Search Results

Search found 10 results on 1 pages for 'routeros'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• GRE keepalive with Linux and RouterOS

  - by eri

  I have a Linux host and couple of routerboadrs. I created a GRE tunnel, but Linux does not answer keepalive packages. Then router mark gre connection as unreachable, so I cant send to Linux host from router subnet. If linux sends something into tunnel (ping, etc.) - RouterOS mark connection as reacheble. Second and next packages routed nicely until one minute idle (no traffic). Tunnel in linux a make in this way: remote=x.x.x.x dev=gre21 network=10.21.0.0/16 ip tunnel add ${dev} mode gre remote ${remote} ttl 255 ip addr add 172.16.1.1/24 peer 172.16.1.21 dev ${dev} ip link set ${dev} up ip route add ${network} dev ${dev} And ip l: 14: gre21: <POINTOPOINT,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1476 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/gre 0.0.0.0 peer 109.60.170.15 How to set state "running"? How to keep alive tunnel? Ping in cron?

  Read the article

• RouterOS on Hyper-V (v3/2012) - any way to get it working?

  - by TomTom

  Trying to set up a small VPN point to connect into a remote Hyper-V cluster using ROuterOS. Anyone got it working ON Hyper-V with the latest builds of RouterOS? It seems the legacy network adapter is not supported anymore either (or just broken). The platform is a Windows Server 2012 RC. This is not a high performance setup - the RouterOS wont do the routing for more than the backend administrative access, and the only real traffic we will see there is when ISO images for new operating systems are uploaded. Otherwise we will have possibly RDP traffic as well as web / http traffioc, but this is internal only (dashboards, some control panel). The server has no public business. So the price for non virtualized network cards is ok for me. After hooking up - ping just does not work. After some time I see in windows (arp -a on the command line), so I know that the Hyper-V side is set up properly. Just no packets arrived. I have turned off all protection on Hyper-V (or : not turned them on), so no MAC spoofing protection etc. in the Advanced page for the legacy adapters. Unless I can get it work I will have to resort to using a windows install as router / VPN endpoint, which introduces another OS into the fabric (we run all routers etc. so far on mikrotik in hardware, which is why I want this one to be RouterOS, too). And no, putting hardware there is NOT an option - the cost would be significant.

  Read the article

• On Mikrotik RouterOS, is it possible to get Netflow information from a bridged connection?

  - by Tim

  I have a RouterOS box set up to bridge two ethernet connections. I have use-ip-firewall=yes in the bridge configuration, so that the ports go through the firewall. I've enabled netflow reporting via ip/traffic-flow, but the only packets I see reported are broadcast and multicast packets, not the packets that are flowing through the bridge. The documentation indicates that traffic flow logging happens after firewall processing and that it won't work with bridged connections by default, but I would have thought that use-ip-firewall=yes ought to address this. Is it possible to make this work somehow?

  Read the article

• On RouterOS, how will transparent proxying (with DNAT) affect reporting of netflows?

  - by Tim

  I have a box running Mikrotik RouterOS, which is set up to do transparent web proxying, as described here. In short, this means that I have a firewall rule for destination NAT causing any port 80 traffic to get redirected to port 8080 on the router, which is received by the Mikrotik local web proxy. The local web proxy then makes the web request on the client's behalf, in this case to a parent web proxy server (which in turn does the real web request). My question is, how will this two-part process get reported in the logging of traffic flow information (netflows)? Looking at the logged information, what I seem to be seeing is this: One flow recorded from client machine (private IP) to remote proxy (8080) Another flow recorded from router to remote proxy (8080) The original request that the client made to port 80 isn't recorded. I want to write code to analyse traffic usage, so I want to be sure I'm not losing information if I discard the latter of these.

  Read the article

• How to hack airport extreme to support USB 3G modem?

  - by Mike Caron

  Has anyone out there ever tried to hack the Airport Extreme, specifically with regard to the USB port? There are many cellular routers available that provide WiFi sharing of a USB modem link. However, instead of buying yet another router, I'd like to use my expensive Airport Extreme with it. The AE has a USB port on the back, but it's been said that it only talks to printers. Is there a way to hack the USB driver on the AE to allow it to recognize a USB modem, then use that as the connectivity instead of the LAN? I would imagine that one could use OpenFirmware to boot something on the AE. If one can boot it, then one could provide access using SSH across the lan. Once access is granted, then let the hacking begin... but I don't know how to (a) get the mini-osx on to USB (is it the same as the ATV without a UI?) or (b) how to load up certain things once boot has begun.

  Read the article

• Mangling traffic from a Mikrotik Router

  - by TiernanO

  I have a MikroTik powered Router in the house with a couple of internet connections (2 200/10Mb Cable modems and a 100/20Mb VDSL Line). I am using Mangle rules to set routing marks and NAT rules to do some load balancing, and everything seems to be going grand... But it only works for traffic from outside the router... Let me explain: I have 4 GigE ports on the machine, WAN1,2 and 3, and a LAN port named LAN1. All traffic from LAN1 is getting mangled (as it should be) but traffic from the load router itself (proxy traffic, IPv6 tunnels, VPN connections) are not being mangled. They get the first route to 0.0.0.0/0, which in my case is WAN2, and stick with it. So, how do I get traffic from the local router to be mangled? Originally it was proxy traffic that caused the problem, but now with IPv6 and VPN, they are more important to be mangled... last time i enabled IPv6 traffic, all traffic only went though WAN2, and the rest where unused... Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Configuring an EH-WIC Card on Cisco 1941 Router

  - by Olanrewaju T

  I have a Cisco 1941 Router that has just two ports for Gigabit connection but wanted more so I got a four port Cisco EH-WIC Card and connected it to it. I have been trying to assign IP address to the port GigabitEtnernet 0/0/0 because I have a cable already connected to it whose device I want it facing the router directly because I dont want to NAT its address. I want to assign the physical address on the port. Kinldy help if you understand what I am saying. Regards

  Read the article

• Running router as virtual machine, can it be realible ?

  - by Kr1stian

  Hi all Does anyone here run their routing through virtual machine, have virtual machine setup as main router/getaway etc ? If yes, how many clients are using this kind of setup ? For those who are wondering why I'm asking this. I got assignment for my internship to create all in one "box" which would do routing and be IP PBX in one time ( only open source solutions can be used, expect RouterOS). The routing part is currently done through RouterOS and for VoIP they want to use sipXecs. RouterOS supports virtualization through KVM, but RouterOS itself only supports 2GB of memory ( and wont support more in near future). sipXecs needs allot more than 2GB. I told them that we could solve this problem by putting RouterOS as virtual machine to 64bit hostOS ( e.g. CentOS), and other virtual machine would run sipXecs. By that we would be able to use whole memory. But they told me that it's to risky to do something like that and that they need something with "enterprise stability/reliability". I told them that we could make redundant image of each VM which would automatically start if one VM stop's working, but I was told the same thing. So this is why I asked those question above, to see if I really suggested something that's not good to do, or maybe this is something completely normal and it can be done with "enterprise stability/reliability" :) Thank you for answers, Kristian

  Read the article

• MikroTik on HP ProLiant DL360 G6

  - by ubik

  Hi, Has anybody installed MikroTik RouterOS v4.4 on DL360 G6 server? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Meaning of Bridge-Check in iptables flowchart

  - by networkIT

  In the famous iptables flow-chart what does bridge-check exactly stands for ? I couldn't find any documentation. The only clue I found was while scanning the MikroTik RouterOS documentation ( RouterOS is build upon a Linux 2.6.16 kernel ), I found this : In-interface Bridge = Checks if the input interface is a port for a bridge or is the bridge. Manual:Packet Flow Comparing both flow-charts brings clues that iptables Bridge-check might equal MikroTik In-Interface Bridge. Is this true ? Else, what might be the meaning of iptables Bridge-Check ?

  Read the article

1