Never occurred to me that I might want to, to be honest. I’m not sure what the advantages to doing it on a loopback interface would be, for this application.
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik stable OS version For NAT, why wouldn’t you use a loopback interface intead of binding them to a physical interface? From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:52 PM To: [email protected] 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:32 PM To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von That One Guy /sarcasm Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2015 16:51 An: [email protected] 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.
