To me it seems that you may have better luck putting your 2 Mikrotik boxes into a wireless bridge. Would be much easier for you unless you need to have it some other way. If you think that this will help you, try this: Put box1's Wlan card into AP Bridge mode. Put box2's Wlan card into station mode....

Here are a few tips for those trying to filter p2p. Use mangle rules! Try this: IP->Firewall->Mangle - Chain=prerouting Protocol=tcp P2P=allp2p Action=mark-packet New Packet Mark= P2P Passthrough=yes IP->Firewall->Mangle - Chain=prerouting Protocol=udp P2P=allp2p Action=mark-packet New Packet Mark= ...

That sure doesnt look normal to me.. I have 2 RB532s with SR5s shooting about 15-20 miles and my CPU maxes at about 20-25mb...

Which release of RouterOS are you using, have you tried an SR2/SR5 solution?

Using 1 set of equipment ( 2 RB532, 4 SR5, 2 Antennas ) will be fine unless you are wanting to use this for a high bandwidth backhaul. In my experience, with the CPUs on the RB532 you can only push 30Mbit max using Nstreme2. I've often thought about doing what you suggested and using 2 set of equipm...

Typically, when using Nstreme-Dual you will run into CPU issues on the RB532. Nstreme is very useful but it is very hard on a CPU. You will see that your maximum bandwidth ( depending on the radios and antennas you are using ) will drop considerably. But you will MUCH LESS prone to wireless interfer...

The default MTU that MikroTik uses is 1460, however if you lower this to 1420 you remove some of the overhead and you should be able to establish a connection.

It is my understanding that Mikrotik RouterOS, when left at the default settings will automatically use the default radio power designed for that particular radio card. All you have to do is let the router know where you are and the tx power, etc, should be pre-programmed.

You are very accurate in your description of how the packets travel accross their respective paths. Using Mikrotik on the RouterBoard 532 you will experience a MAJOR latency increase if you are bridging any interfaces. If you are not using any sort of bridging, then the latency can only come from th...

Also, You may try to enter the IP of the games you are trying to connect to rather than waiting for the games to show up on the list.

Hey there,

Warcraft III and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Both require port 6112 to be open and forwarded for both TCP and UDP. You may try to map the ports to the respective machines. If this does not work let me know.

I have issued this command to my router in hoped to block the default Gnutella ports to prevent filesharing on this network. add chain=forward in-interface=client out-interface=client src-address=0.0.0.0 dst-address=0.0.0.0 protocol=udp src-port=6346-6350 \ dst-port=6346-6350 packet-mark=""...

The port number for the traffic does not matter. Mikrotik analyzes the packet headers to see weather or not the traffic is p2p based. Clients that change their port to 80 will still be blocked as p2p packets are marked and dropped.

Still having issues with bittorrent here. Would it be possible for someone to post a fix for this. I want to limit/block ALL torrent traffic through my network, udp/tcp, everything. It causes too much of a problem and I've tried everything I know. Any help would be nice

Thanks

We've tested going from MT to MT on our backbone and at every hop we've been losing 1Mb-1.5Mb throught the bridged interfaces. But like I said, we are still testing.

I noticed this is some of our routers as well, but on others it was fine. We upgraded from 2.9RC9 to 2.9.1 and it stayed that way. The only way that I can tell to get a live view of traffic is by looking at the individual queues and their traffic. But again, like I said before, this happens on *some...

It is my experience that when you bridge the 2 interfaces, you will lose a considerable amount of throughput. We are still testing this though.

If you are using standard 568-B the brown pair carries the power.

The chances of the problem being interference is very high. There is a multiplicity of things that can cause interference on wireless equipment. I would recommend what was mentioned before, lock the devices to a set frequency and rate and see if that helps. Its always good to frequency hop to find t...

I have a "small" request. I need to set up Virtual Lans for some customers on my network. I am using MT 2.9 and such. I am using a 192.168.x.x number scheme for my customers which route to a public IP on the MT router and then to the internet. Some of our customers wish to have public IP a...

In my experience, it is always a good idea to make sure of the following: Make sure the device (radio/board) plugs straight into the PoW and then into the switch on the uplink port or a normal switching port, it all depends on the setup. (Just in case you are new :) ) After that, if you are still no...

I'm not 100% sure about everything that you are asking, BUT i do know that it is always better to restrict bandwidth at the client to keep all the extra traffic off of your network. Wireless networks can be VERY troublesome with lots of unneeded traffic flowing on the network. Restricting bandwidth ...

haha actually yes it is :) I used to play it all the time. Great game. Aright, i looked at the router settings and it seems that I am catching several packets, but nowhere near all of them. I set the connection time limit to 1 hour to filter out all the older, non-active connections.. Hopefully that...

I'm sure there have been numerous posts on this topic but none of the solutions seem to work. I have several Bit-Torrent users on my network and the bandwidth really isnt the problem. I have frame-relay T1 lines and the number of connections that these p2p programs use are what is killing my network...