I'm trying to set up the following: 1 client connected on eth5 of a rb751 receives a dhcp lease, and is able to access WAN over a 3G USB dongle. My configuration+ settings 1 PPP interface (name:mobile) connected via usb1. [admin@RB751] > /interface ppp-client print Flags: X - disabled, R - running 0...

Is there any ETA / timeline for 6.0 final?

Do you happen to run it on a 450G?

Can someone comment on stability of v5.19 on a RB450G?

RB450G V5.18 upgrade to V5.19

ip > firewall > NAT table all information is missing.

Has anyone encountered the same problem with RB450G?

I know..but I'd prefer to have reactions that are on topic

Hi, Has anyone upgraded to v5.19 that uses user manager? Is it stable or are there bugs that prevent it from running in production? FWIW I am currently running 5.12 without any major issues at the moment, but support advised me to upgrade on behalf of other bugs that should be fixed in the newer ver...

Received an answer from Mikrotik support:

Sorry but that is not possible. All RouterOS packages are upgraded together. There
is no way to keep UM at an older version

I was advised by Mikrotik support to upgrade from 5.12 to 5.18. However, I read some major bug reports concerning UM 5.18 in the following thread http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=63119 Is it possible to upgrade to 5.18 whilst keeping User Manager 5.12? Thanks in advance. Regards, s...

Even with a patch cable from RB450G's eth3 to the managed switch and an ip address in the 10.0.0.x range, pinging the switch is not possible.

At the same time, a client within 10.0.0.x is able to access the switch just fine.

I don't get it..

Thank you for your answer.

I tried (again) adding ip 10.0.0.5 to eth5, but still pinging the switch is not possible.

My network configuration looks like this: http://i47.tinypic.com/4t90go.png Client 2 connected directly to the switch is able to ping and access the webgui. Pinging from RB450G via WinBox results in timeout. The road warrior connected via OpenVPN with an ip in the same subnet as the switch gets a ti...

After spending almost an hour troubleshooting what caused this error (errors.txt size, illegal characters in file, ..) in stumbled upon this thread.
Is there any workaround to fix it? This bug is very inconvenient

Thank you for your reply but PPTP over the internet isn't secure and thus not suitable for my needs.

I want to be able to remotely administer a RB450G in order to access the usermanager webgui, and be able to make adjustments to RouterOS with WinBox. On Linux servers, I would use a OpenVPN tunnel or a ssh tunnel with some ssh port forwarding in order to achieve this. However, I read that the ssh pa...

So, if I understand the whole switching with master and slaves ports correctly: Traffic needs to be directed from eth1 to eth5 and vice versa. Switching only works on layer 2, while as eth1 and eth5 are on different subnets, and therefore I cant put them together as both slave ports. This will also ...

Thank you for your reply. As you suggested, I tried reverting back to "factory default-like" settings: eth1 WAN, eth2-5 LAN with 5 being configured as slave with DHCP and NAT. The good news is, using this config CPU usage dropped in half, peaking at ~30% with 60mbit of WAN to LAN traffic u...

The reason I bought the RB450G in comparison to other Routerboard products, is the advertised high throughput. However, in a test setup CPU usage is at 70-80% with only about 70mbit of WAN to LAN traffic from 1 client with 2 active ftp sessions. This would mean WAN to LAN throughput would already ma...

I want to provide a captive portal solution for 25 users, however, I am not sure which license level I need. Level 4 is limited to 200 HotSpot active users and 20 User manager active sessions. As I want to use the internal radius server and have 25 users, does this mean with L4 only 20 of them are a...

no-one?

Hi I am planning to set up a new network involving cisco network switches capable of doing ip source-guard, dhcp snooping and relaying dhcp requests to an external dhcpd. Whilst looking for information about DHCP option 82 and RouterOS I found a lot of outdated information, stating it was or wasn't ...