Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Josh Luthman
://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100916/ff4d4846/attachment.html

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Martín @ Ibersystems
/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik] Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ [http://blog.butchevans.com/] for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100916/e05ecee7

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Scott Reed
Tried basically that. Problem is the masquerade takes the management address, not the public. I am guessing masquerade uses the lowest address on the interface. On 9/16/2010 8:44 AM, Martín @ Ibersystems wrote: The masquerade rule is like: out-interface=etherX action masquerade or

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Scott Reed
Yeah, I just realized after I sent the question that should work. On 9/16/2010 8:41 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Use action srcnat, to address that you want to use. On Sep 16, 2010 8:22 AM, Scott Reedsr...@nwwnet.net wrote: I have a router that I need to have masquerade traffic destined for

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Rory McCann
attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100916/cf37544a/attachment.html ___ Mikrotik mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Josh Luthman
is the masquerade take... -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100916/cf37544a/attachment.html ___ Mikrotik mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Scott Reed
/mailto:r...@mkap.com On 9/16/2010 7:59 AM, Scott Reed wrote: Tried basically that. Problem is the masquerade take... -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100916/cf37544a/attachment.html

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 08:59 -0400, Scott Reed wrote: Tried basically that. Problem is the masquerade takes the management address, not the public. I am guessing masquerade uses the lowest address on the interface. It uses the first IP assigned to the outbound interface. You can't see the

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Scott Reed
Thanks, Butch. That makes sense, too. On 9/16/2010 11:48 AM, Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 08:59 -0400, Scott Reed wrote: Tried basically that. Problem is the masquerade takes the management address, not the public. I am guessing masquerade uses the lowest address on the

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Scott Reed
Do you have a comparison of the performance difference in src-nat and masquerade? On 9/16/2010 11:48 AM, Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 08:59 -0400, Scott Reed wrote: Tried basically that. Problem is the masquerade takes the management address, not the public. I am guessing

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Josh Luthman
You're saying that using srcnat uses more CPU then masquerade? Is that a Mikrotik thing or an iptables thing? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net wrote:  Thanks, Butch.

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 11:57 -0400, Scott Reed wrote: Do you have a comparison of the performance difference in src-nat and masquerade? Only that I have at times changed from one to the other and have not seen a change in the CPU or Memory usage graphs. I don't have any sort of scientific

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 11:59 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: You're saying that using srcnat uses more CPU then masquerade? Is that a Mikrotik thing or an iptables thing? I have seen very little difference in terms of cpu and masquerade. Nothing even measurable using the graphing tools. --

Re: [Mikrotik] Masquerade Question

2010-09-16 Thread Chupaka
/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100916/4fd93edc/attachment.html

[Mikrotik] MESH

2010-09-16 Thread John Babineaux
than 20 nodes and at least 3 Back hauls to a tower. John Radio Communications Service Louisiana -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100916/e1287bbc/attachment.html

[Mikrotik] Final chance to register...

2010-09-16 Thread Butch Evans
We are nearly at capacity for the upcoming training course being offered before the MUM in Phoenix on Sept 27-29. Visit http://store.wispgear.net/ to register. Also, I have some passes available to those interested in attending the MUM. Email me offlist to get your free pass. Both the

[Mikrotik] OSPF issues

2010-09-16 Thread james
Hi Guys We have a very big OSPF issues which is plaguing our network We get funny results when pinging our one client's PBX PING 192.168.43.2 (192.168.43.2) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.57.6: icmp_seq=1 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 172.26.7.3) 64 bytes from 192.168.43.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60