HI I have been trying to setup my new 2011 Router to work with my UK ADSL ISP (PlusNet) with a Draytrk Vigor 120 and PPPoE.

I can get this to work however the link is very unstable with huge swings in Ping times, using my old router a Ping to www.plus.net is about 30ms, with the Mikrotik and Vigor 120 it varies between 30ms and 1500ms and I have not been able to work out why. I have played with the MTU setting but this does not seem to solve the problem.

I found a comment on another forum suggesting that the issue is with the Ether1 port on the Mikrotik and advising to move to another port.

Although this is probably a fairly simple thing to do I don't know how to do it, could someone give me some step by step instructions how to move the port for PPPoE with the Vigor 120 Modem connected from Ether 1 to Ether 2?

Thanks

Hi there,

As a matter of fact, I used some Draytek ADSL Routers (but they work only as Modems like yours because I disable the routing functions) to connect to a MikroTik Router. Normally, for example, with Draytek Vigor 2700 I just enable the "DMZ Host" option of the Draytek to make a "MAC Address of the True IP DMZ Host" inserting the MAC address of the MikroTik's ethernet interface and enabling DHCP client for that interface and it gets the public IP address of the Draytek and everything else like firewall, routing, Queues, etc is made in the MikroTik. The Drayteks I usually use can work as simples routers as well but has I mentioned I use them only as a simple ADSL modems. Only the PPPoE ADSL authentication is made in the Draytek to authenticate the internet connection to the ISP. You can connect it in whatever ethernet port you want, just enable DHCP client in that port and it will get the public IP address from the ADSL modem

Don't know if this helped you in some way...

Best regards

I would try moving it to port 6 - I've had issues in the past where devices don't play nice when connected to a 2011 on one of its gigabit ports. You may want to be connected to the 2011 on one of the gigabit ports (or WiFi) as the procedure can kick your Winbox session if you're connected to one of the 100Mbps ports.

I assume that your router is set up like the factory defaults for this (LAN IP is on a bridge interface)
If there is no LAN bridge, you'll know it in step 1 - don't follow this procedure if there is no LAN bridge.

You'll need to go into bridge > ports and remove ether6 from the LAN bridge (this will temporarily break the internet for anything on ports 7-10)
Next go into interfaces > ethernet
Configure 7 - 10 to have master port = none
Configure 8-10 to have master port = 7
In the bridge > ports window, add ether7 to the LAN bridge.
(This will fix the stuff that got broken in the first step)
You have to clear 7-10 before you can set them to use port 7 as master. This is because only 1 port can be the master at a time on the same switch chip.

Since you're using PPPoE, moving the WAN connection is easy.
Go into the pppoe client, and change the interface it's connected to from ether1 to ether6.
Then you can go back into interfaces > ethernet and set ether1 to use ether2 as master port.

This makes "ether6" your new WAN port. (You could choose ether10 if you want it to be the last physical port - the behavior should be the same)

You shouldn't have to change any firewall / nat rules because you haven't changed any interfaces that have IP addresses on them, but you might want to scan the list to make sure nothing says ether1 or ether2.

I had to use ether6 because my cable modem would not be stable when connected to ether1 or ether2. (both are gigabit ports)

ZeroByte, thanks for that, it worked perfectly and so far the link has been very stable.

Glad it worked.

I think I'm going to search for threads about this / wiki about this.
Mikrotik is such a great platform in many ways, but there are lots of things that are flaky in a way that's hard to put your finger on, and never seem to get fixed.

When I first saw the original post, I thought to myself, "this guy isn't making any sense...why would ether1 specifically have a problem, and why haven't I ever heard anything about this before? where is he getting this?"

But if the potential issue is with any port on that switch (ether1-ether5), that makes way more sense. It might have been an interesting experiment, in that case, to turn off auto-negotiation on ether1 and force it to, say, 100Mbit/Full, before moving the WAN over to one of the 100Mbit ports.

-- Nathan

When I first saw the original post, I thought to myself, "this guy isn't making any sense...why would ether1 specifically have a problem, and why haven't I ever heard anything about this before? where is he getting this?"

You would be right to think that I don't know much about networking although I work in IT. I had almost given up and I found the comment saying that someone had problems with ether1 so I thought it was worth a try.

But if the potential issue is with any port on that switch (ether1-ether5), that makes way more sense. It might have been an interesting experiment, in that case, to turn off auto-negotiation on ether1 and force it to, say, 100Mbit/Full, before moving the WAN over to one of the 100Mbit ports.

Yes I didn't think of that but I have another WAN link that I need to connect at some point so I will have a play if I get problems with that on ether1, although its a different type of connection (4G LTE)