Hating? No! Just don't expect a $39 Routerboard to be as durable as
your $1000 ImageStream.
The rb2011 rocks. I've got nothing but good things to say about it.
The 100s and 500s from years and years back kind of irritated me. The
400s have been running for years, though, and have been fantastic!
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:02 PM, That One Guy
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
877.936.2422 <tel:877.936.2422>
Ext. 103
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:04 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel: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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
