apparently amount of consumers, that share opinion/excitement about how much "would be nice" to had LLDP supported - vastly over-exaggerated/overestimated.Seems this thread is from 2008 and we are still waiting for implementation LLDP
why should care anyone about "everything else" especailly if tats only companies like microsoft, hp and alikes ?I for one don't need LLDP too much, as if I couldn't live without it. I can. It's just nice for me to look at switch and see in which port some device is plugged. I might as well find it by MAC address, I don't need to do it that often to really bother me.
But look at it this way: RouterOS has CDP and it's supported by MikroTik, Cisco and that's about it. And it's not rising. LLDP is supported by everything else, including Cisco. It seems to me that MikroTik will have to give up eventually and support it too. Why wait?
Show me a 48 port SFP+ Mikrotik switch. Show me a Mikrotik switch with 40GigE or 100GigE. Show me a Mikrotik switch without a confusing VLAN setup. I love Mikrotik, but they aren't the answer for everything.see ? another good reason to use MikroTik switches instead
but seriously-talking, MikroTik obviously - aimed for different kind of consumers with different set of priorities.
if you prefer to bump particular "wrong request" to "wrong company" its not really lead something.
its like asking CISCO to support OpenFlow or Dude(or in early adoption of it - MPLS/VPLS), otherwise.
not yet, sadly.Show me a 48 port SFP+ Mikrotik switch. Show me a Mikrotik switch with 40GigE or 100GigE. Show me a Mikrotik switch without a confusing VLAN setup. I love Mikrotik, but they aren't the answer for everything.see ? another good reason to use MikroTik switches instead
but seriously-talking, MikroTik obviously - aimed for different kind of consumers with different set of priorities.
if you prefer to bump particular "wrong request" to "wrong company" its not really lead something.
its like asking CISCO to support OpenFlow or Dude(or in early adoption of it - MPLS/VPLS), otherwise.
If only Mikrotik would ever consider making their OS available on the Whitebox switches That Cumulus support tax is just too expensive.Show me a 48 port SFP+ Mikrotik switch. Show me a Mikrotik switch with 40GigE or 100GigE.
Rather pathetic, isn't it?42!
18.03.2016, still no LLDP.
Please specify what info would you like to get from LLDP?
You can start from here :Please specify what info would you like to get from LLDP?
So who else is on that proud list, together with MikroTik? Who supports some discovery protocol (preferably CDP, because it's what RouterOS has) in their current devices/software, but not LLDP? Number of devices I worked with is limited, but I can help you by ruling out at least Cisco, HP, Zyxel and D-Link.thats not true "most" vendors - don't give a .. about LLDP.
Those reasons being? I remember you writing how LLDP is, in short, really bad. But so far I wasn't able to find any confirmation about the fact from other sources.and for very obvuiys reasons.
I think you are a rather confused fellow.thats not true "most" vendors - don't give a .. about LLDP.Also strongly support the notion to add support for LLDP.
It's standard and supported by most vendors nowadays.
and for very obvuiys reasons.
Huh what ?thats not true "most" vendors - don't give a .. about LLDP.
and for very obvuiys reasons.
which is my point actually - most of other vendors do not care much about it in most line of products.Huh what ?thats not true "most" vendors - don't give a .. about LLDP.
and for very obvuiys reasons.
Mikrotik is the only equipment we use that doesn't support LLDP !
We use it all the time on HP, Extreme and Juniper switches.
I don't spend much time on this forum. Is Zorro a serious poster or just a troll?which is my point actually - most of other vendors do not care much about it in most line of products.Huh what ?thats not true "most" vendors - don't give a .. about LLDP.
and for very obvuiys reasons.
Mikrotik is the only equipment we use that doesn't support LLDP !
We use it all the time on HP, Extreme and Juniper switches.
try used it with say Ericsson routers or Alcaltel ? other brands (SMB or SOHO or magistral routers or BRAS, whatever)openwrt didn't had mature lldp support, ddwrt had incomplete support of it aswell(bit better than former), same about VyOS and "routed flawors" of FreeBSD/NetBSD/dfBSD/oBSD and most mainstream L-UX distros aswell.
frankly LLDP is much more like UPnP today - fancy, bloated, insecure(partialy by concept, partialy by implementation, partialy by insane/insecure "defaults" in), proprietary stuff /nearlty/nobody care about or use even in NA.
its not "standard" thing in major part of World or important at all.
i frankly don't think that "seriousness" or "trolling" are mutually-exclusive things. some trolls can be quite serious(and as pointless,despite that. and some posts above is clear example of that) and some not so serious posters was better/more helpful than trolling "myster seriousness" crowds.I don't spend much time on this forum. Is Zorro a serious poster or just a troll?
well i guess anyone that do really need that thing - willl be happy.Everybody stay calm
We are working on LLDP implementation, it will magically appear in future ROS versions, maybe even ROS v6.
Awesome news MarisEverybody stay calm
We are working on LLDP implementation, it will magically appear in future ROS versions, maybe even ROS v6.
Which is largely limited to Cisco, Ubiquiti and Mikrotik devices. No Mimosa, no Cambium, no Juniper, no Polycom, no....only if device has some CDP function..- Identify where a cable goes to (remote device name and port)
- you can do this already with the current MDP. '/ip nei print details'
Mikrotik devices always report the switch master port or bridge name for interface. Is there any way to get the real port?- Identify where a cable goes to (remote device name and port)
- you can do this already with the current MDP. '/ip nei print details'
No HP, no Extreme, no Netgear, no Allied TelesisWhich is largely limited to Cisco, Ubiquiti and Mikrotik devices. No Mimosa, no Cambium, no Juniper, no Polycom, no....
No TP Link, No D-Link, No Yealink, No SuperMicro...No HP, no Extreme, no Netgear, no Allied TelesisWhich is largely limited to Cisco, Ubiquiti and Mikrotik devices. No Mimosa, no Cambium, no Juniper, no Polycom, no....
Very good news for all my customersEverybody stay calm :D
We are working on LLDP implementation, it will magically appear in future ROS versions, maybe even ROS v6.
And not even compatible with *all* Ciscos. As someone else mentioned too, the port MT reports, are also frequently incorrect. CDP should only be on physical interfaces, MT has a open day as far as CDP goesWhich is largely limited to Cisco, Ubiquiti and Mikrotik devices. No Mimosa, no Cambium, no Juniper, no Polycom, no....only if device has some CDP function..
- you can do this already with the current MDP. '/ip nei print details'
What???its not that "simple" basically
and tiresome amount of work, perhaps.
generally both UPnP(not usre bout PCP implementations), IGMP snooping and LLDP code, available for use in ~ "complete" state - vulnerable/broken as hell and (would)expose routers almost as forrest fire in each case, implemented "from shelves" w/o applying hands to code and some devices-specific policies perhaps.
they can't have "appx schedule" to share with customers to help them do some planning/management, yep.I understand they don't have unlimited resources, which is why they must focus on the features that will benefit the most their customers and IMHO a gentle "+1" on a thread isn't a bad way to show interest in a feature ...
Also first post is from 2008, so I wouldn't call that "instantly".
And finally "Wait for ROS7" ... is starting to get a bit old, I've seen severals years old post talking about ROS7 features, but I haven't seen anything even resembling a roadmap for release for it.
There are several other features (like IKEv2) that have been said to be supported in ROS7 but without knowing if it's going to be there in 6 months or 6 years, I have no other choice than to assume the worst case scenario.
yeah, would be Epic battleIt will be "fight of the millenium" ... ROS v7 vs. Plan 9 from Outer Space ...... it may even stops aliens invasion !!
What's new in 6.38rc7 (2016-Sep-30 07:33):
*) discovery - added LLDP support;
Just wait 8 more years (first post on this thread was in 2008) and I'm sure it will be implemented most magnanimously.Now they just need to ad LLDP-MIB and LLDP-MED support and it will be complete
It's was just a gentle poke at Mikrotik to "finish the job"Just wait 8 more years (first post on this thread was in 2008) and I'm sure it will be implemented most magnanimously.
(or get scripting and write your own OIDs, ya lazy bum!)
Thoses MED informations do allow voice vlan auto selection on a phone :Now they just need to ad LLDP-MIB and LLDP-MED support and it will be complete
RouterOS is still missing LLDP-MED which allows the router/switch to signal to VoIP phones which vlan they need to use. This is one of the main reasons for using LLDP, and is a standard feature on switches.Please clarify "not doing anything"? LLDP initial support was added in 2016-Sep-30
I agree with everything Tomas has said. I really appreciate that Mikrotik have put in an effort with LLDP, it just needs a little bit more polish to make it workable.I think everyone in this thread appreciates VERY MUCH that LLDP is implemented at all.
And I personally thank the MKT team a lot for this.
But I think all of us here wish the work on LLDP would continue, since there is still a lot that can be improved.
Also separation of LLDP from MNDP would probably be beneficial.
It is way too easy to inject LLDP frames into VLANs or Bonds with current implementation - which is incorrect behavior.
But we do want MNDP on those interfaces - so the current way LLDP is configured is forcing you to either:
1) do no run MNDP where you want it
2) inject LLDP frames where they are not supposed to be
I have been coming to the MKT tables at MUMs for over 2 years now with these notes (along with SNMP), and there has been no movement at all for the last 2 years on the LLDP front.
Agree 100%. It is a fundamental requirement in any enterprise switch.LLDP-MED, yes please else the use of the PoE switches is limited.
+1 for LLDP-MED which really simplify things.Agree 100%. It is a fundamental requirement in any enterprise switch.
I felt LLDP features (without WebFig support) were introduced with 6.48.1 or so.+1, this is not an optional thing, it is required in most enterprise environements. Need LLDP-MED, even if it's just an installable package.
RouterOS v6 is EOL, who cares?They support LLDP-MED. Check out /ip/neighbor. I can't recall if in V6, but it's in V7 for sure.
https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ ... overy-LLDP
And yes it's supported on v7, but never seen anyone using LLDP-MED in production.