IGMP Snooping

hzdrus · Wed May 16, 2012 12:32 pm

Are there any plans to add IGMP Snooping support to bridging, via OpenVPN in particular? IGMP Snooping is supported by Linux kernels since 2.6.34, is there a reason to keep it disabled?

Absence of IGMP Snooping breaks numerous scenarios where Mikrotik is used as a CPE or tunnel concentrator.

janisk · Wed May 16, 2012 12:36 pm

last news about IGMP snooping - it i will be considered as a possible additional feature for future releases of RouterOS. Nothing confirmed yet, that it will make it. However it has changed from - never ever

Sector · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:52 pm

Has anything changed since then?

janisk · Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:37 pm

no, just that 6.0rc7 could be more stable regarding multicast as previous releases.

Boter · Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:25 pm

That's good with multicast. I haven't had problems with it actually. Okay through wifi, but that was just a lucky try, didnt actually thought it would work

IGMP Snooping will be very cool when it will be supported

ropeba · Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:03 pm

Will there be any changes for the better, in terms of IGMP proxy?

exa · Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:59 pm

Hello guys,

any updates on IGMP-Snooping? I guess it's very simple to implement (one simple sysctl in underlying linux) and actually a "big feature" saving lots of $ for infrastructure switches that could be replaced/eliminated by (say) CCR.

Thanks very much!
-mk

revellion · Sat Feb 15, 2014 1:11 pm

If there is any bug to vote on enabling IGMP Snooping, i'd vote on it. Cause it would be nice to avoid flooding multicast frames on all interfaces in vain.

Neovr · Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:35 pm

crs-125 do not have igmp snooping?!? when this functions activated? it's very important for many isp ....

p1p1p1 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:23 pm

we definitely need igmp snooping, it is usefull on rb750,751,2011 and ccr ccs series ...

Cronex · Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:31 am

we definitely need igmp snooping, it is usefull on rb750,751,2011 and ccr ccs series ...

I'm join to it !!! Snooping & Proxy !!!

RB2011UAS-RM, CCR1016-12G

esimotas · Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:37 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping. If not on RouterOS then at least definitely on SwOS
(I can't imagine a managed switch that does not support igmp snooping and querier functionality)

janisk · Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:46 pm

snooping is still not on the list. However on CRS routers you have multicast forwarding database table.

/interface ethernet switch multicast-fdb

Chupaka · Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:45 pm

snooping is still not on the list

won't this work with current kernel?..

echo 1 > /sys/devices/virtual/net/bridge1/bridge/multicast_snooping

janisk · Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:34 pm

from my experience from support e-mails and different threads on different forms regarding multicast snooping - snooping is evil.

Snooping is not defined by any RFC, it just is.
There is no promise of compatibility between actual PIM (PIM-SM, PIM-DM, IGMP-proxy as defined by their RFCs) nodes and snooper.

Chupaka · Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:24 am

what about RFC 4541?

about compatibility: all features you named are working on layer3 (IP interfaces), and snooping is layer2 feature, it should work inside of a bridge interface, between its ports. so, compatibility is not needed - those areas are not intersected

janisk · Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:39 am

the title starts with "Considerations for". It is not binding. as you can see rfc4605 is worded very differently.

Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:12 pm

from my experience from support e-mails and different threads on different forms regarding multicast snooping - snooping is evil.

Snooping is not defined by any RFC, it just is.
There is no promise of compatibility between actual PIM (PIM-SM, PIM-DM, IGMP-proxy as defined by their RFCs) nodes and snooper.

If you're going to enter the access switches market (a really huge one I believe) you will have to implement IGMP snooping. By access switches I mean the L2+/L3 managed switches that ISPs are installing in the end-users' buildings all over their coverage area, and whose ports are directly connected to the CPEs. It's common for ISPs nowadays to provide IPTV over multicast service, which is not quite practical if access switches do not supports IGMP snooping.

PS. And while we're talking about the access switches, similar considerations apply to DHCP and NDP snooping as well.

Chupaka · Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:34 pm

the title starts with "Considerations for". It is not binding. as you can see rfc4605 is worded very differently.

yes, there's no strict standards about IGMP Snooping, but can you show me some managed switch (except MikroTik's

) which doesn't support it?

rfc4605 defines IGMP proxy, which is implemented already in RouterOS. it works completely on layer3, and it can't help in case of bridged configuration

IGMP Snooping works on layer2 (between bridge ports, not router IP interfaces) using info sniffed from layer3

janisk · Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:26 pm

there is something already:

/interface ethernet switch multicast-fdb

it is not snooping as it is not dynamic. But at least it is controllable now.

sashavl · Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:35 pm

I don't understand that multicast-fdb. how is it used and for what we can use it?

vtrambovetsky · Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:34 pm

+1 for IGMP-snooping & udpxy.

It is General requirement for CPE for many ISP. Without this, we can not recommend these devices to our customers. And you do not get money from our customers for your very good device.

vtrambovetsky · Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:39 pm

Premoderated forum posts - a great evil. I'm disappointed.

Chupaka · Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:38 pm

Premoderated forum posts - a great evil. I'm disappointed.

it's only for new users, because of spam

roadracer96 · Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:25 pm

A managed switch that doesn't support IGMP AND PIM snooping is worthless in most enterprise environments. Fine for home, bad for enterprise. Simply stating that IGMP snooping isn't a standard doesn't negate its popularity, widespread implementation, and overall usefulness. A manually programmable multicast FDB table is about as useful as a box of rocks outside of a core uplink to a multicast source tree.

chalan · Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:06 pm

i see that mikrotik has new managed 24p switch series, but without igmp and dhcp snooping its not good... is it realy a problem to implement igmp snooping? is it a software problem or hw must support it?

Chupaka · Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:26 am

is it a software problem or hw must support it?

hw supports it - they introduced multicast FDB table already. so now it's software part which is absent

hardvk0 · Sat May 03, 2014 8:59 pm

Without IGMP Snooping my rb2011uas-2HnD-in has become a poor router 2 ports, 1 wan, 1 lan that I had to add a cheap switch unmanaged that is not mikrotik.
It is assumed that this model is ideal for ftth but you really IGMP Snooping and IPTV is not usable if not fixed routing rules.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate. The Linux kernel provides this, I do not think it costs much routeros deploy.
I do not recommend changing the basic router that provide the IPTV providers for MikroTik.

Thu May 08, 2014 1:01 pm

hardvk0, you've got the whole idea wrong. RB2011 series routers do not need to support IGMP snooping, by and large. And your "cheap switch unmanaged" does not support it either (nor any other unmanaged switch out there). What you're referring to is probably IGMP proxy, which is conceptually quite different from the IGMP snooping.

hardvk0 · Thu May 08, 2014 4:45 pm

Sorry if I'm wrong, and by the Lousy English translator of google.
I do not see how to prevent being flooded rb2011 ports, without filtering, blocking access to the igmp datagram.
Specifically, my solution is to put a tp-link TL-SG1016DE connected to a port without filtering IGMP.
The other ports do not have access to IPTV.

pkelly1603 · Thu May 29, 2014 5:38 pm

Does anyone know how the Multicast FDB works? I don't understand if adding an entry blocks that multicast, or tells it to forward? It seems like multicast by default forwards to all ports since there is no IGMP snooping.

BTW, I too would like to have IGMP snooping. And hardware supported PIM routing (so that multicast can be routed from one VLAN to another without using the CPU). Or putting a Tile CPU in these switches might work also.

Etz · Fri May 30, 2014 10:32 am

IGMP Snooping would be definately useful

stakly · Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:57 am

+1 for IGMP snooping, multicast floods on wlan interfaces which works in bridge.

3bs · Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:45 am

mikrotik don't care users opinion, they better know what we need.

leonset · Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:27 pm

Now that I need it...

+1 for IGMP snooping!

cdiedrich · Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:30 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping, multicast floods on wlan interfaces which works in bridge.

Exactly the same here.
In a typical rental setup we have about 200...500MBit of multicast traffic.
And we need some Access Points in the same L2 domain but without the multicast...
Manually filtering multicast from these ports makes the CPU go wild on 2011 and Metal Series.
And budget not always allows CCR series for each and every station (as we have about 20...50 RB devices in one setup...)
So +10 for IGMP snooping from me as well

-Chris

pkelly1603 · Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:06 pm

I don't understand that multicast-fdb. how is it used and for what we can use it?

Take a look at this thread:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 57#p431957

1. Multicast FDB appears to only work within a VLAN (can't forward from one VLAN to another)
2. Multicast is forwarded to all ports by default but if an entry exists in the FDB, it is only forwarded to the ports in that entry and filtered on all other ports in that VLAN.

k5nic · Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:29 pm

I am glad I came across this thread! We have been planning for several months a full scale deployment of MikroTik CRS125 to all of our tower sites to segregate broadcast domains. However, if IGMP snooping is not implemented in the CRS125, then this becomes a moot point since there is so much multicast traffic in existence now days. We will have to re-evaluate the purchase of MikroTik hardware until such time as MikroTik implements IGMP snooping.

Our deployment can wait a few more weeks, but at that point we will have to look at other options.

Jay

MaxPain83 · Mon Jun 23, 2014 5:45 pm

Прошу прощения за мой английский, буду высказываться максимально просто. К сожалению не владею английским. Всё валю на google переводчик если что. Не знаю, как в Европе и Америке,но в России довольно не плохо развито iptv multicast. Те средства обработки multicast трафика,что имеются в продукции MikroTik явно не достаточны для элементарного применения дома. Крайне необходимы пакеты udpxy и igmp snooping. Без обид,Латыши Вы тормозите,распространение собственной продукции. Без условно MikroTik,как it компания,облапошит всех конкурентов в виде гигантов: ASUS,CISCO и "наступающий на пятки" руко-кривых китайцев,но дешёвых d-link и tp-link. Ваша продукция не может не вызывать восхищения,она почти безупречна. Но будьте толерантны к простым пользователям,и к Вам потянутся. Udpxy и Igmp-snooping уже обыденность для современных реалий ip,включите пожалуйста их в свою новую прошивку! Либо устройте голосование за включение этих функций в routerOS, если сами сомневаетесь,пусть пользователи решат! В любом случае,если эти пакеты не нужны,то их можно и не включать!!!

Нет у меня уверенности,что гугл переводчик переведёт нормально....

Sorry for my English, I speak as simple as possible. Unfortunately do not know English. All exchange on google translator if that. I do not know, as in Europe and America,but in Russia rather poorly developed iptv multicast. The means of processing multicast traffic that are in production MikroTik clearly not sufficient for basic home use. It is extremely necessary packages udpxy and igmp snooping. No offense,Latvians You slow down,the distribution of its products. Without conditionally MikroTik,as it company,will allapotat all competitors in the form of giants: ASUS,CISCO and "coming on the heels of" lead-curves Chinese,but cheap d-link tp-link. Your products can not but arouse admiration,she's almost perfect. But be tolerant to simple users,and will listen to You. Udpxy and Igmp snooping is already the ordinary for modern realities ip,please include them in your new firmware! Or arrange a vote for the inclusion of these functions in routerOS, if in doubt,let the users decide! In any case,if these packages are not needed,they can not be enabled!!!

Etz · Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:53 pm

IGMP Snooping would be definately useful

Actually it is "must have" on CRS series, to even think about IPTV deployments...

Still makes me wonder, why it is so hard to implement?
Even sub 30$ Home "soapbox" routers have it now in conjunction with IGMP Proxy.

leonset · Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:29 am

Still makes me wonder, why it is so hard to implement?
Even sub 30$ Home "soapbox" routers have it now in conjunction with IGMP Proxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGMP_snoop ... ard_status

Despite it's broad usage and usefulness, IGMP snooping is not an industry standard. That alone might not make it harder to implement, but would require some amount of interoperability tests, debugging and so on. Also, RouterOS is Linux based and I don't know the status of IGMP snooping implementation in the Kernel... that could help if it is mature enough.

Anyway... Mikrotik, we need IGMP snooping!

roadracer96 · Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:09 pm

Routeros being linux based doesn't help when the switch chip needs to do be able to implement it, not routeros (outside of bridge ports).

Im gonna throw PIM snooping out there too.. That'd help with multicast over VPLS links.

roadracer96 · Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:14 am

And after a little playing at home last night, capsman bridge ports. 7mbit of multicast from iptv on the wire (same bridge) as the cap interfaces crushed it. Couldn't even get a dhcp address.

doneware · Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:01 pm

right now i do not care, whether the CRS series will support snooping or not.

i'd like to use crs1016-12s-1s+ in an gigabitethernet aggregation network, where i have only csco switches, and snooping is a must.
for the time of being - to start the migration - i'd have to use them as L2 only devices [so with bridge groups, and so on]
w/o igmp snooping it will break the iptv service... that means a no-go for replacing a bunch of outdated cisco switches.

it could mean tens or probably (1-2) hundreds of new ccr1016 deployments if it would support igmp snooping.

+1 for igmp snooping on bridge interfaces on routers

Etz · Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:36 pm

Why use "expensive" CCR as pure L2 device when much cheaper CRS can handle it on wirespeed aswell...

I would understand if you would use it for L3 traffic and then using PIM would make more sense on CCR.

doneware · Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:57 pm

Why use "expensive" CCR as pure L2 device when much cheaper CRS can handle it on wirespeed aswell...

I would understand if you would use it for L3 traffic and then using PIM would make more sense on CCR.

because of the SFPs. in an all optical network you need them. and considered the cisco gear, CCR is not expensive at all

Etz · Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:09 pm

because of the SFPs. in an all optical network you need them. and considered the cisco gear, CCR is not expensive at all

Cisco is more expensive indeed, but I was referring to Mikrotik products.
Nevertheless that explains it pretty well, why you specifically need CCR`s for this.

LeChat · Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:12 pm

*bump*

+1 for IGMP Snooping.

I guess everyone who tries IPTV with a MikroTik faces the same issue and the solution always ends up being the same; use a standard consumer router instead

dcavni · Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:50 pm

I just bought an 2011 router to use it in home network and somehow i expected, that it supports IGMP snooping out of the box. It seem's to me, that i will run in to a lot of problems, since i have a lot of Multicast traffic in my network.

Looking it this way, it's realy sad, that i can use IGMP snooping on old TpLink with OpenWRT but i can not use it on new Mikrotik...

So +1 for this option from me.

Def · Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:46 am

IGMP snooping is a must for me too. It was great disappointment for me when I found out that MikroTik doesn't support it.

So +1 for IGMP snooping.

chubbs596 · Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:15 am

+1 for IGMP snooping!

chubbs596 · Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:16 am

+1 for DHCP snooping!

ofca · Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:18 pm

Huh, this still isn't done? FFS... $50 TP-LINKs have this implemented...

alexburke · Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:00 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping. Its absence is ridiculous.

anakyn · Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:06 pm

THe IGMP snooping is basic functionality of L2 switches. This is the reason why Mikrotik/RouterOS should be support it.
By the way, I think if the guys from Mikrotik team will work on IGMP snooping then it would be fine to also implement SSM mapping. I think this is much better feature then rendezvous point.If you have more providers for IPTV solution then SSM mapping is totally necessary. At the moment we are using L2/L3 devices for Multicast from other vendor because IGMP snooping and SSM mapping.
If the RouterOS will support these 2 features then we will try to use it.
BR.
Radovan

dg1kwa · Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:21 am

+1 for igmp snooping. In LAN today important function.

kyob · Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:55 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping! :)

k5nic · Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:05 pm

I currently have over 30 Cisco 48 port PoE switches in place, and have been working out details on how I can upgrade to MikroTik for speed, however, this is the only hurdle I have to get over in order to make this fly! Between this and the 6.21.1 fiasco regarding introduction of bugs rather than bug fixes, I have all but abandoned the notion of eliminating the expense of Cisco gear.

Normis and company need to start taking a good hard look at what us the customer is requesting. I would be purchasing at least 2 24 port CRS devices for every one of the 30 Cisco switches, in order to get the necessary 48 ports, BUT I need a stable OS, IGMP snooping and I will end up running more fiber switch RB does not have a fiber switch that I can place at each closet and no way to stack switches.

I just hope I don't have to say "Goodbye MikroTik, Hello Juniper"!

Regards,
Jay

nordex · Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:20 pm

usx · Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:30 am

+1
was about to buy a CRS125-24G-1S-IN, but the lack of IGMP snooping told me not to.

poofeg · Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:05 am

Switch chip AR8327 have builtin hardware igmp snooping support. How to enable this feature?

cma1kep · Tue Dec 23, 2014 11:37 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping, its need in deed!

nmc79 · Thu Dec 25, 2014 6:15 pm

Masyanich · Sat Dec 27, 2014 3:25 pm

D1M0N · Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:58 am

+1 for IGMP snooping

HeadCraft · Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:40 am

+11010001 for IGMP Snooping. Realy need it! I have a bridge of 4 ethernet ports and 7 vpn tunnels with encryption 256 aes. When you start multicast, the router burns out with a blue flame sending frames in each other port. I even would be glad if this functionality will be realized, but hard to get and disabled by default

AntonivkA · Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:31 pm

+100500 for IGMP snooping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

zichovsky · Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:29 pm

Yes, IGMP snooping is realy needed. Mikrotik has some nice hardware with switch chips, usable as prefect CPE or in "last mile" access layer, but without support for IGMP snooping it can't be used, for example, in scenarios, where multicast IPTV is used.

And if IGMP snooping... then continue with IGMP group filtering (per port/pofile basis) and MVR.

Quasar · Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:25 pm

Sigh. +1

Please?

MikroTikFan · Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:08 pm

+1 IGMP Snooping, so for Mikrotik developers wheeeeeen ?

D1M0N · Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:51 am

Are there any plans of developers support IGMP snooping?
rain or look for another solution?
how difficult it is to implement?

10robinho · Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:22 pm

Per my understanding, IGMP snooping still doesn't work with CRS switches, right?
What about IGMP querier functionality that is also on most switches that are used for multicast video, is that planned too?

vortex · Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:38 pm

+1

This is one of the reasons why I threw away a brand new Netgear "business" security router and went Mikrotik, which was also a disappointment in this regard.

jberen · Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:24 pm

So +1 for IGMP snooping.

lukoramu · Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:11 am

If there's no plans for conventional IGMP snooping on CRS1xx/CRS2xx series, I'm READY to implement an "external IGMP snooping" for our access switch solution, where every user has his separate VLAN, which consists of three ports: tagged uplink port, tagged switch1-cpu port (for DHCP relaying and IGMP), and untagged access port. And there's one multicast vlan, consisting of tagged uplink and tagged switch1-cpu (access ports are not included in this vlan; 'Bypass VLAN filter' setting on every MFDB entry will be mandatory).

Bear with me

All the elements are here:

Multicast FDB on switch chip (tested, works beautifully)
IGMP proxy, running on CPU
IGMP proxy syslog events to remote syslog server
IGMP proxy MFC list
RouterOS API

It will be more like synchronizer between two lists:

IGMP proxy MFC list
Atheros swich Multicast FDB

IGMP proxy syslog events will be used to quickly add MFDB entries, and there will be periodic MFC->MFDB synchronization for missed IGMP joins (if IGMP group exists in MFC list, then it means that IGMP proxy is forwarding multicast traffic to user VLAN using scarce CPU resources). MFDB entries will be removed when there's no membership reports for 3*query_interval.

Considering the price of CRS125, I'm sure it's worth it (all that scripting effort)

It's a solid plan B!

rogerowl · Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:54 pm

If there's no plans for conventional IGMP snooping on CRS1xx/CRS2xx series, I'm READY to implement an "external IGMP snooping" for our access switch solution, where every user has his separate VLAN, which consists of three ports: tagged uplink port, tagged switch1-cpu port (for DHCP relaying and IGMP), and untagged access port. And there's one multicast vlan, consisting of tagged uplink and tagged switch1-cpu (access ports are not included in this vlan; 'Bypass VLAN filter' setting on every MFDB entry will be mandatory).

Bear with me All the elements are here:

Multicast FDB on switch chip (tested, works beautifully)

IGMP proxy, running on CPU

IGMP proxy syslog events to remote syslog server

IGMP proxy MFC list

RouterOS API
It will be more like synchronizer between two lists:

IGMP proxy MFC list

Atheros swich Multicast FDB
IGMP proxy syslog events will be used to quickly add MFDB entries, and there will be periodic MFC->MFDB synchronization for missed IGMP joins (if IGMP group exists in MFC list, then it means that IGMP proxy is forwarding multicast traffic to user VLAN using scarce CPU resources). MFDB entries will be removed when there's no membership reports for 3*query_interval.

Considering the price of CRS125, I'm sure it's worth it (all that scripting effort) It's a solid plan B!

This will be excelent.
Do you have any ideia if/when you'll start this project?

nordex · Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:24 pm

++ for igmp snooping

Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:22 pm

lukoromu - why not just buy one of these?
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/cisco-3550

used old Cisco switches for under $100.
They'll do IGMP snooping.

(Doing it just because you want to accomplish something technically challenging is a good reason to be sure)

Although - Mikrotik should support IGMP snooping.
+1

ECCOsea · Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:32 pm

+1 to IGMP Snooping!

hzdrus · Fri May 08, 2015 11:52 am

Would love to use those CRS212-1G-10S switches, probably buy a hundred or so, but it is impossible to offer IPTV without snooping

dilnix · Sat May 30, 2015 10:15 am

I have plans to build new large network in some Ukrainian city with IPTV and PortToCustomer configuration. But without IGMP and DHCP snooping it's imposible to do using Mikrotik routers and switches. So i forced to use another brand.
Sorry Mikrotik, but you slowing your own success...

haakon · Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:14 pm

+1, this is a must!

andersonlich · Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:04 am

Don't forget to put IGMP suppress.

MasterXP · Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:59 am

+1 for IGMP Snooping

krzysztof · Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:41 pm

Hello

How can I ask for?
How long do I ask?
Very many people have written about it.
I am a regional provider of IPTV in Poland.
Very quickly it needs IGMP Snooping in RouterOS (Switches).
IGMP Proxy authentication does not work with TV tuners.

I need a couple of thousands of such devices.
When IGMP Snooping is available in RouterOS?
Please I need IGMP Snoping compatible with CISCO.

Please, Please, Please

Regards.
Krzysztof Pawluk

PastuhMedvedey · Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:31 am

+1 for IGMP snooping.

kometchtech · Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:55 am

shifto · Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:22 pm

+1 for igmp snooping

When I found out this was missing (lol) I had to dust off an old AT-9924 to do the switching which is kind of ridiculous. (Also it's very noisy!

)

netmaster · Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:23 am

CRS112-8G-4S-IN

What a hell we supposed to do with 8 port switch with 4 SFP and without IGMP?
It would be a ideal for FTTH installations, but without multicast capable wirespeed switch it is another pointless product in long line of SFP switches...

lenart · Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:24 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping

jondavy · Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:25 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping

zolorkin · Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:40 pm

hello cool stuff

Escalader · Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:27 pm

I vote for IGMP snooping in RouterOS v7.

korniza · Sat Oct 03, 2015 11:03 am

+1 for IGMP snooping

ebreyit · Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:34 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping

Neovr · Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:38 pm

+11111111

KitMikro · Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:20 pm

still nothing???

+1

jozevolf · Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:02 pm

+1

Because of lack of this feature I need to use TP-LINK TL-SG3210. Not a bad switch though. I don't think you can find better for the price. 2 separate (not shared) SFP ports + 8 gigabit copper ports + console management + fanless. I use both SFPs, one for incoming connection from ISP and the second to connect over dark fiber to my other location where there is another SG3210. But I need separate router-wifi-ap device on my first location and wi-fi ap on second. But I guess there is no integrated solution from RB for my primary location anyway.

kemerovo · Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:25 am

Прошу прощения за мой английский, буду высказываться максимально просто. К сожалению не владею английским. Всё валю на google переводчик если что. Не знаю, как в Европе и Америке,но в России довольно не плохо развито iptv multicast. Те средства обработки multicast трафика,что имеются в продукции MikroTik явно не достаточны для элементарного применения дома. Крайне необходимы пакеты udpxy и igmp snooping. Без обид,Латыши Вы тормозите,распространение собственной продукции. Без условно MikroTik,как it компания,облапошит всех конкурентов в виде гигантов: ASUS,CISCO и "наступающий на пятки" руко-кривых китайцев,но дешёвых d-link и tp-link. Ваша продукция не может не вызывать восхищения,она почти безупречна. Но будьте толерантны к простым пользователям,и к Вам потянутся. Udpxy и Igmp-snooping уже обыденность для современных реалий ip,включите пожалуйста их в свою новую прошивку! Либо устройте голосование за включение этих функций в routerOS, если сами сомневаетесь,пусть пользователи решат! В любом случае,если эти пакеты не нужны,то их можно и не включать!!!

Нет у меня уверенности,что гугл переводчик переведёт нормально....

Sorry for my English, I speak as simple as possible. Unfortunately do not know English. All exchange on google translator if that. I do not know, as in Europe and America,but in Russia rather poorly developed iptv multicast. The means of processing multicast traffic that are in production MikroTik clearly not sufficient for basic home use. It is extremely necessary packages udpxy and igmp snooping. No offense,Latvians You slow down,the distribution of its products. Without conditionally MikroTik,as it company,will allapotat all competitors in the form of giants: ASUS,CISCO and "coming on the heels of" lead-curves Chinese,but cheap d-link tp-link. Your products can not but arouse admiration,she's almost perfect. But be tolerant to simple users,and will listen to You. Udpxy and Igmp snooping is already the ordinary for modern realities ip,please include them in your new firmware! Or arrange a vote for the inclusion of these functions in routerOS, if in doubt,let the users decide! In any case,if these packages are not needed,they can not be enabled!!!

+1
in Russia IPTV is very popular
I hope that soon you'll add this feature

nordex · Sat Nov 14, 2015 8:57 pm

+1

Mikrotik, do you like to see us suffer ?

MikroTikFan · Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:40 pm

Why Mikrotik stuff is not hearing customers voice ???
How long this should take since 2012-1015, Mikrotik wasted 3 years !

In the same time most of other companies have implemented this feature even in low-end routers/switches !

Skyder · Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:13 pm

+1 Igmp snooping: in Russia is very popular IPTV. The routers from other manufacturers are all well. Please add it.
In firmware 5.26 IPTV is not saturated with other ports in the bridge - everything is working properly, including Wi-Fi clients. On the firmware 6.xx while watching the IPTV on any client, once clogged channel Wi-Fi.

jmginer · Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:41 am

+1 IGMP Snooping to manage my IPTV stations.

Neovr · Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:33 am

When?!
it's very inportant!

selmir · Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:43 pm

+1 IGMP Snooping

b0m8er · Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:11 pm

+1

Much needed and long awaited feature. It's freaking stupid that in 2016 consumer grade zyxel router works with iptv better then pro-oriented mikrotik.

Please add this feature.

kemerovo · Tue Jan 26, 2016 5:53 pm

Dear admins when you give an answer on this subject ?

Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:10 pm

Dear admins when you give an answer on this subject ?

Mikrotik forum admins have chimed in on this subject many times - and if you want to know what it is, then go to a mirror and give the finger. That's pretty much the response. What they actually say is that igmp snooping is a switch feature, and a router is a router, so it already filters multicast properly for IP networks. This is true, but of course the mcast packet stream hits all switch ports / bridge ports of the LAN if you're using any layer 2 functions of the router....

Has anyone ever tried plugging a simple Linksys/Netgear/Belkin/etc cheap unmanaged switch to see if it supports IGMP snooping? (these probably don't either)

Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:10 pm

What they actually say is that igmp snooping is a switch feature, and a router is a router, so it already filters multicast properly for IP networks.

I would have understood that point if CRS series didn't exist.

Has anyone ever tried plugging a simple Linksys/Netgear/Belkin/etc cheap unmanaged switch to see if it supports IGMP snooping? (these probably don't either)

I tried with a couple of cheap stupid 8-port D-Link toys- they don't.

Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:48 pm

I would have understood that point if CRS series didn't exist.

I agree - a product marketed as a switch should definitely have such a feature. I think this is more depending on the switch chips they're using as the foundation of their products - I'm not sure whether Atheros chips (the ones in things like the 2011 series) are capable of IGMP snooping or if it's a matter of programming them to do so. Whatever the case, I'm not a fan of Mikrotik's switches as anything more than basic frame forwarders with some VLAN capabilites. I want to like them - but they haven't won me over yet.

I tried with a couple of cheap stupid 8-port D-Link toys- they don't.

I didn't think they would do it - they are basic little dumb devices, after all.

Of course the bridge feature is one place this could be implemented regardless of 3rd party chip capabilities. I don't personally have to deal with IGMP snooping issues (I live in the USA where the cable companies fight tooth and nail against streaming video services) but if I did need IGMP snooping, I'd just go get a used Cisco 2600-series switch for pennies.

Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:37 pm

I'm not sure whether Atheros chips (the ones in things like the 2011 series) are capable of IGMP snooping or if it's a matter of programming them to do so.

As I understand IGMP frames must be intercepted (mirrored to the cpu port) and then processed in software by CPU, which in turn should install the appropriate (dynamic) multicast-fdb entries and then time them out after a while.

Of course the bridge feature is one place this could be implemented regardless of 3rd party chip capabilities.

Another place where IGMP snooping is welcome is wireless interfaces with multicast helper on- as I understand the helper will currently convert each multicast stream into a number of unicast streams unconditionally, one stream per each registered client.

Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:46 pm

Another place where IGMP snooping is welcome is wireless interfaces with multicast helper on- as I understand the helper will currently convert each multicast stream into a number of unicast streams unconditionally, one stream per each registered client.

Another way people deal with Multicast over WiFi is to ramp up the basic rate to a higher speed and disallow slow links.... I would think that unicasting the stream X number of times could get expensive on air time if lots of clients are subscribed to the stream. Although, I guess 10x 300Mbps transmissions is going to be better than 1x 6Mbps transmission.....

kemerovo · Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:07 am

Another way people deal with Multicast over WiFi is to ramp up the basic rate to a higher speed and disallow slow links.... I would think that unicasting the stream X number of times could get expensive on air time if lots of clients are subscribed to the stream. Although, I guess 10x 300Mbps transmissions is going to be better than 1x 6Mbps transmission.....

Why do I need multiple routers ? I want to have one that will carry out my tasks , cheap devices D-Link, TP-Link to cope with it without any adjustments, why is this not a simple function organized at mikrotik?

in Russia is very popular service IPTV (multicast) and 90% of ISP provide it for free, it is very convenient to move around the house looking at the TV , the and then finger the mirror , I did not understand

Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:49 am

Why do I need multiple routers ?

You don't. Wireless multicast helper is perfectly fine for home use where you don't usually have big number of wireless clients registered at the same time. Just please note that the multicast-helper=default (which is the default) currently means disabled.

kemerovo · Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:07 am

You don't. Wireless multicast helper is perfectly fine for home use where you don't usually have big number of wireless clients registered at the same time. Just please note that the multicast-helper=default (which is the default) currently means disabled.

I know how to set up the equipment , but it does not work as it should work .
multicast helper - full Does not help, Activity increases network , packets are all the ports , this leads to instability of the network

matmor · Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:17 pm

Still no news for IGMP Snooping ?

I know RouterOS is for Routing, but with product like CRS and especially the new HAP that look like the perfect Residential Gateway, IGMP Snooping is a must have.

IGMP Proxy work well to transfert Multicast receive from the ISP side to the client LAN side, but I don't want all the PC of the clients to receive the STB multicast as soon as a STB join one. But I don't want to block multicast on PC ports, causse we work on whole one PVR and Desktop App to receive the Multicast Stream.

On regular RG ( Residential Gateway ) like Comtrend WR-6895 or Smart-RG SR510N if a STB joint a Multicast Stream, only the LAN port of the RG where the STB is will receive the stream ( IGMP Proxy for L3 + IGMP Snooping for L2 switch of the RG ).

I will have 500 to 1000 RG to buy in the next year for our first managed home Wi-Fi solution.
It could be HAP and HAP lite, but without IGMP Snooping I will have to go with Comtrend or Smart-RG !

Bergante · Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:34 am

I would have understood that point if CRS series didn't exist.

Indeed. I need some switches and I've immediately discarded Mikrotik's CRS because it's little more than a glorified bridge of the 1980's featuring multiple ports and Gigabit Ethernet. But it's a really incomplete product, I'm afraid.

I'm sticking to HP Procurves for that.

norepto · Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:04 pm

+1 IGMP Snooping

hzdrus · Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:02 pm

Regarding the point raised earlier about possible limitations on the switch chip itself: this doesn't stop Mikrotik from implementing snooping on "/interface bridge" level.

For example, RB2011 gives adequate performance in bridge mode as a small consumer aggregation device. Linux already supports snooping in its bridge code, so it is a matter of Mikrotik giving some priority to porting the functionality.

tubituba · Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:03 pm

+1 for IGMP Snooping with RB2011 routerboard.

Please, MikroTik. Please Please Please

kemerovo · Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:36 am

Administrators why you ignore the wishes of customers ?

otgooneo · Sat May 21, 2016 6:18 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping

kemerovo · Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:00 pm

+1 for IGMP snooping

vanderlaag · Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:24 am

+1 for IGMP snooping

ilyav3 · Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:50 pm

+2 for IGMP snooping

klukoks · Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:29 pm

Hello, i have simple question. Will Mikrotik have IGMP snooping in v7? I won't stop using it, but like many people I would like to know.
greetings from Poland
PS I don't want to use it on RB4xx, 7xx, 9xx Wifi stuff but on 2011, 750 and newer better switches.

Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:51 pm

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365

vanderlaag · Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:48 pm

There is nothing to see over there that's looks like a answer for the question in the post.

kemerovo · Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:20 am

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365

ordinary users need a 1 router , rather than 2-3 . Why do you not understand? Most uses quick setup for the Internet and TV . but the TV does not work, it is very upsetting . I repeat the question that was asked several times whether it will work in 7 version ???????????????????????????

Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:39 am

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365
ordinary users need a 1 router , rather than 2-3 . Why do you not understand? Most uses quick setup for the Internet and TV . but the TV does not work, it is very upsetting . I repeat the question that was asked several times whether it will work in 7 version ???????????????????????????

You said yourself, that a different device works with your TV. That other device does not have IGMP snooping. So why do you ask for this feature?

Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:40 pm

Kemerovo:
Is your problem that the IPTV clients will not work at all, or is your problem that it works, but whenever using it, all ethernet interfaces are flooded with unnecessary traffic? It's my impression that your problem is the second one. It is true that the device you linked earlier does not support IGMP snooping, so I can see why Normis is confused about what your problem is.

If your problem is that the devices won't work at all, then it's true that your problem is not the lack of IGMP snooping (whether or not such a feature is good). I recommend starting a new thread requesting help in getting your IPTV clients working if that's your issue.

Normis:
Kemerovo's specific issue notwithstanding, it does appear that IGMP snooping is a very-much-requested feature, and I do think that it would be a very normal thing for layer2 devices to support. Without IGMP snooping, a switch just converts multicast into broadcast which can overload a network if there are many streams going on in parallel. This is quite a waste of resources, especially when only a few clients are subscribed to each stream (obviously you already know this very well - I point it out for the sake of those reading the thread who may not know the difference) ... Is there any reason why Mikrotik seems to be so opposed to implementing this feature?

If the reason is that the HW switches of various platforms may or may not be strong enough to implement it at the hardware switch layer, or that the implementation is different for each chipset in use, then I can see how this could get ugly - but certainly implementing it on the bridge shouldn't be constrained by this limitation. Yes, it would be better to do this in silicon, but if the feature is at least POSSIBLE in CPU, then it's a viable solution for those whose networks have significant amounts of multicast traffic.

Me, if I needed it so badly, I would just bite the bullet and add a switch with IGMP snooping, or if religiously opposed to multiple network devices, I would buy some other vendor's gear and not stubbornly live with bad network performance until Mikrotik meets my demands.

SDFadfasdfadsf · Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:47 pm

see this http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 37#p543365

I got a ZyXEL GS1900-16 for $60 and it does support IGMP snooping. After years of user requests IGMP/MLD snooping is still not available, even on CRS....

Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:51 pm

IGMP snooping development will not be sped up if one person will register many forum accounts and post the same request over and over again.

dcavni · Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:18 pm

At least we know you are working on it

I used cheapest 8 port TPLink smart switch for that purpose, since it has IGMP snooping. It worked as aspected, no IPTV traffic flood on Mikrotik.

Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:19 am

IGMP snooping support added in RouterOS 6.40, please test and report.

Who is online