Hello

(RouterOS 6.49 Stable in use)

I used to have a RB760 as a main Internet router and two Hac as Accesspoints.
On the Accesspoints the WLAN interfaces were bridged to the LAN Interface.

My kids (and some visitign neighbors kids) could play Minecraft LAN Games on their Tablets. No issues.

I had to replace the RB760 and went for a CCR1009. I also discovered how CAPSMAN works and configured the two Hac as CAP, connecting to CapsMan on the Central CCR doing the bridging with the LAN.

Soon I got complaints, that LAN games could not be joined.

So I reverted back to the non CAPSMAN config. => LAN Games work again.

I then switched back to CAPSMAN and did try to figure out how Minecraft detects LAN Games and what else could go wrong.
I found couple of mentions, that the Java Version of Minecraft uses Multicast. But I have no information on what the Android Version does.

I did try to enable / disable client isolation in CAPSMAN. I tried various Multicast Helper Settings, IGMP Snooping Settings on the Bridge to which all CAP Tunnels are terminated and on the CAP themself. Tried L2 and L3 CAP Connections. Nothing works.

I was unable to find a solution with CAPSMAN while obviously briding the WLAN interface to the LAN interface on the AP worked fine.

It's only the LAN Game discovery which fails. I activated an old WRT54G for testing, bridged to the same LAN. When the game is discovered and joined, I can switch off the WRT54G and the tablets reconnect to the CAPSMAN AP while they stay connected in the Game.

Does anyone know, what breaks Minecraft LAN Game discovery when using CAPSMAN?

-Benoit-

You could try using "Local Forwarding" mode, that more proximate your "old setup", and avoid any tunnels. But Minecraft likely using multicast/IGMPv2, those protocols are always tricky with wireless. While multicast helper is generally enabled by default, you could check under Configuration under CAPsMAN.

If using CAPsMAN forwarding/tunnel mode, it may the bridge that the CAPsMAN interface "go to" that then need to have IGMP Snooping.

If you want to get crazy at trying to solve this, you could in download/install the "multicast" package that part of the extra-package downloads on the CAPsMAN manager, and look at the IGMP membership reports. If internet is to be believed, Minecraft using 224.0.2.60 as it's multicast address: https://superuser.com/questions/1117756 ... an-servers.

Another vote for local forwarding.

Made this discovery a few years ago.

Always have it turned on in my travel router and WAPS. Set it up first and the kids can all LAN game on vacation.

Thank you for the replies.

local-forwarding + client-to-client-forwarding was required to make minecraft work and clients to see each other when they are on the same CAP.
'local-forwarding' only helped if clients are on different CAP (which my kids figured out before me by playing near different AP )

So something is broken, when forwarding is performed by capsman in minecraft. But my tests all show, that multicast and broadcast packets arrive when routing via capsman. So maybe some packets get dropped or rate limited.

Why use capsman...............
Its another layer of overhead and as you are finding out, also bad for head bruising, but perhaps the brick wall needs some pulpy brain mush for decoration.

Why use capsman...............
Its another layer of overhead and as you are finding out, also bad for head bruising, but perhaps the brick wall needs some pulpy brain mush for decoration.

Because it does a good job of central coordination of multiple MIKROTIK Wireless Access Points.

Why use capsman...............
Its another layer of overhead and as you are finding out, also bad for head bruising, but perhaps the brick wall needs some pulpy brain mush for decoration.

Strong words. I think most people crips with CAPsMAN is has more due to "tunneling mode". I guess in some case this may have advantage...but lost on me since the tunnels seem to make everything more complex for questionable/unknown benefits.

But CAPsMAN has an checkmark for "Local Forwarding". What this does is any Wi-Fi interface provisioned can be configured to use CAPsMAN fetch some common SSID/password/etc settings, but from a routing/firewall all the traffic still go out wlan1/wlan2 etc...

Mikrotik default config for the Audience takes this approach if you want to see: viewtopic.php?p=903637&hilit=audience+c ... lt#p903637

@anav, stop hating & starting trying

Why use capsman...............
Its another layer of overhead and as you are finding out, also bad for head bruising, but perhaps the brick wall needs some pulpy brain mush for decoration.

Strong words. I think most people crips with CAPsMAN is has more due to "tunneling mode". I guess in some case this may have advantage...but lost on me since the tunnels seem to make everything more complex for questionable/unknown benefits.

But CAPsMAN has an checkmark for "Local Forwarding". What this does is any Wi-Fi interface provisioned can be configured to use CAPsMAN fetch some common SSID/password/etc settings, but from a routing/firewall all the traffic still go out wlan1/wlan2 etc...

Mikrotik default config for the Audience takes this approach if you want to see: viewtopic.php?p=903637&hilit=audience+c ... lt#p903637

@anav, stop hating & starting trying

Amm0

I disagree.

I wish members I respected would have warned me about the deep seated problems, in the standard driver.

Perhaps I was a sounded a little too fan boy of CAPsMAN . But it should work was my point. While the tunnels block (or at least make complex) multicast, CAPsMAN local forwarding should act NO different than if your using the "local forwarding" option. It kinda like "vlan-filtering" check box, the "local-forwarding=yes" change the method of operation with a checkbox.

I personally wouldn't recommend using Wi-Fi on any Mikrotik for anything beyond a small number of users – more if your stuck using Mikrotik's Wi-Fi, at least you can change the SSID etc in one place & that is handy.