Now Im thoroughly confused, do you happen to have a link to some of those products?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > Generally you use x86 for the purchase of a license. That's where they > started their business. Baltic/Titan/etc have their "suggested" models > which are just x86 machines with RouterOS on them already. I'd use these > 1000x before I touched ImageStream at tower sites. > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:00 PM, That One Guy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Are you guys saying, you purchase the router OS and put it on third party >> hardware over using their hardware? What hardware do you find yourselves >> using, if not routerboard? >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- 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.
