Hi all, I have some strange problem.

Scenario: RB450G with one wan (ether1) and one lan (private) with srcnat active. Both interfaces have static ip. Fixed public ip in ether1 200.xx.xx.xx, connected to my ISP, and fixed public in lan, in a private range 10.10.10.1/24.

chain=srcnat action=src-nat to-addresses=200.xx.xx.xx src-address=10.10.10.0/24 out-interface=ether1

(I make proofs with masquerading too with same results as follows).

chain=srcnat action=masquerade src-address=10.10.20.0/24 out-interface=ether1

我把我的电脑局域网接口后面,我可以导航igate without any aproblem in any site... of course: with windows xp: everything works fine.

But in my notebook with Windows Vista Home I obtain randonmly results: some sites doesnt respond at all, connection refused, ping lost, some hosts becomes unreachables while others responds ok, other sites works fine and others too slow... and overall ever randomly, the rare is there is no patrons of behaviors... this behavior drives me crazy... when I connect this notebook behind other routers everything works ok.

anybody knows whats happens and/or the solution?

Do you have a VPN client on the Vista machine? I've seen behaviour like this when a VPN client has been configured to route all 10.0.0.0/16 traffic via the vpn (Lazy admins!). If you do, completely shut down the vpn, open a dos box as admininstrator, and do ipconfig /release followed by ipconfig /renew and just to be safe, ipconfig /flushdns

I doubt your problem is with the RB, unless your getting some wierd MTU on the Vista machine, which would be the next thing to check

Regards

Jimbo

Thank you Jimbo.

I have disabled al "tunnels" connections and virtual interfaces in Vista (teredo, ISATAP, and others). I disabled all the protocols over each interface in Vista, I have now only active and configured tcp/ip v4 over LAN connection.

I probe it too with another RB450G, and I probe it too with another machine with Vista.

Same dissapointing results.

I.E. from winbox ping to google.com RB450G responds ok!... but at the same time in Windows Vista I only see "destination unreachable".. after a few minuts ping starts ok... but each site (any others) becomes "unreachable" and continuisly go on and go off the pings.

In others routers (I.E. huawei, linksys, etc.) windows vista works ok behind NAT with a private ip.

I think it is some type of incompatibility between Vista (Home Edition at least) and Mikrotik 3.30... and early versions too.

Any other with the same problem?

I forgot it: the MTU value in Vista and in the RB is 1500. Checked.

I probe putting MTU = 1480 and MTU = 1460 and same results.

It is very frustrating.

I think is some problem in Mikrotik, because the same machine with Vista works fine behind others common routers.

faulty cable or ethernet speed mismatch? if vista wasn't compatible we would have the forums full of people screaming, so im sure it's something in your particular setup.

I would also look at the cable. Maybe a virus is hiding in the background. Oh wait that IS vista.

Seriously though what service pack? The default Vista needed all sorts of TCP/IP and network tuning before it would work properly.

Not so Windows 7.

After very much probes, the result is the same. Some sites responds, the majority not. From MK ping to some sites responds ok, at the same time from ping in Vista to the same site I obtain a "destination unreachable" message from the "wan" ip address of Mk. In timeline some sites stop responding, others starts.

A brief sum of all things I test are:

1) Test Cable: its ok. Doens't work.
2) I put a switch between pc with Vista and MK. Doens't work.
3) I configure the gigabit nic in PC to 100 mb full duplex. Doens't work.
4) After install Service Pack 2 in Vista while take a drink (light beer), doens't work.
5) After system reset configuration in MK and starts again... doens't work.
6) I put the wan interface of MK in ether3.. and reconfigure... doens't work.
7) I remove MK from between and get connected the PC Vista directly to linksys router: works fine.
Back in the battle I put the MK between, back the drama.
9) Vudu rituals over MK... doens't work at all.
I can say I an advanced technical admin of a cable and wls ISP with more than 1300 clients.

And if I want to put this in production as router I should be sure to the ROS will work ok INCLUDING all the clients with Windows Vista. Tells it to back to Windows XP is not an option, because they would said the fault is mine, not the Windows Vista. I can tell too that the rb450g is greatest solution as bridge with pcq trees and firewalling filters... I have 10 units in production from 3 months ago and they are worked great with ALL the clientes, including VIsta clients. BUT in router mode they make me crazy.

Now I will probe downgrading the RB450G to earlier version of ROS to check... some news soon ! (thanks all guys for the support).

anyone know which is the previous stable version indicated thats support drives for rb450g?

your "ip route print" has 2 entries under the default gateway, one with the IP and one with the interface. Why is that? I wonder if thats part of the problem.

Also, are you double natting? I wonder why your public ip is a private ip, or was that for forum privacy?

Is IPv6 package loaded?

Sam

your "ip route print" has 2 entries under the default gateway, one with the IP and one with the interface. Why is that? I wonder if thats part of the problem.

Also, are you double natting? I wonder why your public ip is a private ip, or was that for forum privacy?

Is IPv6 package loaded?

Sam

Hi Sam, first at all:

a) All ipv6 was disabled in Vista. Too the tunnels and virtual interfaces and Teredo Tunneling and ISATAP are turn off. ONLY tcp/ip v4 is enabled.
b) The last test was made in double natting, but the previous test was conducted with one public fixed ip in ether3 of MK, with same results.

BUT... I'm concern about you comment of the 2 entries below the default gateway... this two entries appears automatically when I config the addresses of interfaces under winbox. Any problem with this config? May also I should delete some of this lines to do work? Really I do not put attention on this detail.

PROBLEM SOLVED !!!!!!!!!!!! THANKS SAM !!!

YOU'RE RIGHT !!!
Deleting "ether3" in the config everything works fine !!!!!!

You save my soul !!! thank you thank you thank you very much...

You win a beer !

yes, you were using ECMP with one route that wasn't working properly, so probably half the time it worked. Not sure why XP wouldnt have the same problems however.

I dont know why... but in windows XP all works fine... with the same config. A total mistery.