOS v7 will support RFC3021, which is great. Comparing to v6, it will atleast accept traffic from a /31 IP.

Ping from "north" with source address 10.0.2.3
- Can ping 10.0.2.2
- Can ping 192.168.5.1
- Packet reaches 192.168.5.2. South replies, but reply gets stuck on its way back - at west router

Ping from "north" with source address loopback 172.16.1.1
- Packet leaves "north" router
- Can not ping 10.0.2.2, as west never replies to ICMP
- "west" has an Active route to 172.16.1.1... /ip route add dst-address=172.16.1.1/32 gateway=10.0.2.3

Ping from "south" with source address 192.168.5.2
- Can obviously ping 192.168.5.1
- Can ping 10.0.2.2
- Can not ping 10.0.2.3 (traffic is never sent out on west ether2)



I have this simple topology
Image
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 7038
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:12 pm

/31 is officially unsupported.
 
OlofL
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:37 pm

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:54 am

/31 is officially unsupported.
Can you support it in v7 please? :) Since it's supported (works) one way already :)
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1777
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:15 am

Can you support it in v7 please? :) Since it's supported (works) one way already :)
Yes, we would like to see this and /127 supported as well. MikroTik says no need because we have /32 but /31 and /127 are so standard in terms of router support, it makes MikroTik seem like the odd ones out if they do not support it.
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 7038
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:16 am

/127 is different topic (completely unrelated to RFC3021), and BTW /127 is suppoerted and works in ROSv7
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1777
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:28 am

/127 is different topic (completely unrelated to RFC3021), and BTW /127 is suppoerted and works in ROSv7
It is great that /127 is supported, I assumed it would be in the same boat as /31. I did know they are separate RfC's but they have a similar purpose, so I wouldn't say it is "completely unrelated". Or are you saying that the Linux kernel somehow does not support /31 but supports /127?
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 7038
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:47 pm

Yes, IPv4 and IPv6 stacks in Linux kernel are completely separate.
 
User avatar
StubArea51
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1739
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 am
Location: stubarea51.net
Contact:

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:55 pm

I think /31 support is important. As much as I push for IPv6, the world is still operating IPv4 and will be for a while. I've run into the problem more and more where we have to use Cisco or Juniper due to lack of official /31 support. (many orgs do not want to use the /32 workaround)
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1777
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:47 pm

MikroTik has quietly added /31 address support to the "v7 Routing Protocol Status" page: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ ... col+Status
 
OlofL
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:37 pm

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:12 pm

Good find. I will upgrade my lab and test beta5
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 7038
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:43 pm

It says that /31 is not supported, so that people stop asking whether /31 is supported or not.
 
OlofL
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:37 pm

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:07 pm

It says that /31 is not supported, so that people stop asking whether /31 is supported or not.
What does this even mean? Are you adding features on the v7 status page just to say it's not going to be supported?
And why should we stop asking for features that are not supported? Isn't that the whole point of asking, because we obviously want the feature.

A better answer would be: "yes we aim to add this feature in v7"
Or "no this will never be added because of x or y"

That way we will know if it's worth investing time in routeros.
 
guipoletto
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:39 am

In my opinion, the bigger issue is the "fail silently" of a /31 route.

Officialy unsupported to me, means that ROS should activelly refuse a /31 route as invalid.

The current way invites headache as the route is added and people spend time chasing tails.
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1777
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:15 am

It says that /31 is not supported, so that people stop asking whether /31 is supported or not.
It says /31 is not supported right now - the fact it is on the list suggests that /31 support is potentially intended for a later release. The red boxes on the left have been turning green as we move further through the v7 beta releases. I assume the point of that page is that when the rightmost boxes are all green, we may be getting closer to a ROS v7 stable release?
 
User avatar
kiler129
Member
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Sun May 16, 2021 6:54 am

Plenty of things don't support /31 addressing, even Windows being one of them ;)
While it is useful for PtP links is this really such a huge problem? In my books it's more "nice to have one day" but there are many more things which should be a priority over /31.
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1777
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Bug: RouterOS beta 7.1beta4 - RFC3021 - does not route out on a /31 - but accepts traffic from a /31

Sun May 16, 2021 8:44 am

While it is useful for PtP links is this really such a huge problem? In my books it's more "nice to have one day" but there are many more things which should be a priority over /31.
Here's a big part of the reason - in North America at least, MikroTik is often viewed as a tinkertoy router solution. /31 support is something that any half decent router is expected to support. MikroTik not supporting that just means a lot more "see, told ya so, this MikroTik thing is garbage, they don't even support /31, Cisco is way better". It is hard to convince them otherwise when, aside from MikroTik, the only major router vendors that do not support /31 are vendors who make routers that are mainly intended as firewalls, such as Check Point.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests