For NAT, why wouldn’t you use a loopback interface intead of binding them to a physical interface?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version Bah. I have a MT with 192 public addresses on one interface, doing either 1:1 nat or masquerade to each of them. The only real caveat is ‘make damn sure you have a firewall that deals with ssh/telnet/ftp login attempts’ or the CPU gets bogged down a bit, as each public IP will attract it’s own attacks. This instance started on 2.9.44 or so, on x86 I think, and has gone through various firmware and hardware upgrades since. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:32 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version for an interim move (I have to prove mikrotik to the boss) there could be as many as 90 at one point. Imagestream occasionally would get fussy if I had multiple router interfaces on the same physical network segment, does mikrotik get fussy about this? On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net <mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote: Likely no limit. How many are you trying to put on? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> _____ From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:18:08 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version Do these things have a limit to the number of secondary IPs you can put on an interface? I cant find it documented On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Stefan Englhardt <s...@genias.net <mailto:s...@genias.net> > wrote: No problems with newer 6.x Version. We’ve 6.15 and 6.25 running on them. Seems 6.x tree matures. But it is MT. You never know ;-)). Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] Im Auftrag von That One Guy /sarcasm Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2015 16:51 An: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Betreff: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version just got in an rb1100ahx2 What is the current most stable software version recomended on these? -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
