Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
fleg
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:31 pm

Master port is back in 6.48.1?

Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:01 am

I have CRS125 in "gw" mode...2 ports as WAN, rest in bridge.
After upgrade to 6.48.1 port1 is not anymore in the bridge because master port can`t be in bridge...but this port was in the bridge with previous version ROS (I don`t remeber version),
I`m not able to get eth1 back to the bridge because master port can`t do it.
I thounght Mikrotk bridge instead master ports from version 6.41...is this backstep or some bug in 6.48.1?
 
User avatar
BartoszP
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 2865
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:13 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Master port is back in 6.48.1?

Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:08 am

What wersion you have upgraded from?
viewtopic.php?t=130403
 
sindy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 10205
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:19 pm

Re: Master port is back in 6.48.1?

Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:08 am

I`m not able to get eth1 back to the bridge because master port can`t do it.
Master port was just a different way of configuration of hardware forwarding among ports of a switch chip.

So there is no reason why you could not make ether1 an ordinary member of a bridge. The fact that it still bears a name ether1-master after the upgrade has no effect on its functionality (and it never had, what was actually meaningful was a configuration of the other ports). And there is a known issue with the configuration migration, which keeps the IP configuration attached to the ex-master port instead of moving it to the bridge.

So in pre-6.41, it was like this:
  • ether1 was a master port, and the DHCP client or static IP configuration was attached to ether1 as an IP interface
  • ether2 and ether3 were part of the same switch port group, linked together by setting master-port=ether1 in their configuration; L2 traffic between devices connected to any of those three ports was forwarded directly by the switch chip, bypassing the CPU.
In 6.41+, the same topology is now represented by three objects commonly named a bridge. To provide the same functionality, the three Ethernet ports are all made member ports of that bridge, and the /interface bridge port rows bear a hw=yes parameter to enable the switch chip forwarding between them. And the IP configuration must be attached to the router interface part of the bridge, not to one of the member Ethernet ports.

So it is possible that something else than an IP configuration is attached to your ether1, which prevents it from being added as a member port of the bridge, so the configuration migration process was unable to do that.

Post the export of your current configuration if the information above is not sufficient. Read my automatic signature below before posting it.
 
User avatar
Jotne
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Magrathean

Re: Master port is back in 6.48.1?

Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:39 am

Reset router to factory default and you should be able to configure it correctly.
 
fleg
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:31 pm

Re: Master port is back in 6.48.1?

Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:32 am

Reset router to factory default and you should be able to configure it correctly.
I agree because fw will be downgrade to default ver, am I right?
But what will be next step? After upgrade I`ll have the same problem.
 
sindy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 10205
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:19 pm

Re: Master port is back in 6.48.1?

Sat Mar 27, 2021 12:02 pm

I agree because fw will be downgrade to default ver, am I right?
But what will be next step? After upgrade I`ll have the same problem.
No, @Jotne's idea was to reset the router to default configuration whith 6.48.1 installed. So the default configuration of 6.48.1 will be created, and you'll then modify it as required.

But before doing that, export the current configuration and store it outside the router, so that you could use it as a template to recreate it.

Or do as I've suggested and post the export of the current configuration here together with the error you get when attempting to make ether1 a member of the bridge, we may find the reason.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], elvtechnology and 77 guests