Page 1 of 1

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:51 pm
by dsnyder
You can add another unhappy customer to the Netwatch limitations. I was calling a script to failover to a secondary internet connection and disable/enable policies and rules for VPNs for the alternate IP address. This morning the primary internet went at an office and they went dead, no failover. So now I have to explain that this fancy contraption that I sold them really does work, just not this one time because they changed the way it works...

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 12:40 am
by pe1chl
There are better ways to do that than with Netwatch and scripts...

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:00 am
by Xymox
There may be better ways then Netwatch, but, Netwatch worked great for him and Mikrotik deprecated the functionality. I use it to send me alerts via email, is there a better way to do this ?
So the DHCP issue will be addressed in the next RC as per support's replies.
Just curious, how this issue was introduced?
Im curious how all these really varied issues were introduced, DHCP is just one of them. But YEA this DHCP one is really curious. Why would the DHCP code be played with for this stable version release ?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:21 am
by vytuz
RB2011UiAS-2HnD
I get the Internet by DHCP
After upgrade to 6.42.1 :
On 6.42.0 work fine...
if ISP (or router before this) dhcp lease is short (i guess it is 5minutes in Your case), with 6.42.1 version mikrotik asks for ip ~30seconds before lease (not ~2min). If there are many dhcp users, a lot broadcast, that may be dropped and i guess it just has no time to repeat for another request.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 12:48 pm
by netmouse
RB2011UiAS-2HnD
I get the Internet by DHCP
After upgrade to 6.42.1 :
On 6.42.0 work fine...
if ISP (or router before this) dhcp lease is short (i guess it is 5minutes in Your case), with 6.42.1 version mikrotik asks for ip ~30seconds before lease (not ~2min). If there are many dhcp users, a lot broadcast, that may be dropped and i guess it just has no time to repeat for another request.
I get real static IP address from provider DHCP

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 2:19 pm
by michnzee
After upgrade to RoS 6.42.1 crashed bonding (LACP, 802.3ad, 4 gigabit ports) with Synology DS1517+ (4 gigabit ports). All ports are online but without traffic, dhcp... restart not working :(

Solution - disable bonding interface, withdraw one port from bonding, disable bonding interface in bridge and make only one lan port active.

Any suggestion? do you use also LACP and bondig?

RB: CRS326-24G-2S+RM

LACP config:
lacp.png

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 2:51 pm
by mkx
RB2011UiAS-2HnD
I get the Internet by DHCP
After upgrade to 6.42.1 :
On 6.42.0 work fine...
if ISP (or router before this) dhcp lease is short (i guess it is 5minutes in Your case), with 6.42.1 version mikrotik asks for ip ~30seconds before lease (not ~2min). If there are many dhcp users, a lot broadcast, that may be dropped and i guess it just has no time to repeat for another request.
I get real static IP address from provider DHCP
If you get "real static IP address" from your ISP, then I wonder why you're configuring DHCP client - you should be configuring static address on your RB and be done with it.
If you're getting "pseudo static" IP address (is in: getting always the same IP address via DHCP lease), then all the DHCP woes still apply to your RB, including short lease times and what not ... Your RB has no way of knowing that it will get exactly the same IP address in next lease.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 3:10 pm
by pe1chl
If you get "real static IP address" from your ISP, then I wonder why you're configuring DHCP client - you should be configuring static address on your RB and be done with it.
The advantage of using DHCP is that it configures the address, netmask, gateway (default route) and DNS resolvers (and maybe even NTP servers) automatically and without error.
So it is best to use DHCP when possible. However, to work around the current issue I would temporarily configure those items manually and disable the DHCP client until MikroTik fixes it.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 3:23 pm
by mkx
The advantage of using DHCP is that it configures the address, netmask, gateway (default route) and DNS resolvers (and maybe even NTP servers) automatically and without error.
I understand the benefits of using DHCP in case of assigning "static" addresses. But there's a big gotcha: if customer changes router (different MAC address of its WAN port), this will break setup. Some ISPs just don't bother with static DHCP leases (my parents are victims of one of those) so one has to configure everything by hand.
As to my understanding of benefits: only recently I was bitten ... ISP decided to split their /16 customer network to two /17 parts ... and I'd have to change GW address. Which I didn't as I never received any announcement from them (and neither have my parents). Ended up with driving 50 km there and back one Sunday afternoon to fix the internet for my parents. In this case, DHCP would do miracles :wink:

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 4:08 pm
by pe1chl
I understand the benefits of using DHCP in case of assigning "static" addresses. But there's a big gotcha: if customer changes router (different MAC address of its WAN port), this will break setup.
This depends on the ISP configuration. It is also possible to assign the address to a "Circuit ID" instead of the MAC address. That is the wellknown DHCP option 82 that is always asked for in the feature request topics. But when the ISP doesn't use MikroTik, they can do it already.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 4:15 pm
by Chupaka
That is the wellknown DHCP option 82 that is always asked for in the feature request topics. But when the ISP doesn't use MikroTik, they can do it already.
Just to be honest, we were using DHCP Option 82 on RouterOS since 2008 (up to 2017, when we sold our ISP) - so if you're large enough to allow you to run RADIUS - you can use Option82 on MikroTik DHCP Server :)

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 4:50 pm
by mkx
I understand the benefits of using DHCP in case of assigning "static" addresses. But there's a big gotcha: if customer changes router (different MAC address of its WAN port), this will break setup.
This depends on the ISP configuration. It is also possible to assign the address to a "Circuit ID" instead of the MAC address. That is the wellknown DHCP option 82 that is always asked for in the feature request topics. But when the ISP doesn't use MikroTik, they can do it already.
In the case of my parents I doubt they do anything fancy beyond simplest dynamic DHCP leases. They are running FTTH network (over own fibres) and xDSL (local-loop sharing). The equipment on customer premisses is simple (managed?) ethernet switch with one optical interface (in case of my parents optical port is fixed, not SFP) and many electrical RJ45 ports. It doesn't matter which RJ45 port is used. If there's other equipment (VoIP gateway, IPTV set-top box) it is connected to the same ethernet switch. I guess that I could plug in another device (e.g. laptop) and would get dynamic DHCP address just fine. They must know about "Circuit ID" though to enforce bandwidth limitations (when doing speed tests, it is obvious they are doing traffic shaping as throughput in uplink quickly increases above cap, but after a few seconds it settles at subscribed rate).
When my parents upgraded from VDSL (simple ethernet tunneling, no PPPoE or anything) to FTTH, they had dynamic address ... which didn't change as they continued to use same router. Which indicates that their core network infrastructure is quite flat. They never played any games about changing IP addresses after DHCP lease expired (to prevent customers from seting-up own internet servers) ...

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:30 pm
by sindudas
This issue is breaking some scripts. On terminal:
/system leds set numbers=0 type=
align-down align-right ap-cap flash-access interface-... modem-technology on poe-out wireless-status
align-left align-up fan-fault gps-valid modem-signal off poe-fault wireless-signal-strength
It show "on" as an option, but it refuses to use it:
/system leds set numbers=0 type=on
input does not match any value of type

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:52 pm
by Chupaka
Not sure what you mean, but "numbers=0" is incorrect in scripts.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:14 pm
by Xymox
This issue is breaking some scripts. On terminal:
/system leds set numbers=0 type=
align-down align-right ap-cap flash-access interface-... modem-technology on poe-out wireless-status
align-left align-up fan-fault gps-valid modem-signal off poe-fault wireless-signal-strength
It show "on" as an option, but it refuses to use it:
/system leds set numbers=0 type=on
input does not match any value of type
I believe this si what i already reported..

/system leds set leds=user-led type=on 1 does not work in scripting or from command line on 42.x RC43.x /system leds set leds=user-led type=off 1 does work.. You can however turn on/off LEDs from Winbox.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 2:48 am
by cocktail
I discovered that MikroTik hAP ac2's DHCP client on wlan1 in station mode cannot receive an IP address from a wireless router after upgrading to 6.42.1
DHCP client on wlan1 is stuck at `Status: searching...`
It takes a few minutes to renew DHCP client lease on ether1 which is the WAN interface.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 9:52 am
by steen
Hello Folks!

I have problem backing up configuration on practically all devices using ros 6.42 or bigger, just discovered it today.

The message I got is: "backup,critical error creating backup file: could not read all configuration files"

There is no full filesystems and other visible errors.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 12:25 pm
by tdw
I'm also seeing "backup,critical error creating backup file: could not read all configuration files" messages after upgrading on several devices.

2x RB750 v6.39.3 -> v6.42.1
2011UAS-2HnD v6.41.4 -> v6.42 (may also have produced the same message) -> v6.42.1

All appear to be operating fine, backup worked beforehand, /export verbose doesn't report any errors before or after.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 9:08 pm
by steen
Hello Folks!

I face another issue.... this time our wireless 802.11bgn office landscape is crippled.
Wireless speed drops down to nothing and they got disconnected all the time.
The various mikrotik devices CPU rushes up to 100% when wifi traffic starts to flow, and wifi speed drops to nothing.

There is also another issue, sometimes when a user copies some big files over wifi network, all seem fine, but when another user does the same the wifi crashes for both of them.
I some other situations CPU does not go sky high, but the wifi network behaves in the same way.

We never saw this issue from before ever, it has been _rock solid_ for years, this issue come directly after last upgrade...

The devices are multiple RB411, RB433, it started to happen after upgrading to 6.42.1 (also observed at 6.42 but it did not kill the networks like now).
Yes, they are old devices, but we have plenty in operation and in stock.

We tried by disabling snmp, but it did not make any difference.

Some addition, we took out one device and re-imaged it with 6.42.1, using netinstall and then restored back the original configuration.
Unfortunately it did not make any difference at all, wifi is still unstable.

Last addition for today, by rolling back to 6.41.3 stabilized the WiFi network, there has clearly happened something with WiFi between 6.41.3 and 6.42.1.
Other observations, the device boots up faster, response on command line is much faster in 6.43.1 than 6.42.1 which boot up is slower and command line is sluggish and lagging.

Currently I try to generate support files for mikrotik to take a look on, the support is generated and will be delivered to Mikrotik.

Anyone who have seen Wifi get killed from RoS 6.42-6.42.1 ?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 9:42 pm
by rzirzi
After update to 6.42.1 I have a BIG problem with x86 platform with additional Intel LAN i350 card. When I want to connect to MikroTik via that Intel i350 LAN - theMikroTik ROS is rebooting!! - EVERY TIME!! so - there is a problem with MikroTik ROS 6.42.x with Intel I350. There is no problem at ROS 6.41 - it works OK, but after update to 6.42.x - there is a problem! Please repair!

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 10:00 pm
by eworm
Hello Folks!

I have problem backing up configuration on practically all devices using ros 6.42 or bigger, just discovered it today.

The message I got is: "backup,critical error creating backup file: could not read all configuration files"

There is no full filesystems and other visible errors.
I saw the same on three devices. Contacted support, they told me to netinstall. I did and restored the backup. Everything was there except system note and setting for auto-upgrade (which changed from 'yes' to default 'no').

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 10:38 pm
by steen
Hello Folks!

I have problem backing up configuration on practically all devices using ros 6.42 or bigger, just discovered it today.

The message I got is: "backup,critical error creating backup file: could not read all configuration files"

There is no full filesystems and other visible errors.
I saw the same on three devices. Contacted support, they told me to netinstall. I did and restored the backup. Everything was there except system note and setting for auto-upgrade (which changed from 'yes' to default 'no').
Okidoki, we just reimaged one device using netinstall, and then the backup completed without the error message.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 1:27 am
by tdw
Hello Folks!

I have problem backing up configuration on practically all devices using ros 6.42 or bigger, just discovered it today.

The message I got is: "backup,critical error creating backup file: could not read all configuration files"

There is no full filesystems and other visible errors.
I saw the same on three devices. Contacted support, they told me to netinstall. I did and restored the backup. Everything was there except system note and setting for auto-upgrade (which changed from 'yes' to default 'no').
Okidoki, we just reimaged one device using netinstall, and then the backup completed without the error message.
That's fine if the device is local, not much use if the tik is several hours drive away. As three out of three upgrades are exhibiting this behaviour I'm reluctant to upgrade ~25 others scattered around the country if backups can no longer be made successfully without visits to reinstall.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 6:49 am
by Xymox
And the incredibly wide ranging and completely unrelated issues just keep coming. Backup issues, weird wifi issues and a different sort of DHCP issue.. I can confirm the backup issue and the wifi issue. I updated a mAP and im not sure of everything that failed, but I know wifi was really weird because it was not connecting with the same signal strenght by 75%, I could not get a IP from DHCP and it was not obtaining a IP on its wan side. I fact reset it and that got me connected to it, then I downgraded and restored the backup from just before the upgrade and it came right back to fully normal.

Apollo 13 mission: "Lets look at this from a standpoint of status.. What do we have on the spacecraft thats good ?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0h2Wk6-C_I

This problems people are seeing are serious, 42.x needs to be deprecated, 43 looks like mostly the same issues. As I keep saying 41.4 needs a security patch then make that the stable. Work on 43 and get it all fixes with this long list of issues and then release it in a month or 2 once its truly tested stable.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 9:23 am
by steen
And the incredibly wide ranging and completely unrelated issues just keep coming. Backup issues, weird wifi issues and a different sort of DHCP issue.. I can confirm the backup issue and the wifi issue. I updated a mAP and im not sure of everything that failed, but I know wifi was really weird because it was not connecting with the same signal strenght by 75%, I could not get a IP from DHCP and it was not obtaining a IP on its wan side. I fact reset it and that got me connected to it, then I downgraded and restored the backup from just before the upgrade and it came right back to fully normal.

Apollo 13 mission: "Lets look at this from a standpoint of status.. What do we have on the spacecraft thats good ?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0h2Wk6-C_I

This problems people are seeing are serious, 42.x needs to be deprecated, 43 looks like mostly the same issues. As I keep saying 41.4 needs a security patch then make that the stable. Work on 43 and get it all fixes with this long list of issues and then release it in a month or 2 once its truly tested stable.
It took us whole Saturday evening finding out that a rollback was only option to stabilize the WiFi network and the platform.

I will also issue a direct warning, we could not downgrade the devices without netinstall, you will need to netinstall them to get back on track again.
In the serial console we would see the devices get stuck at boot, directly after generating some ssh-host-keys, with a message saying "to many nested links".
A good thing was at least backups worked, 6.42.1 claimed configuration files could not be read.

We have however a some devices not showing any signs of problems with this versions, but they all claim backup, "critical error creating backup fule: could not read all configuration files"

And yes, I finally managed to get some support file and made a report to Mikrotik who hopefully solves this issues quickly so we can get back on track again.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 3:23 pm
by Modestas
RB2011UiAS-2HnD
I get the Internet by DHCP
After upgrade to 6.42.1 :
On 6.42.0 work fine...
if ISP (or router before this) dhcp lease is short (i guess it is 5minutes in Your case), with 6.42.1 version mikrotik asks for ip ~30seconds before lease (not ~2min). If there are many dhcp users, a lot broadcast, that may be dropped and i guess it just has no time to repeat for another request.
Hi
I don't share this view.
Please note that DHCP renewal use unicast messages (see example in https://www.cloudshark.org/captures/0009d5398f37 and appendix B at https://www.netmanias.com/en/?m=view&id ... cs&no=5998). While unicast communication with DHCP server is working properly binding will not expire and there will be no transition to rebinding phase with excessive broadcasts.
It's also DHCP server (let's say, network designer) decision to offer and approve certain lease time. Clients have not so much other options than respecting server policy.
I don't think single unicast request/ack transaction per 1 min can be considered as serious load in 2018.
However, Mikrotik releases 6.42.* seem to have something broken in DHCP client or maybe fastpath code. This affects DHCP renewal messages delivery to DHCP server and consequent transition to rebinding.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 4:47 pm
by steen
And the incredibly wide ranging and completely unrelated issues just keep coming. Backup issues, weird wifi issues and a different sort of DHCP issue.. I can confirm the backup issue and the wifi issue. I updated a mAP and im not sure of everything that failed, but I know wifi was really weird because it was not connecting with the same signal strenght by 75%, I could not get a IP from DHCP and it was not obtaining a IP on its wan side. I fact reset it and that got me connected to it, then I downgraded and restored the backup from just before the upgrade and it came right back to fully normal.

Apollo 13 mission: "Lets look at this from a standpoint of status.. What do we have on the spacecraft thats good ?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0h2Wk6-C_I

This problems people are seeing are serious, 42.x needs to be deprecated, 43 looks like mostly the same issues. As I keep saying 41.4 needs a security patch then make that the stable. Work on 43 and get it all fixes with this long list of issues and then release it in a month or 2 once its truly tested stable.
It took us whole Saturday evening finding out that a rollback was only option to stabilize the WiFi network and the platform.

I will also issue a direct warning, we could not downgrade the devices without netinstall, you will need to netinstall them to get back on track again.
In the serial console we would see the devices get stuck at boot, directly after generating some ssh-host-keys, with a message saying "to many nested links".
A good thing was at least backups worked, 6.42.1 claimed configuration files could not be read.

We have however a some devices not showing any signs of problems with this versions, but they all claim backup, "critical error creating backup fule: could not read all configuration files"

!Correction!:
I have to correct myself, the devises not showing any signs of problems had the local WiFi disabled and acting as router for the wired network only.
So with that in mind, _all_ devices upgraded to 6.42.1 (starting with 6.42), has problems with WiFi. All of them had to be downgraded with netinstall, they all get stuck in the boot process.
It now goes for, rb411, rb433 and rb435., around 10 devices in total before we discovered it due to its creepiness nature. All actually look fine after an upgrade, problem comes when someone starts to use the WiFi, then the whole device is affected, CPU peaks in bursts making console sluggish ultimately the device ends up with 100% cpu all the time and hence becomes unresponsive.

And yes, I finally managed to get some support file and made a report to Mikrotik who hopefully solves this issues quickly so we can get back on track again.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 7:45 pm
by sovaby
Hi ! in the wiki documentation for pptp
default-route-distance (byte [0..255]; Default: 1)	sets distance value applied to auto created default route, if add-default-route is also selected
Range of distance from 0 to
Image

And so it was before this version .
And after the upgrade to v6.42.1 , I get an error !
Image
Image

Dynamic routing stops working
And my ISP requires that you get the settings from DHCP. Not having received auto settings, the connection will not get the provider's authorization.
What to do ?

It's good that I had a stoped duplicate connection.
If you do not touch it, it will work with the old value default-route-distance = 0.
If in the settings of this connection, something to change you will not be able to save it!

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 8:19 pm
by sindy
I'd say change the default-route-distance parameter in your /ip dhcp-client settings to 2, and the pptp dynamic route will win with default-route-distance=1. It doesn't need to be exactly 0 for pptp and 1 for dhcp, it can be 5 and 7 and you're still good. Distance 0 is reserved for directly connected networks so the change was towards a more systematic behaviour.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 8:27 pm
by sovaby
I was played with manual routing
distance 2 (3 ...) for ethernet and for the pptp client distance 1.
This does not work! The provider says, until you get the settings automatically from DHCP, you do not get the authorization for passing packets.
And from the provider the distance 0 is flying for ethernet!
pptp sets distance 1 for default route and does not work because the packets leave through the ethernet default route!

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 9:01 pm
by sindy
I was played with manual routing
distance 2 (3 ...) for ethernet and for the pptp client distance 1.
This does not work! The provider says, until you get the settings automatically from DHCP, you do not get the authorization for passing packets.
And from the provider the distance 0 is flying for ethernet!
pptp sets distance 1 for default route and does not work because the packets leave through the ethernet default route!
You have clarified enough that you have to use the DHCP client to get your WAN address, otherwise the provider won't enable your connection, that was crystal clear to me already before.

What I was trying to say was that the same setting which you were using on /interface pptp also exists on /ip dhcp-client and other interfaces/protocols with dynamic configuration. So instead of setting lower-than-default distance at pptp, you can set higher-than-default distance at dhcp-client.

Of course, distance 0 for the local subnet between you and the provider will always be there, but the default route is for 0.0.0.0/0 and its distance will be set according to the default-route-distance parameter. And you don't need to access the subnet between you and the ISP via the PPTP tunnel, do you?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 9:20 pm
by sovaby
I'll try it! Thanks, I found =)

It works, thanks!
Image

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:17 pm
by eworm
Hello Folks!

I have problem backing up configuration on practically all devices using ros 6.42 or bigger, just discovered it today.

The message I got is: "backup,critical error creating backup file: could not read all configuration files"

There is no full filesystems and other visible errors.
I saw the same on three devices. Contacted support, they told me to netinstall. I did and restored the backup. Everything was there except system note and setting for auto-upgrade (which changed from 'yes' to default 'no').
Okidoki, we just reimaged one device using netinstall, and then the backup completed without the error message.
That's fine if the device is local, not much use if the tik is several hours drive away. As three out of three upgrades are exhibiting this behaviour I'm reluctant to upgrade ~25 others scattered around the country if backups can no longer be made successfully without visits to reinstall.
Whoever suffers this should consider to contact support as well. Perhaps they become aware that this is a real issue and fix the cause. If anybody wants to reference me... Ticket#2018041822006577

BTW, I saw this happen first time on 6.42rc52.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:31 pm
by macsrwe
The message I got is: "backup,critical error creating backup file: could not read all configuration files"
I saw the same on three devices. Contacted support, they told me to netinstall. I did and restored the backup. Everything was there except system note and setting for auto-upgrade (which changed from 'yes' to default 'no').
Okidoki, we just reimaged one device using netinstall, and then the backup completed without the error message.
That's fine if the device is local, not much use if the tik is several hours drive away. As three out of three upgrades are exhibiting this behaviour I'm reluctant to upgrade ~25 others
Whoever suffers this should consider to contact support as well. Perhaps they become aware that this is a real issue and fix the cause. If anybody wants to reference me... Ticket#2018041822006577

BTW, I saw this happen first time on 6.42rc52.
I’m pretty confident that MikroTik can correct this issue without forcing everyone in the world to netinstall their devices. This exact behavior and message was occurring on about a dozen CPEs on our network for a year after the SXT was introduced, which was around the time of ROS 5.25. I reported this in June 2013, ticket number 2013061466000351. Upon the advice of MT support, I netinstalled a handful of them, and the problem went away on those, though it reoccurred on some of them within weeks. After about a year, that message had totally disappeared from our network, and not because of anything we did, so it must’ve been fixed in ROS. It’s time to do that again.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 12:51 am
by S4bulba
Hi ,

I am a user of a 951Ui-2nD and i want to give some feedback regarding this update.

I ve bought the router few months ago as new and since i ve updated the default OS everytime a new version showed up , never paid attention to the firmware upgrade though ,untill this OS update - 6.42.1 .
I am using the device as a pppoe client to the ISP.
Default firmware was 3.36.

Prior to this update i was using 6.42.with firmware 3.36 (the factory one).With 6.42 i was having some rare timeouts (connnection was dropping) in aquiring the dynamic pppoe adress from the ISP, so i updated to 6.42.1 to see if this issue goes away and increase device security as well.
For one day the device run this update with firmware 3.36 and it looked ok , so i ve decided to upgrade the firmware as well from the winbox interface ,now it s 6.42.1 in the routerboard page .
After this the ISP drops would be 2-3 times at every 12 hours , so i wanted to roll back in some way and decided to roll back to the previous version , so i ve clicked the Downgrade button from Package list page ,nothing hapened , so again i ve decided to test the bugfix build from the package channel and i ve downgraded to 6.40.8.
Device rebooted , looked like working and i could log in via winbox ,but the router would push errors in log window ( was creating some Samba shares ?!? as per log for example) and would reboot after some minutes after each new boot , a delayed continuous loop .
As such i ve decided to go back to 6.42.1 right after a fresh reboot and i was lucky enough to do it :).Router did some automatic installation checking routine afterwards , corrected some errors and everythoing was and is now ok ,7 days with no ISP connection drop.
So maybe there is a realtion between the firmware used and OS used and /or maybe the firmware should be updated prior to the OS.
It s strange that the downgrade button did nothing. :)
No special issues for me with this build as a casual user

LE:
I would have a suggestion also
Maybe by default the firewall rule ""defconf: drop all from WAN not DSTNATed"" (for the INPUT chain) which by default is in the lower side of the page of the firewall, should be placed by default in the upper side of the ruleset ,after the dummy rule so the BAD traffic is dropped properly .Where it was put by default would not pick up any packets.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 9:15 am
by dynek
Regarding message poping up when generating a backup file, same problem, same answer (netinstall) but I don't feel like it honestly...
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73610&p=658544#p658544

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 9:47 am
by steen
Regarding message poping up when generating a backup file, same problem, same answer (netinstall) but I don't feel like it honestly...
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73610&p=658544#p658544
We stopped rolling out 6.42.1 and the other with same problem 6.42, and rolled back by using netinstall.
netinstall is doable for few devices or in your private home network where you can reach all devices by simply walking around.
but in a bigger scale it is not an option, except in a disaster, in our case it is equivalent with start replacing customer devices including ladders, elevators and roof walks.
As anyone could understand it would be a very costly operation.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 9:53 am
by cocktail
My issue with 6.42.1 actually turned out to be an issue with another router from another manufacturer.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 7:51 am
by ricake24
im trying 2 upgrad on that lol

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 8:26 am
by Jotne
No one else has this problem?
DHCP does not log to external server any more: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=134092&sid=345291ea ... d0515cef3e
Should I post a support ticket?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 8:46 am
by jarda
You always should.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 9:15 am
by dynek
No one else has this problem?
DHCP does not log to external server any more: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=134092&sid=345291ea ... d0515cef3e
Should I post a support ticket?
Answered your thread - It did work for me.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 11:32 am
by hapi
drop client and never connecting back.

Image

after reboot:

Image

Only NV2 is function. This is not the only case.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 9:46 am
by nkm
i had problem.
my throughput was low
so , i checked my config and i saw the fast forward in bridge interface goes "No" by default,
in the older versions and wiki site ( https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:I ... Properties ), it's "Yes" by default.

Did change it in the new version?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 3:56 pm
by kaspi4
Got similar issue on my 3011, disabling hardware offload(new feature from your 6.40.1 version) on all bridge ports helped me.
After upgrade to 6.42.1 from 6.40.1 I experience strange behavior with our RB2011UiAS.
Some of connected devices can ping default gateway (which is on router) and some - can not. Those who can not, can ping another IP address on the same interface?!?
I'm experiencing strange things like: half of internet sites are unreachable, including many of google sites (but not all).

After many hours of testing I can not determine a reason for all weird things that happened after upgrade.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 5:31 pm
by adik777
Hi!
Problem with LEDs type on v6.42.1 with CCR1009,CCR1016,RB2011,RB3011:
LED "user-led"=off
[vadym@PPC-5_CCR1009] /system leds> :put [/system leds get [find where leds="user-led"] type]     
off

LED "user-led"=on]
[vadym@PPC-5_CCR1009] /system leds> :put [/system leds get [find where leds="user-led"] type]
(unknown)

set LED "user-led"=on
[vadym@PPC-5_CCR1009] /system leds> /system leds set [find where leds="user-led"] type=on     
input does not match any value of type


Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 5:43 pm
by Chezgendron
Hi,

I just updated my routerboard 2011UiAS-2HnD to the latest firmware 6.42.1 version. Before that it ran on factory firmware 3.22 and used the hotspotserver without any problem. After updating I get the message "Hotspot Setup - setup failed to setup dhcp server: failed to add DHCP server: can not run on slave interface (6) (8)" if I want to finish the hotspot setup in the webfig. Can anybody tell me why I get this message now and never before with the old firmware?

Thanks,

Alex

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 11:45 am
by sovereignt
I use eoip to build L2 tunnel between two switches. In earlier than 6.41 version the bridge can receive LLDP, LACP, RSTP and transport to remote switch via eoip tunnel, it's working fine. But after upgrade ros to 6.41, all of the above packet is block. In the 6.42.1 version changelogs, I find it fixed LLDP packet receiving bug and it's working fine for LLDP when I upgrade ros. But LACP and RSTP is also block. I have already set /interface bridge protocol-mode=none.
Anyone can help?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 3:12 pm
by kodzikirus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# may/10/2018 13:40:52 by RouterOS 6.42.1
# software id = VUPQ-V2AI
#
13:31:55 system,info router rebooted
13:31:56 system,error,critical router rebooted because some critical program crashed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 causes after upgrade to 6.42.1 ( CCR1036-8G-2S+ with 60-70 OVPN tunnels)
26-th of April, 4-th of May, 10-th of May

P.S.: Other CCR1036-8G-S+ taht is upgraded to 6.42.1 too, has no this problems (uptime and works 16 days), but he has'nt OVPN's - he is reserv with a 2 ISP's and main site works from him.
Have any ideas?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 7:22 pm
by Son1c
Returning to the increase of the parameter "Sector write since reboot" on 6.42.1, i have about 3k writes instead of about 700-800 on 6.43.rc3 after 12 hours uptime. Is it a bug or a feature?
RB951G-2HnD

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 7:46 pm
by lomayani
I have upgraded my core routers CCR1036-12G-4S. Am running mpls,ospf and bgp within these routers. One ccr keeps rebooting after like 15-20 minutes.
the rest are ok. the router which keep rebooting is acting head of mpls traffic engineering tunnel and is pushing traffic via this tunnel. On tail side am not pushing traffic via the tunnel. Upload from client is following the normal path chosen by ospf. these routers are not rebooting
I remember we used to have similar problem in this router before mikrotik fixed mpls relating issue last year
Other routers are working fine. Downgraded this router to 41.4 and it is stable now
I confirm this issue is fixed in 6.43rc11. I tested for couple of hours and am not seeing crashes

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 9:13 am
by JimmyNyholm
still waiting for the bugfix only update

This vulnerability isn't much of a problem. The problem is administrators leaving their firewall services (API, Winbox, SSH, etc.) exposed to untrusted networks. It's better to apply firewall filters to the input chain that will protect against this and other future attacks.
On a pure Router it is better to not enable the Firewall AT ALL and have Fastpath enabled still. IPRestrict IPSERVICES in their setting (Disable services that you will not use) and IPRESTRICT USERS login from in their setting. We don't need any firewall for that basic security.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:07 pm
by WirtelPL
Returning to the increase of the parameter "Sector write since reboot" on 6.42.1, i have about 3k writes instead of about 700-800 on 6.43.rc3 after 12 hours uptime. Is it a bug or a feature?
RB951G-2HnD
I reported the problem to Mikrotik ([Ticket#2018042722002867]). In response I got:
"...Sector write value which shows NAND lifetime, but more precisely you can read in these articles: https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:R ... bad_blocks, https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:S ... Properties ..."

My actually values are:

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:45 pm
by leon84
Hi to all,
I updated RouterBoard 450 from 5.26 to 6.42.1 and now the routerboard doesn't boot. It reboot continously !
Can you help me?
Thanks

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 1:23 pm
by maxfava
With 6.42.1 we noted the following issues:
a) Marking assured and related packet as fast track, after a while some SIP client is not able to receive the calls even if seems registered. The connection tracking table has the entry of the UDP packet, and it receive from the server SIP the call but seems that router NAT does not forward to internal host. I have removed the fast track rule (action fast track for packets that are assured and related in filter rule) and it solves the issue.
b) But after the fast track firewall rule disabled the UDP connections with dst-port 5060 are not marked as sip connection-type but as general UDP stream, applying on connection tracking table 3 minutes timeout instead of 60 minutes. I have not rebooted yet, since is a production router, I have planned reboot this night, hope can solve.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 4:47 pm
by TestCRS
Please answer: switch crs317 dont forwards the qinq packets at wire-speed, why ?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 4:59 pm
by Chupaka
Please answer: switch crs317 dont forwards the qinq packets at wire-speed, why ?
How do you check it? Was it working at wire-speed in previous versions?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 7:52 pm
by rzirzi
I think ROS 6.42.1 i VERY buggy version :( Many,many things not working or working randomly. For instance - next NOT working: Intel i350 miniPCIe cards at x86, working "randomly" Queues. Today I have had NOT working Simple Queues at one x86 machine. I was looking for a problem long time, and..... after disable and enable all Queues - they starded working again. VERY, very strange problems...with ROS 6.42.1

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 8:06 pm
by TestCRS
Please answer: switch crs317 dont forwards the qinq packets at wire-speed, why ?
How do you check it? Was it working at wire-speed in previous versions?
You ask because you have such switch and everything works ? our switch crs317 never worked with qinq.
I will be glad to hear a confirmation that someone have working qinq on switch crs317.
But I think it is not.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 8:50 pm
by pe1chl
our switch crs317 never worked with qinq.
Then please don't discuss it in this topic!!! This topic is only for issues specific for 6.42.1
Open a new topic in another section and fully explain you problem and configuration.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2018 6:42 pm
by TestCRS
our switch crs317 never worked with qinq.
Then please don't discuss it in this topic!!! This topic is only for issues specific for 6.42.1
Open a new topic in another section and fully explain you problem and configuration.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=134316#p661270

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 3:06 pm
by Basdno
Just updated my RB2011UiAS-RM to 6.42.1
After updating and rebooting I go back and check for updates, it shows 6.42 instead of 6.42.1, this does not happen on any of my other routers.


Capture.PNG
I have same problem on a RB2011UAS-2HnD!
Whatever kind of upgrade of ROS if Current 6.42.1 or RC version, the RB just seems to ignore that there is an update package downloaded in files and reboots to 6.42.

Has any1 else had this problem, and/or solved this?

Its kinda frustrating not getting it updated now since there actually is a voulnarability!

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 3:43 pm
by maxfava
add more info
after playing with fast track and non fast track i confine i’m seeing the issue of packet marked sip and non sip wrongly.
After a reboot all work fine.

the issue we are seeing is the vpls interface associated to pppoe server are not listed. but i noted is going to be fixed since rc showing fixed dynamic interfaces

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 12:11 am
by macsrwe
13:31:55 system,info router rebooted
13:31:56 system,error,critical router rebooted because some critical program crashed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 causes after upgrade to 6.42.1 ( CCR1036-8G-2S+ with 60-70 OVPN tunnels)
26-th of April, 4-th of May, 10-th of May
I am also experiencing a flood of supouts from previously content CPEs (SXT, 911) since installing 6.42.1 on April 24. Two examples:
Screen Shot 2018-05-13 at 2.06.06 PM.jpg
Screen Shot 2018-05-13 at 2.06.43 PM.jpg

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 12:19 am
by macsrwe
I think ROS 6.42.1 i VERY buggy version :( Many,many things not working or working randomly. For instance - next NOT working: Intel i350 miniPCIe cards at x86, working "randomly" Queues. Today I have had NOT working Simple Queues at one x86 machine. I was looking for a problem long time, and..... after disable and enable all Queues - they starded working again. VERY, very strange problems...with ROS 6.42.1
Your report is believable, but the issue is not new to 6.42.1. For ten years I have been "solving" inexplicable queueing problems by exporting queues (both simple and tree), wiping out all queues, then reimporting. Someday I'm sure they will find this problem.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 11:41 am
by RN3QTB
Hello!
Help me please! After updating SXT 5nDr2 from version 6.40.8 to version 6.42.1, the router dies! I have to restore the firmware via netinstall! After restoring the firmware to the initial version 5.26, the update on the Internet is up to 6.40.8, the router reboots and offers to update to 6.42.1 current if you click "update" the router downloads the update, reboots and does not turn on again! Tried it 2 times. What to do?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 1:23 pm
by MartijnVdS
Hello!
Help me please! After updating SXT 5nDr2 from version 6.40.8 to version 6.42.1, the router dies! I have to restore the firmware via netinstall! After restoring the firmware to the initial version 5.26, the update on the Internet is up to 6.40.8, the router reboots and offers to update to 6.42.1 current if you click "update" the router downloads the update, reboots and does not turn on again! Tried it 2 times. What to do?
Have you tried netinstalling 6.42.1?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 5:14 pm
by akavousa
All good after upgrade on RB435G.
Keep checking for hickups.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 9:12 pm
by Xymox
Ive been testing 43RC11.. It addressed a huge number of issues posted in this thread. Good job Mikrotik.

It does not address the short sighted feature neutering of Netwatch tho. I still cannot send a alert or change a LED state based on a ping of a target. Because I use Netwatch for many things, I still cant use firmware past 41.5 because of this.

While im really impressed all the other bugs introduced in 42 have been so quickly addressed, I am upset Netwatch has not been addressed.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 11:16 pm
by marcin21
Image

wireleswire link ~150m, after upgrade rate/signal loss.
are there any options I should tweak after upg ?

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 2:07 am
by mt99
Ive been testing 43RC11.. It addressed a huge number of issues posted in this thread. Good job Mikrotik.

It does not address the short sighted feature neutering of Netwatch tho. I still cannot send a alert or change a LED state based on a ping of a target. Because I use Netwatch for many things, I still cant use firmware past 41.5 because of this.

While im really impressed all the other bugs introduced in 42 have been so quickly addressed, I am upset Netwatch has not been addressed.
Mikrotik at the very least needs to explain what is and what isn't supported after 6.42 in their Netwatch documentation. It's not that much to ask. I got the sense that calling a script which requires certain permissions doesn't work anymore. But if you put the entire script in the Netwatch code block instead of simply calling the script, does that work? I haven't upgraded from 6.41.4 so haven't tested this. Apologies if you've already given this a try.

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 3:35 pm
by strods
Version 6.42.2 has been released in current channel:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=134522

Re: v6.42.1 [current]

Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 9:49 am
by strods
Everyone who complained about the Netwatch issue - Please see this topic viewtopic.php?f=2&t=134538