While setting up DHCPv6 clients to retrieve their prefix over a PPPoE client, I noticed that prefixes aren't properly delegated when the clients connect to the same remote (separate physical ports/lines and contracts, just the same (HA) remote server instance). Cause seems to be a DUID conflict? For...

*) firewall - fixed usage of "netmap" action for IPv6 source NAT; Not sure what this means. From what I see source nat using netmap doesn't seem to work correctly. I have a srcnat rule to netmap from fdyy:yyyy:yyyy:yyyy::/64 to 2a01:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::/64. But every single outgoing connectio...

*) winbox - added "to-address" and "to-ports" parameters under "IPv6/Firewall/NAT" menu; For what action specifically? I know dst-nat already had it, src-nat maybe? It still seems to be missing for netmap though. Which itself is also still broken in this version as well.

It might be a reference that by default in line with RFC6724 Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) section 2.1. Policy Table ULA address won't be used in case of a dual stack setup https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6724#section-2.1 Hmm that would still be the wrong...

Is the boot-loop fix for the RB3011 included in beta4? I had tried beta2 to check if IPv6 netmap was fixed in this version (see https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=940066#p940066 for the issue) but it looks like this version possibly did not yet include the 7.3.1 fix so it entered a boot-loo...

Is the boot-loop fix for the RB3011 included in beta4? I had tried beta2 to check if IPv6 netmap was fixed in this version (see viewtopic.php?p=940066#p940066 for the issue) but it looks like this version possibly did not yet include the 7.3.1 fix so it entered a boot-loop.

Is there an overview available somewhere of known issues? Maybe I've just missed it but if not, it sure would've been nice to know this... Or even just a list of core things that work in IPv4 but not yet in IPv6? I do know they had one of these i.r.t. hardware offloading but, afaik, not on core func...

@chechito : it is and as far as I'm aware I've covered everything and on the theoretical side nothing is wrong. Sadly in practice, the IPv4 side works, the IPv6 side doesn't. I have not yet been able to figure out why. It really does look like RouterOS is broken here and everything is actually corr...

To match the configuration used for IPv4 to load balance over multiple ISPs, I'm looking to implement the same on the IPv6 side of things (dual stack network). In short, the plan for IPv6 is basically the same as with IPv4: - Have a routing table for each ISP - Add a default route in said table for ...

I'm fairly sure this is exactly the case you'd set up a Hairpin NAT for.
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Hairpin_NAT

After a bit more work, it turned out that the packet not reaching the server was actually caused by a routing conflict on the target system. Another network was actually hooked up with a direct line instead of an IPsec tunnel over the internet and was using the same IP range as one of the tunnels. T...

I'm currently trying to set up IPsec tunnels from 2 remote sites that are using a FritzBox, to a MikroTik RB3011. The goal is to allow machines connected to those access to a server on the MikroTik side. I have the IPsec tunnels connected and I can see the packets arrive from a machine on the remote...

I'm currently trying to set up IPsec tunnels from 2 remote sites that are using a FritzBox, to a MikroTik RB3011. The goal is to allow machines connected to those access to a server on the MikroTik side. I have the IPsec tunnels connected and I can see the packets arrive from a machine on the remote...