Page 1 of 1
Feature Request: PVST+/MSTP
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:13 am
by hedele
Hi there
Are there any plans to include PVST+ (or MSTP) as an option for Bridges?
While it is an option to create a separate bridge for each VLAN and enable RSTP,
this pretty much sucks when you have to bridge more then a couple of VLANs.
Then again... I don't see how a Bridge would know about all the VLANs contained in the stuff that is being bridged.
So, there would need to be an option to give a list of VLAN IDs for which a STP instance should be created for
Well, that is just a shot in the wild blue since there is a dedicated SwOS line of devices and even these dont have PVST+ as far as I know...
Any comments on that?
Re: Feature Request: PVST+
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:54 am
by blake
Multiple Spanning Tree is a better solution IMO.
Re: Feature Request: PVST+
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:53 am
by hedele
Well, actually i dont care at all which one of those techniques is implemented
As long as there is any possibility for multiple STP instances on one bridge, I am happy.
Re: Feature Request: PVST+/MSTP
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:46 am
by FIPTech
I think you'll need a hardware switch to do this. Router OS is a good router, but the switch part is quite poor compared to entry level managed switches.
MSTP is more a switch function. With a hardware switch, you will get wire speed for level 2 functions. (even for bonding, meshing). Router OS is not able to do hardware Meshing or Bonding. This is a serious handicap for serious switching...
On a hardware switch you will get as well 802.1x, Provider Backbone Bridge or other level 2 functions you will not have with Linux based distributions like Router OS before a couple years at best.
Use each product for what he has been designed, or you will be disapointed.
Re: Feature Request: PVST+/MSTP
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:03 pm
by skip
Hi!
Several years later, still I'm wondering wether PVST+ is supported in RouterOS.
Can anyone clarify?
Re: Feature Request: PVST+/MSTP
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:04 pm
by NetworkPro
Hello,
MSTP would be nice and easy to use and should provide even better position on the market.
-NetworkPro
Re: Feature Request: PVST+/MSTP
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:29 pm
by pjinkcc
Wondering about this myself with some issues I am having between catalyst and ROS RSTP.
Re: Feature Request: PVST+/MSTP
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:34 pm
by NetworkPro
Honestly an SDN Layer that abstracts this crap would be preferably nowadays.
Vendor 1 supports 1 thing and didn't really document it, vendor 2 supports another - I do not want to waste time with shitty configurations of shitty implementations of shitty standards.
I have a packet flow from few servers to few firewalls that I want 100% connectivity with instant fail-over and instant fail-back. And I want to configure this in a nice HTML5 Web GUI by dragging with the mouse.
Not CLI and Not WinBox and definitely not getting a PHD or CCNP in STP RSTP MSTP loop protection vendor 1 loop protection vendor 2 native vlans, trunks, etc etc. why waste my time ?
Make an SDN controller that works with other vendors gear by doing a bit of reverse engineering and a lot of testing and put Web interface on it. Forget CLI and forget CCNP.
Re: Feature Request: PVST+/MSTP
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:49 pm
by bluecrow76
In case people haven't noticed yet, changes are afoot as of 6.40rc29 to bring MSTP to RouterOS. I noticed it in the release candidate channel firmware at 6.41rc11 (cli-only mode currently).
See the link below for the only reference to it on the Wiki:
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:I ... _Filtering