We use Mikrotiks for all of our routers. We have a similar set up to the one you describe. I have 2 WAN routers doing BGP and iBGP between them with OSPF for internal routing. I really like Mikrotiks. I was trained with Cisco products in College but Mikrotiks were an easy transition. We use mostly RB 1100AHx2’s but I am about to upgrade our core routers to CCR series. We take in 300Mbps through both internet feeds and I am starting to max the CPU of the 1100AHX2’s.
Regards, Gabriel Pike Network Support and Engineering MTCNA <http://dmcibb.net/> DMCI Broadband, LLC gabrielp...@dmcibb.net 877.936.2422 Ext. 103 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Pros/Cons and recomendations 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 <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> 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 <part15...@gmail.com> 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.
