RB 1100AHx2 was what I was looking at, on the edge, our current bigger pipe is only 300mbps today, so that would seem sufficient based on your description of use, since the other is smaller, at this price migrating it down into the network if we hit growth quickly wouldnt be a dealbreaker. Its unlikely we would be doing much beyond routing, no shaping or anything of that nature anywhere in the near term.
Josh hating on the hardware does concern me though. We had dicked around with a few RB 750 in the past for a couple test cases, looking more toward replacing wired Dlinks for residential customers, but had to use it in a pinch at a small site, never saw any issue and liked the toolsets. Is there a comparable unit to the Air Routers for a residential solution (we normally provide an air router unless the customer wants to use their own, we bridge the CPE radios on all but a handful of customers) The two main things we prefer out of the Air router is the ability to disable the reset button, and the wireless coverage is sufficient for a free consumer router) would have to hit the same pricepoint as the airrouter. Torch at the customer is a selling point though. out of curiousity, one thing we couldnt do with air router was tiered users on the device. We wanted to be able to give the customer a login where they can do whatever they want with the exception of changing the WAN config away from DHCP, or changing our remote access to the device. can you do this in MT? On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Gabriel Pike <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > DMCI Broadband, LLC <http://dmcibb.net/> > > [email protected] > > > > 877.936.2422 > > Ext. 103 > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:04 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[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.
