MikroTik

Hello.

I have two Cisco 2950 with EtherChannel activated. In ports 10 and 11 of each one, I connected a MTK Routerboard 512 with an Atheros.
Even if two port of every Cisco appartain to EtherChannel, only one of MTK device is active at a time.

I have not deactivated STP in the MTKs because I thought Cisco have total control of that EtherChannel.

If you have any advice, I wil thank you very much.

This is the diagram.

C. ETHER | Cisco Port 10 --> MTK (Antenna) - - - (Antenna) MTK --> Cisco Port 10 | C. ETHER
CHANNEL | Cisco Port 11 --> MTK (Antenna) - - - (Antenna) MTK --> Cisco Port 11 | CHANNEL

Thanks.

Well

I have to assume that anybody have it done before...

I hope to find some answer to this doubts.

Thanks.

Are you trying to accomplish OSPF or NSTREME2-DUAL?

Are you trying to accomplish OSPF or NSTREME2-DUAL?

Mneumark.
Thanks for answering.

Not rally, I only wanted to use that Cisco functionality, I mean take n... ports to make them part of an EtherChannel.
My idea was to give redundancy and load balancing, but, I don't really know how Mikrotik works with that EtherChannel (for example talking about Mikrotik STP).
I don't know.

Thanks.

Hello.

I have two Cisco 2950 with EtherChannel activated. In ports 10 and 11 of each one, I connected a MTK Routerboard 512 with an Atheros.
Even if two port of every Cisco appartain to EtherChannel, only one of MTK device is active at a time.

I have not deactivated STP in the MTKs because I thought Cisco have total control of that EtherChannel.

If you have any advice, I wil thank you very much.

This is the diagram.

C. ETHER | Cisco Port 10 --> MTK (Antenna) - - - (Antenna) MTK --> Cisco Port 10 | C. ETHER
CHANNEL | Cisco Port 11 --> MTK (Antenna) - - - (Antenna) MTK --> Cisco Port 11 | CHANNEL

Thanks.

Ciao ivaring,
guarda quello che posso dirti è che io sto utilizzando una decina di Routerboard su un 3640 con addirittura uno switch integrato a 16 porte e non ho mai avuto problemi di incompatibilità.Non ho mai utilizzato l'ether channel. Quello che posso consigliarti è ricontrollare bene gli indirizzi IP e le subnet delle routerboard.Se mi spieghi meglio il problema forse posso dirti qualcosa in più.

Ciao.

this is an english speaking forum, please

this is an english speaking forum, please

sorry normis,
but I haven't seen some people interested at this topic.

sorry again.

Hello.

I have two Cisco 2950 with EtherChannel activated. In ports 10 and 11 of each one, I connected a MTK Routerboard 512 with an Atheros.
Even if two port of every Cisco appartain to EtherChannel, only one of MTK device is active at a time.

I have not deactivated STP in the MTKs because I thought Cisco have total control of that EtherChannel.

If you have any advice, I wil thank you very much.

This is the diagram.

C. ETHER | Cisco Port 10 --> MTK (Antenna) - - - (Antenna) MTK --> Cisco Port 10 | C. ETHER
CHANNEL | Cisco Port 11 --> MTK (Antenna) - - - (Antenna) MTK --> Cisco Port 11 | CHANNEL

Thanks.

Ciao ivaring,
guarda quello che posso dirti è che io sto utilizzando una decina di Routerboard su un 3640 con addirittura uno switch integrato a 16 porte e non ho mai avuto problemi di incompatibilità.Non ho mai utilizzato l'ether channel. Quello che posso consigliarti è ricontrollare bene gli indirizzi IP e le subnet delle routerboard.Se mi spieghi meglio il problema forse posso dirti qualcosa in più.

Ciao.

Well, Thanks Willy for answering me.
Actually, the fact is that, even when I configure two ports as being part of EtherChannel, Mikrotiks acts like a normal STP, I mean, Cisco sees this two ports as only one.
The fashion of that Mikrotiks is like only one of them is up (like a normal STP) withouth any real load balance nor even redundancy.
Do you have, in your network, something like a loop?, I mean, is there more than one segment?.

If you have an email, I'd be glad to talk with you in italian or in spanish.
Thanks again.

I dont understand why you want STP on the MT devices. In this setup the MT links are nothing but "wires" to the Cisco's and the wire shouldn't have any opinions on which ports to forward traffic on or block. Also i see big issues if one of the MT devices becomes Root bridge in this setup

Try disabling STP on the MT devices and things should work, just dont do round robin balancing on 2 wireless links.

Regards

Henrik

Diganet.
Thanks for answering.
Actually, I don't want to use STP with EtherChannel, also because it would be weird, mainly because Etherchannel doesn't need STP.

I have not activated Mikrotik STP in EtherChannel ports of Cisco.
That's the reason why I don't understand this situation.

Whith Cisco EtherChannel, you are able to make up to 8 ports part of one whole virtual port. This helps you not needing STP in these ports.

Thanks.

Okay, then i misunderstood the phrase "I have not deactivated STP in the MTKs because I thought Cisco have total control of that EtherChannel.", because to me it sounds like it's activated when you write this. Anyway, you will have to look at the Bridge setup on the MT's then and be sure it's a fully transparent bridge. Also test the etherchannel setup on the Cisco's back-to-back. If everything checks out and still doesn't work, then propably some communication in between the cisco's isn't coming through. I havent read the Etherchannel RFC but perhaps they use some tagging of frames or similar that causes fragmented packages on the 1500 Byte MTU MT link and maybe raising the MTU on the MT links will solve it. Don't know, all i know is that MT is capable of doing a perfect L2 bridge on a wireless P2P link.

/Henrik

Okay, then i misunderstood the phrase "I have not deactivated STP in the MTKs because I thought Cisco have total control of that EtherChannel.", because to me it sounds like it's activated when you write this. Anyway, you will have to look at the Bridge setup on the MT's then and be sure it's a fully transparent bridge. Also test the etherchannel setup on the Cisco's back-to-back. If everything checks out and still doesn't work, then propably some communication in between the cisco's isn't coming through. I havent read the Etherchannel RFC but perhaps they use some tagging of frames or similar that causes fragmented packages on the 1500 Byte MTU MT link and maybe raising the MTU on the MT links will solve it. Don't know, all i know is that MT is capable of doing a perfect L2 bridge on a wireless P2P link.

/Henrik

Yes, sorry for the mistake, I have written some kind of redundancy (it's a networking advantage ), you are right. I had to say I have deactivated or I have not activated...
Well, when I check Etherchannel status, Cisco shows me as every port being in up state, and being part of that Channel, as it has to be.
I haven't any doubt that MTK is really able to do perfect L2 bridges, mainly because I'm using several of them in my wireless network. By the way, have you tested MTK APs with Edimax Clients?.
I tested same Ciscos EtherChannel using AP-STA Edimax and they acted very well, that is the main reason I don't understand why these act like this.

Thanks for your kind advice, I'll look for more information and I'll post here.

Regards.