Hello!
IGMP snooping support was added to Linux kernel long ago, but all MT devices don't have it yet. It would be great to add this feature in the next RouterOS release. I use IPTV service heavily in my home network and I don't like that multicast traffic is constantly flooding in all connected ports (I was able to disable it for wireless network by filter rules but that's not enough).
Or if this too difficult to implement - udpxy as an external package or built-in feature would be great. Or some other solution to convert multicast traffic to unicast.

+1 for UDPXY as external package.

+1 Please, add.
IGMP snooping and/or udpxy support

I'm surprised there isn't a candlelight vigil in front of Mikrotik HQ for this feature by now....

It does seem that Mikrotik should at the very least implement this in the soft bridge functionality if the Atheros switch chips can't handle the feature.

Honestly, if it's that important, you can find an old Cisco 2950 from after-market vendors for less than $50us, and put that in. IGMP snooping is on by default in that switch. Just leave it set to default and plug it in. I think Mikrotik is a great line of products for network and higher layer features, but quite poor as switches.

My mindset: If you need a router, use Mikrotik. If you need a switch, use some other vendor.

+1 for both

+1 very need snooping for normally watch iptv

+1 Please, add.
IGMP snooping or both

+1 other more.

+1 for IGMP snooping and udpxy

My mindset: If you need a router, use Mikrotik. If you need a switch, use some other vendor.

I do not want to use 2 or more devices from different manufacturers , I want to use one that will satisfy my need

My mindset: If you need a router, use Mikrotik. If you need a switch, use some other vendor.

I do not want to use 2 or more devices from different manufacturers , I want to use one that will satisfy my need

That was a total out-of-context quote.

My point is that Mikrotik does pretty well at making routers, but their switches are not nearly as feature-rich relative to switching as their routers are, relative to routing. Mikroik's switching is definitely not as feature-rich as the major vendors' switches. Thus - if you need more than the basic switch functions, you're going to need to look elsewhere.

Right now, like it or not, IGMP snooping is such a feature. If you want one box that does it all, then apparently, that box isn't made by Mikrotik.

If you want one box that does it all, then apparently, that box isn't made by Mikrotik.

do not abuse the forum if you have nothing to say on the subject issues

If you want one box that does it all, then apparently, that box isn't made by Mikrotik.

do not abuse the forum if you have nothing to say on the subject issues

What I said is very much on topic.

There are threads such as this one
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... ng#p317694

Where Janisk says that the status of IGMP snooping has been upgraded from "never-ever" to "maybe in a future version" . . . in 2012.

Subsequent posts in that thread and others show that the official position of Mikrotik regarding IGMP snooping is a resounding "meh"
(this could have changed more recently, but due to a lack of positive participation in IGMP snooping threads on the part of Mikrotik, I've still got the impression that their position hasn't warmed much)

Requesting a feature is one thing - and I agree that it's a great feature to have. I'm 100% in favor of ROS bridging and HW switches being able to support this.

However, there seem to be a lot of people who are urgently needing this feature - and waiting since 2012? That's what my point is - if you really really need the feature, then by all means, purchase something that does the job right now. What happens when ROSv7 finally reaches Beta if it still doesn't support IGMP snooping in their layer 2 feature set? How angry will you be then?

Where Janisk says that the status of IGMP snooping has been upgraded from "never-ever" to "maybe in a future version" . . . in 2012.

4 years have passed , but this feature has not implemented in ROS .
a lot of people waiting for the implementation of this , but there is no information from developers when it will be implemented .
I am not angry.

I will remind you once a week if you do not take into account the wishes of customers

I used multicast for the first time in my network today and was shocked to see that the switch on my RB850Gx2 was flooding on all ports (including the CPU!) resulting in 80%+ CPU usage and kicking slower devices off the network. Even a $35 switch from TP-LINK supports IGMP snooping, it's a basic requirement in today's networks.

Even a $35 switch from TP-LINK supports IGMP snooping.

Which exact $35 model are you talking about? Can you please provide some references? Thanks.

Which exact $35 model are you talking about? Can you please provide some references? Thanks.

http://www.tp-link.com/baltic/products/ ... 741ND.html

http://www.tp-link.com/baltic/products/ ... 741ND.html

That thing does NOT support IGMP snooping, it only supports IGMP proxy. My question regarding $35 device was specifically about IGMP snooping (please see what was quoted/referred to there).

That thing does NOT support IGMP snooping, it only supports IGMP proxy. My question regarding $35 device was specifically about IGMP snooping (please see what was quoted/referred to there).

what's the difference? this router normally shows IPTV

If for your IPTV IGMP proxy is enough then it is already supported in RouterOS
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Routing/IGMP-Proxy

If for your IPTV IGMP proxy is enough then it is already supported in RouterOS
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Routing/IGMP-Proxy

For this instruction does not work as it should work!
increased CPU load on all ports increased activity and as a consequence the local network does not operate properly .
When you perform IGMP snooping ??

If your TV works fine with a device that has no IGMP snooping, only proxy, are you sure you need Snooping at all? It looks like you are not really sure what causes the problem and how to solve it. Maybe start from beginning and test other approaches. 

igmp proxy not enought, needed igmp proxy. Big secret why you dont want to implement this feature.

igmp proxy not enought, needed igmp proxy. Big secret why you dont want to implement this feature.

how can you be sure? see above, some other device apparently works with only proxy support. I only want to know if you have checked thoroughly 

how can you be sure? 

lol i'm sure because i need this feature.

If your TV works fine with a device that has no IGMP snooping, only proxy, are you sure you need Snooping at all? It looks like you are not really sure what causes the problem and how to solve it. Maybe start from beginning and test other approaches. 

I do not have TV , I have 2 laptops and a smartphone , I want normal watch IPTV on these devices , no matter how it will be called , snooping , or even how to.kak I wrote above configuration of the wiki, excessive CPU usage and activity on the ports.

Did you report the problem to support with attached supout file?