|
I've been trying to get USB Tethering to Work with my RB2011 and a Galaxy S5 and I for the life of me cannot figure this poo poo out. I thought it was pretty obvious, but once again, all we proved is that I don't know nearly as much about networking as I think I do. Config capture is included. Basically, I added a DHCP client, a masq rule and that's it. I figured that's all I'd need, but it doesn't really work. I might just need a second set of eyes to tell me where I forgot something stupid... 
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Wow, I am hugely impressed by this. So much nicer than the lovely netgear I was using before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Should I be concerned about a 1000 mW antenna off of one of these wifi routers being so close to both? No more concerned than you should be about your cell phone in your pocket or your laptop on your lap. That is to say not at all. One watt is basically nothing, plus it's non-ionizing radiation so it can't damage atomic structures anyways. You have to get to the high end of light on the electromagnetic spectrum (ultraviolet and up) before electromagnetic radiation of any kind becomes inherently dangerous. The only physical effect you'll receive from WiFi or any other radio signal is heating. At high powers this can be significant, your microwave oven uses the same frequency range as 802.11b/g and the low band of n. It also has hundreds to over a thousand watts of power directed in to a small chamber designed to reflect it around for maximum efficiency. Compare this to one single watt being emitted in all directions with no containment. If you're using a normal omnidirectional antenna the amount of the signal that hits you at all drops off massively the further you get away from it. From even two feet you're only in the path of a tiny fraction of the emitted radiation, and clearly you don't absorb anywhere close to all of it since your laptop and cell phone still work just fine when you or anyone else are in between them and the access point. Needless to say, the heating effect is practically immeasurable. Humans on average emit 60 watts of heat when resting apparently, so if you share your bed with another human they'd be heating you significantly more than the WiFi. tl;dr: Don't worry about radio waves unless they're from a high-power directional source aimed at you. wolrah fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:I've been trying to get USB Tethering to Work with my RB2011 and a Galaxy S5 and I for the life of me cannot figure this poo poo out. I thought it was pretty obvious, but once again, all we proved is that I don't know nearly as much about networking as I think I do. US Cellular wants me to pay them to tether things to my phone. Does your provider do anything similar?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Wow, I am hugely impressed by this. So much nicer than the lovely netgear I was using before. The leap from making GBS threads consumer gear is a stark difference. Pretty soon you'll have a 19" half-rack in your basement with 96-port patch panels, and telling all your friends that they don't know what they're missing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
wolrah posted:wordswordswords Thanks for the reassuring words, as I figured as much. Just seeing one of their units go from 50 mW to the next going to 1000 mW was kind of 'woah what?'
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:The leap from making GBS threads consumer gear is a stark difference. Pretty soon you'll have a 19" half-rack in your basement with 96-port patch panels, and telling all your friends that they don't know what they're missing. Yeah no poo poo. One thing that I'm wondering though: should I be doing anything with my firewall filter rules? My shitbox I had before didn't really have any sort of configuration options for it, and I run Ubuntu so I'm not exactly hanging a bunch of open ports out publicly. Right now I've got NAT enabled per the wiki's quickstart guide, is that good enough? edit: per this link on the wiki: "No access from the Internet will be possible to the Local addresses. If you want to allow connections to the server on the local network, you should use destination Network Address Translation (NAT)". I only configured one NAT rule, and it's a srcnat, so I should be fine right? I am not a book fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Do you want to have children yes/no? If yes, what is the minimum level of deformity acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
BurgerQuest posted:Do you want to have children yes/no? If yes, what is the minimum level of deformity acceptable? Hahahah it's funny to me because I run into folks who believe this stuff. 1000 milliWatts of microwave radiation ain't no thang. It's 1 Watt. You get more energy across your skin from a 60 Watt lightbulb and THAT you can actually feel heating you up if you put your arm up next to it. It's much higher energy stuff too than microwaves. As was stated earlier, if you have a focused beam of microwaves and enough power behind it then it can cook you just like your home ovens. You shouldn't ever be in a situation where that is possible but if you are - don't stand in front of an active microwave emitter horn at an airbase. You will not like the results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
I guess when I saw the mW I thought it was actually MW, which is quite a difference. But having that thing a couple of feet away from where I sleep did make me wonder when I saw the 50mW versus 1000mW difference, heh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I guess when I saw the mW I thought it was actually MW, which is quite a difference. God, a 1000MW omnidirectional wireless G card would power fry pretty much anything within a dozen meters, and gently caress up anything and everything that has a wireless antenna for a few hundred miles. At 1 GW transmitted power, you could dangle a turkey from a stick at 75 meters and have it absorb 1000W of microwave radiation, assuming the transmitter was an idealized spherical emitter. That kind of power would allow you to get reasonably good wifi service on the moon. Possibly mars as well if you upped the TCP rwin and timeouts sufficiently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Anyone heard anything about the new RB850? There's a thread on their forums where people are saying it has a max mtu of 1506.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
thebigcow posted:Anyone heard anything about the new RB850? There's a thread on their forums where people are saying it has a max mtu of 1506. That would be bizarre. What in the hell? It looks like a platform upgrade over the RB450G so why would they lock it down to some goofy MTU? We haven't gotten any in at work yet so I'll see if our guys go nuts fiddling with these things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:That would be bizarre. What in the hell? It looks like a platform upgrade over the RB450G so why would they lock it down to some goofy MTU? We haven't gotten any in at work yet so I'll see if our guys go nuts fiddling with these things. Its weird because its the same switch chip in every current model so its either the CPU or a Latvian mystery. Its interesting that they put out another PPC based model. The benchmark results were in one of their threads and its roughly twice as powerful as the RB2011 boards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
They appear to have listed 1506 as MTU in their wiki http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Maximum_Transmission_Unit_on_RouterBoards With a faster-ish CPU and 512MB of RAM it seems like it would make a better SLA or monitoring device since it does have a serial port and temperature sensor. Toss one somewhere and maybe run Dude on it or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Yeah no poo poo. One thing that I'm wondering though: should I be doing anything with my firewall filter rules? My shitbox I had before didn't really have any sort of configuration options for it, and I run Ubuntu so I'm not exactly hanging a bunch of open ports out publicly. Right now I've got NAT enabled per the wiki's quickstart guide, is that good enough? Anyone? I'm not trying to do anything fancy, I just want to make sure no one can log in from the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Anyone? I'm not trying to do anything fancy, I just want to make sure no one can log in from the internet. Log into your Mikrotik and type this into a terminal window: ip firewall filter export Post the results, that will tell us what rules you have configured. You can scrub any sensitive IP's but we'll probably laugh at you if you do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:Log into your Mikrotik and type this into a terminal window: add chain=input comment="default configuration" protocol=icmp add chain=input comment="default configuration" connection-state=established add chain=input comment="default configuration" connection-state=related add action=drop chain=input comment="default configuration" in-interface=ether1-gateway add chain=forward comment="default configuration" connection-state=established add chain=forward comment="default configuration" connection-state=related add action=drop chain=forward comment="default configuration" connection-state=invalid
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
quote:add action=drop chain=input comment="default configuration" in-interface=ether1-gateway You're set. Unsolicited inbound connections get kicked to the curb, assuming you are using DHCP or a static IP on your ether1-gateway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:using DHCP or a static IP on your ether1-gateway. What other options are there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Speaking of firewalls, is there an easy way to block a certain port from going out certain ports? I use cFos for traffic shaping, but I only need it on my home server / main computer. However it spams out the other ports of my router constantly, so I was curious if there was a way to force it to only be able to send port traffic out specific ports.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:What other options are there? PPPoE primarily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
New update is out, apparently SD cards work again 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
I'm looking at the first script here, and I'm a little unsure about what is going on around line 10:code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:I'm looking at the first script here, and I'm a little unsure about what is going on around line 10: The Mikrotik CLI is kinda sorta trying to pretend to be a file system. The "/ip dhcp-server lease" indicates that it's going into that "directory." Since you're there, you can just do 'find' instead of having to fully-qualify it with "/ip dhcp-server lease find". The second one probably isn't strictly necessary, but it certainly won't hurt anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:The Mikrotik CLI is kinda sorta trying to pretend to be a file system. The "/ip dhcp-server lease" indicates that it's going into that "directory." Since you're there, you can just do 'find' instead of having to fully-qualify it with "/ip dhcp-server lease find". Ok, I see that, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Ok, for the life of me I can't figure out how to see what IP space is allocated to my wlan. I've tried /ip address but it seems to only show the ethernet address space, and I've tried /wireless but the only option is "export".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
If there are IP addresses assigned to your wireless interface, they should be under /ip address. Are you sure you've actually assigned one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
The default setup (at least on the devices I've got - 751/951) is to bridge the local network ports and the wireless device and use the the same IP / DHCP server for the bridge rather than assigning different addresses to the wireless / ethernet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
The range of addresses available to the DHCP server are under: /ip pool
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:The range of addresses available to the DHCP server are under: /ip pool Awesome, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Updated the OP with some new info about Apple products and Universal Plug-n-Play. Update 12/19/2014: Here are some settings that seem to work well for Apple products connecting to the wireless routers like RB951 and RB751: code:code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Ok, for the life of me I can't figure out how to see what IP space is allocated to my wlan. I've tried /ip address but it seems to only show the ethernet address space, and I've tried /wireless but the only option is "export". The export command dumps out all of the code for any specific place you're in. /ip address export will dump out any code on the router under the sub-fields of /ip address. Typing export from / will dump out all code that the router currently has on anything. Mikrotik CLI is pretty cool like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I have a RB750 connected to a Netgear DSL modem, the RB750 handles the PPPoE connection for AT&T. Yes, I hate it. But, I have this problem with Amazon where half the time the page will not load. I do not notice this ANYWHERE else, but Amazon. I've tried turning off IPv6 with no improvement, I've tried loving around with MTU, no improvement. I'm using Google's DNS settings. What else should I try to get Amazon to load correctly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
I take it you've tried with multiple computers behind your router to show that it is the actual router having the problem?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Sounds like a possible MTU issue, but strange that it's only happening to Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I take it you've tried with multiple computers behind your router to show that it is the actual router having the problem? Multiple computers, multiple browsers. Happens on tablets (no adblock), happens on my Wife's work laptop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:Updated the OP with some new info about Apple products and Universal Plug-n-Play. Simple question but for that firewall rule that disabled remote UPnP drops, because I have two PPPoE interface for internet connections, instead of choosing an "In-Interface" and I instead do "Src-Address != 192.168.88.0/32"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Mug posted:Simple question but for that firewall rule that disabled remote UPnP drops, because I have two PPPoE interface for internet connections, instead of choosing an "In-Interface" and I instead do "Src-Address != 192.168.88.0/32"? I'd add two filter rules that target your PPPoE interfaces. We run PPPoE for our customers so that's how we usually have that rule written. Something like this: code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Okay cool, I'll just do that then. edit: Also what the hell's the point of "Allow UPnP to disable external interface"? If we have that enabled, and we don't have that firewall rule in place, can arseholes remotely disable our PPPoE?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:45
|
|