# DVR's Connected Through Mikrotik Router (RouterOS) - Dropping Off



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Hello all, I searched this section and couldn't find a thread that covered the issue I'm seeing on my home network. I recently upgraded my home router to a Mikrotik device running RouterOS. Connected my DVR's (listed below) and everything seems good. However, I have a weird issue where DVR's will disappear or become unaware of each other on the network.

My first thought was something odd with my UPNP settings but I can't find anything wrong with that config, in fact I have other UPNP devices that seem to work alright on the network. When the DVR's "drop off" the network, I test the connection (on the DVR) and they seem to be connected to the Internet (and the LAN) just fine. In fact I can take advantage of features like On Demand and "Play From Start" even when the DVR's appear to have dropped off.

I have a gut feeling this is something in my router and this may be a long shot post however I thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone has experience with RouterOS and DirecTV HD DVR's routing through it.

DVR List is as follows:
HR20-700
HR21-200
HR22-100
HR34-700


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Your gut it right
Good luck my friend
:rolling:


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

VOS,

Good hearing from you. Can you remind me what the service ports do again?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Sure.... nothing :lol:

TVapps used part of the code for network services, but nothing else.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Thanks for the heads up.

While I don't think it would make a difference I disabled a rule that drops invalid packets and the DVR in question popped right back up. Odd for sure, not sure what to make of it yet. I'll let you know if it falls off again or if it remains stable.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Radio Enginerd said:


> Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> While I don't think it would make a difference I disabled a rule that drops invalid packets and the DVR in question popped right back up. Odd for sure, not sure what to make of it yet. I'll let you know if it falls off again or if it remains stable.


If you haven't already, set a static (or reserved) IP on the offending DVR - or all. I like Static addresses on items that don't leave my network for easier future troubleshooting.

Some routers have some wonky DHCP implementations.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Sounds to me like your router is not handling correctly the "link local" IP addresses that the DVRs use to communicate with each other for whole home (these are not the same IP addresses that are used for internet). If that were the case, internet connectivity would be fine but whole home would have issues.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> Sounds to me like your router is not handling correctly the "link local" IP addresses that the DVRs use to communicate with each other for whole home (these are not the same IP addresses that are used for internet). If that were the case, internet connectivity would be fine but whole home would have issues.


What are there "link local" IP addresses???
Pre Genie the receivers and DVRs only had one IP that I know of.
It is either from the router or self assigned [169.xxx]

Genies & clients are the only ones I know of that have both the router IP and "local" IP.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> What are there "link local" IP addresses???
> Pre Genie the receivers and DVRs only had one IP that I know of.
> It is either from the router or self assigned [169.xxx]
> 
> Genies & clients are the only ones I know of that have both the router IP and "local" IP.


I think Texas is talking about the 169. . . local addresses. If you remember in our early days of MRV, we could hook up 2 HR2x with just an Ethernet cable and they would work and use their 169 address.

But I've still seen various problems with DHCP addresses on some routers.

I think Genies use the 169 addresses for the Clients just because it's non-routable.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> I think Texas is talking about the 169. . . local addresses. If you remember in our early days of MRV, we could hook up 2 HR2x with just an Ethernet cable and they would work and use their 169 address.
> 
> But I've still seen various problems with DHCP addresses on some routers.
> 
> I think Genies use the 169 addresses for the Clients just because it's non-routable.


"The thing is...."
If the router is assigning an IP then there isn't a 169.xxx like the Genie/client also have.
This is my confusion with his post.
This confusion could also mislead the TS too.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "The thing is...."
> If the router is assigning an IP then there isn't a 169.xxx like the Genie/client also have.
> This is my confusion with his post.
> This confusion could also mislead the TS too.


My HR20-700 lists 169.254.9.16 as Link Local in the Advanced Network Setup and I have a static address also set for my network.

I added a 169.254.9.1 address to my laptop NIC and can ping the HR20. These APIPA addresses are assigned to every NIC and oddly enough, was designed by Microsoft and later embraced by the industry.

The Genie / Client are the only devices I've seen that appear to continue to use them after DHCP or Static addresses are assigned.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> My HR20-700 lists 169.254.9.16 as Link Local in the Advanced Network Setup and I have a static address also set for my network.
> 
> I added a 169.254.9.1 address to my laptop NIC and can ping the HR20. These APIPA addresses are assigned to every NIC and oddly enough, was designed by Microsoft and later embraced by the industry.
> 
> The Genie / Client are the only devices I've seen that appear to continue to use them after DHCP or Static addresses are assigned.


That's a new one on me.
It's been a long time since I had a HR20 and even longer that I bothered to look at the advanced networking.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

I'm obviously (maybe) confused on this one. I was under the impression that the DVRs continued to use the link local addresses for the communication between the DVRs for whole home, even when they had assigned IP addresses for internet communications. I've seen a couple of previous posts where the router was directing the link local messages to the internet, or marking the link local messages as potential spoofing, and so the whole home communication was being dropped.
I would of course be very interested to know for sure.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Wow, very interesting information.

I see the link local address on the DVR's. Still not sure what to do to fix this issue.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Radio Enginerd said:


> Wow, very interesting information.
> 
> I see the link local address on the DVR's. Still not sure what to do to fix this issue.


Have you tried a static address on the offending DVR?


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Yes, all the DVR's have static addresses.

I think you guys are onto something with the link-local addressing. I notice that when a DVR's has disappeared, if I go to the DVR in question and look at the networking configuration, the link-local address is blank. When it finally decides to start working again, I see a 169.254.0.0 address.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Radio Enginerd said:


> Yes, all the DVR's have static addresses.
> 
> I think you guys are onto something with the link-local addressing. I notice that when a DVR's has disappeared, if I go to the DVR in question and look at the networking configuration, the link-local address is blank. When it finally decides to start working again, I see a 169.254.0.0 address.


What do I need to move them over to DECA? How costly would that be?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Radio Enginerd said:


> Yes, all the DVR's have static addresses.
> 
> I think you guys are onto something with the link-local addressing. I notice that when a DVR's has disappeared, if I go to the DVR in question and look at the networking configuration, the link-local address is blank. When it finally decides to start working again, I see a 169.254.0.0 address.


Is the normal IP address blank or still there? If blank does the correct static come back?


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

The static IP, GW, DNS, etc are all still there. In fact if I do a connection test, everything looks great. But when/if that link-local address is blank, I press list and only see the items on the local DVR. Every once in awhile it will reappear for awhile and when it does I can see other DVR's. If I remove my Mikrotik router and put in a plane Jane Netgear, the problem goes away. Clearly it has something to do with my router, just bummed that it doesn't seem to use the assigned IP. I confirmed this by looking at firewall rules and routing tables.

Why not use the actual IP? Wish I understood this logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Radio Enginerd said:


> What do I need to move them over to DECA? How costly would that be?


3 of these for the non Genie: http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=DECA1MR01&ss=415521
And green labeled splitters: http://www.solidsignal.com/search.asp?q=splitters&r=12&p=1&s=relevancy&f=manufacturer:directv;

The Genie can bridge the DECA network to your router


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

I was pretty sure I knew how this worked but will defer to VOS if he has another explanation. When you connect the boxes together for whole-home without a router they use the 169 IP addresses. When you connect them to a router, they get an IP allocated by DCHP, but they continue to use the 169 IP addresses to communicate with each other as link-local for whole home. If something in the router screws up the management of this link-local "network", one or more of the boxes will lose whole-home. That's why people with these issues often find changing the router solves the problems.
I saw one post from someone who found his router was sending all 169 addressed packets to the external network. Another found his router was intercepting them all as "spoofing" attempts.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

169 is a internal Ip address -it isn't going anywhere (as in) bad IP address or no network-

Each box needs a valid IP address either assigned from a Router or user Assigned as STATIC IP address for the network-The latter works better if you have a lot of network devices on your home network as it one thing less the D* receiver has to look for on boot up.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> I was pretty sure I knew how this worked but will defer to VOS if he has another explanation.


If this were RF there wouldn't be a question, but networking isn't my strong suit, so others surely know more and I'm merely questioning.
"It just seems" other than Genie/client that IPs are either internal 169.xxx or from the router and there isn't a sub/local network. "But then" :shrug:


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

WestDC, not sure I fully agree or understand what you're saying. Looking at connections across the router, I see 169.254 attempts made to the router so they're using that addressing for something.

My boxes all have static IP's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> 3 of these for the non Genie: http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=DECA1MR01&ss=415521
> And green labeled splitters: http://www.solidsignal.com/search.asp?q=splitters&r=12&p=1&s=relevancy&f=manufacturer:directv;
> 
> The Genie can bridge the DECA network to your router


That's all I need? I assume the splitters are for any splitters downstream from the SWIM output?

On the genie. you have to coax connected and then the Internet connection just happens of the LAN port?


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Is there any reason I shouldn't go for an "old generation" DECA adapter? Check this Amazon link. This company is clearly trying to clear out generation 1 adapters.

http://www.amazon.com/DIRECTV-Receiver-Ethernet-DECA1MR01-Generation/dp/B0041INCYI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1420756631&sr=8-5&keywords=DECA


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Radio Enginerd said:


> Is there any reason I shouldn't go for an "old generation" DECA adapter? Check this Amazon link. This company is clearly trying to clear out generation 1 adapters.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/DIRECTV-Receiver-Ethernet-DECA1MR01-Generation/dp/B0041INCYI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1420756631&sr=8-5&keywords=DECA


This one looks even better.

Generation 2: http://www.amazon.com/DIRECTV-Broadband-Ethernet-Adapter-Generation/dp/B00DVK1ITI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420758556&sr=8-1&keywords=DECA

Any thoughts VOS?

Only $13 = this is a really simple decision to get them off the home LAN.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Radio Enginerd said:


> This one looks even better.
> 
> Generation 2: http://www.amazon.com/DIRECTV-Broadband-Ethernet-Adapter-Generation/dp/B00DVK1ITI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420758556&sr=8-1&keywords=DECA
> 
> ...


Old/new all will work the same.
#2 is a DECA with power supply which you don't need because the HR34 ethernet port does the same thing.
If you currently have green labeled splitters, there's no need to change them.
If yours are still the old silver then you do need to change because the DECA signal need lower isolation between outputs


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Radio Enginerd said:


> WestDC, not sure I fully agree or understand what you're saying. Looking at connections across the router, I see 169.254 attempts made to the router so they're using that addressing for something.
> 
> My boxes all have static IP's.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I posted, as far as I know the whole home continues to use the 169 IP addresses even when there is a router.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

First off, thanks to all of you for the feedback.

I spoke with Mikrotik support and they confirmed the router abides by RFC standards and treats these addresses as they should be dropped. I've gone ahead and created some manual routes for 169.254.0.0/16 traffic and everything seems to magically work like it should. I think this confirms (what Texasbrit says), the DVR's use "link-local" in one form or another. When looking at the router I see multiple connections (TCP and UDP) using the link-local addresses of the DVR's. 

With that said, here's what I did to fix my problem should someone else discover this thread and need the same kind of help. 

Created a routing gateway of 169.254.0.254 with a netmask of 255.255.0.0 assigning it to my Bridge Interface (where all the DVR's are connected through):
* /ip address> add address=169.254.0.254 netmask= 255.255.0.0 **interface=Bridge_LAN*

Created a segment for 169.254.0.0/16 traffic:
*/ip route> add dst-address=169.254.0.0/16 gateway=169.254.0.254*

There you have it.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Thanks for the confirmation that the liknk-local continues to be used for whole home. It seems that most routers allow the link-local to operate without modifying the default settings (my uverse router certainly does) but some need to have some settings modified.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> Thanks for the confirmation that the liknk-local continues to be used for whole home. It seems that most routers allow the link-local to operate without modifying the default settings (my uverse router certainly does) but some need to have some settings modified.


Agree, most consumer grade routers allow 169.254.0.0/16 addressing without issue. It wasn't until I started to geek out with RouterOS that I got in too deep. 

I found some DECA equipment pretty cheap so I might still put them on DECA for the heck of it. Who knows. 

Thanks again for your help.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> Thanks for the confirmation that the liknk-local continues to be used for whole home. It seems that most routers allow the link-local to operate without modifying the default settings (my uverse router certainly does) but some need to have some settings modified.





Radio Enginerd said:


> Agree, most consumer grade routers allow 169.254.0.0/16 addressing without issue. It wasn't until I started to geek out with RouterOS that I got in too deep.
> 
> I found some DECA equipment pretty cheap so I might still put them on DECA for the heck of it. Who knows.
> Thanks again for your help.


This is why you don't send an RF type to fix a network or a network type for RF :rolling:


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> This is why you don't send an RF type to fix a network or a network type for RF :rolling:


What if you can do both? 

Thanks VOS, good chatting with you again. Hope you're well.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> This is why you don't send an RF type to fix a network or a network type for RF :rolling:


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Something's wonky with your router. Local IPs (192.168.x.x) or the 169.x.x.x addresses shouldn't be affected by your router other than assigning DHCP renewals.

Static addresses and the 169s - your router should just be nothing more than a switch, unless the statics want to go outside.

!69 addresses are NOT routable.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

dennisj00 - not sure about "wonky", just too smart for it's own good.


----------



## PlanB (Jan 7, 2015)

dennisj00 said:


> Something's wonky with your router. Local IPs (192.168.x.x) or the 169.x.x.x addresses shouldn't be affected by your router other than assigning DHCP renewals.
> 
> Static addresses and the 169s - your router should just be nothing more than a switch, unless the statics want to go outside.
> 
> !69 addresses are NOT routable.


It seems more like the receivers are getting confused because he's assigned static DHCP / IP's and also has the Link Local... in which case they would be two distinct networks and the router might be asked to route - by default it won't. It's weird that this was brought out by a a router change as I would guess that almost every make and model would also comply with RFC 3927.

Technically, Link Local was designed to allow devices on a local network to connect to each other if a DHCP server wasn't available. I'm guessing this is why the DirecTV equipment uses it - to not require a customer to have a network infrastructure in place for Whole Home to work.

What's also weird is Radio stated that one of his devices was "losing" it's Link Local IP. Almost seems like some IP conflicts or DHCP conflicts.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Radio Enginerd said:


> dennisj00 - not sure about "wonky", just too smart for it's own good.


Yes, as I said most routers just handle the 169 link-local correctly, but we've seen a few threads like this one where it did not happen, usually from "advanced" routers.


----------



## joshcan (Mar 17, 2015)

Thanks for this! I was having exactly the same issue and it had maddened me!


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Joshcan - I was driving me crazy for some time, I know how you feel.


----------



## p38fln (Aug 25, 2017)

Radio Enginerd said:


> First off, thanks to all of you for the feedback.
> 
> I spoke with Mikrotik support and they confirmed the router abides by RFC standards and treats these addresses as they should be dropped. I've gone ahead and created some manual routes for 169.254.0.0/16 traffic and everything seems to magically work like it should. I think this confirms (what Texasbrit says), the DVR's use "link-local" in one form or another. When looking at the router I see multiple connections (TCP and UDP) using the link-local addresses of the DVR's.
> 
> ...


I can confirm that this is still required if you have a Mikrotik router - and this solution works perfectly.


----------

