Baltic's x86: http://www.balticnetworks.com/manufacturers/maxxwave/routermaxx-routers-powered-by-mikrotik.html
Search "MikroNOC" here: www.titanwirelessonline.com/category-s/232.htm They have boards and cases ala cate and of course the rb2011 has a board, indoor, rack option - a great product depending on size. http://routerboard.com/ Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:22 PM, That One Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
