Just one thing I've noticed with MT, bridging vs switching, I had to have routes in an RB750UP set up with bridging or traffic would do strange things.
Set up switching and bridge the ether1 port and I don't have that problem. Tracert and ping would show route redirects every other ping in bridge without routes in the 750. Setting ports 3-5 to use ether2 as the master and I don't have the redirect issue anymore. It also can't do QoS on port to port traffic in switch mode, works fine from ether1 to the switch chip though. ----- Original Message ----- From: That One Guy /sarcasm To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist Im probably mucking our whole network up, but we are putting a mikrotik rb1200ahx2 at each site, each backhaul goes into its own port for routing and running OSPF, there is a /30 between each site for router to router and the ospf traffic, a /30 secondary on each interface for the local backhaul radio to communicate. I just finished isolating the big layer 2 into chunks and will push the routers out to each site as time permits, but from our primary center point there are 4 isolated layer 2 networks connecting into the mikrotik. at the site, depending on the number of "LAN" side devices and number of backhauls, Im either creating a bridge on the mikrotik, or connecting to a site switch. this is saving us a ton of dough in switches, since these routers are so cheap, we pay less for them than one of the two switches at the sites We are turning up our first of the redundant paths tomorrow on the OSPF network, so learning how to toy with the metrics should be interesting. After all the work and hammering it turns out its pretty simple. With the OSPF people have yelled about distributing connected routes, its easier to do, but ive caused myself trouble a couple of times already so I see why people get so emotional about it On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Glen Waldrop <[email protected]> wrote: I'm running Mikrotik, all routed, got a different subnet for each tower, got a different subnet between each tower, public IP's routed to the customers, all the fun stuff. I'm thinking of restructuring my network so the entire backbone is one big L2 network. If I plug into the switch at the tower at tower 5 it will be no different than tower 1 or 7. Each AP would still have it's own subnet, but the backside of each AP would be on the same L2 as the rest. I'm planning on looping it all the way around and building redundancy into the network, haven't quite decided how I'm going to do that yet, might use STP, that is a little ways down the road. I'll have another fiber feed in case the main goes down and I'd like to have a level of redundancy should a tower go out, I'll only lose the one rather than the ones behind it as well. I've fried my brain today, so if I'm sounding half crazy, just tell me to take the rest of the day off... I'm thinking it might be best to have a few large L2 segments to the backbone, maybe three or four, rather than one big L2 and much simpler than 12+ subnets from tower to tower. Input is appreciated. -- 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.
