We do 99% of what we need on MT level 4. You only need level 5 or 6 if
you have a bunch of tunnels. Get what you need mainly based on
throughput and simultaneous connections. A lowly RB493 easily handles
tens of thousands simultaneous connections, and a X86 router probably
another order of magnitude. I think the typical connection table on any
of the newer boards can get up around 500,000 connections.
If you have solar powered sites, I think that MT is the only game in town.
I've had limited success with their switches, and I do not consider them
a robust solution. So if you need decent switches in your
infrastructure, and you like your Procurves, stick with them. That said,
I have stuck in quite a few routerboards and used them as switches no
problem.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 3/30/2015 12:26 PM, That One Guy wrote:
After poking around at many different brands, it seems Mikrotik is the
right fit for our network and budget.
I dont fully understand the licensing tiers
Is there a sizing chart on these?
Is the interface similar between the router models and the switch
models? Are the mikrotik switches comparable to the HP procurve in
reliability?
It would be the bees knees to see out network more universal as far as
management interfaces go, we have three purposes for routers:
our upstream routers, which we have 2, will ultimately be running OSPF
internally and BGP externally (current thought) 200mbps-1gbps
projected need through the next couple of years.
Our network/POP routers ranging from 1 customer at a POP to 150
A residential solution comparable to the UBNT AirRouters (1-25mbps
rate plans) wifi capable.
If the switches have similar interfaces, we would look toward
replacing a combination of UBNT toughswitch POE, and a variety of HP
procurves from 1810G to 2510G and their other POE models.
I note alot of discussion regarding MT ethernet negotiation flakiness,
how much of an impact does this present? Right now we have imagestream
and fortigate on the network, and have zero issues with that.
The decision to go toward mikrotik is primarily based on cost and
community support availability within the industry. (this
consideration has alot to do with a single point of administrative
failure in only having one person, me, training to design, maintain,
support, and grow the network, in the event i became absent from the
picture) The winbox interface and feature availability within was also
a primary consideration for support staff.
I would like to her from people entrenched in MT who love/hate it,
anybody who turned their back on it, and anybody who moved toward it.
--
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.
