I went from a big flat network to one with a Mikrotik at every tower and the core run on Mikrotik CCR1036s, I love them all and have had only a few weird issues that replacing hardware fixed. I just installed my first CCR1009, the baby brother to the full power 1036 and I freaking love this thing. I put it at a site that was running an RB450. At 80mbps peak usage I was seeing 80+% CPU on the 450 and was dropping packets. With the CCR1009, that same load sits at 2%CPU. And it is only $500. That might sound like a lot but it will handle all I ever intend to throw at it for years and I won't be concerned that it isn't enough router.
I have had zero issues with my CCRs and love my RB450, RB2011, RB493, and even a few RB750s. Great stuff and super flexible. I can do things now that I never could before and I have a swiss army knife at every tower that can be used to creatively solve all kinds of problems without ever leaving my desk. -Ty On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > My last employer was providing AIrRouters for customer premesis. This > employer is using RB951. I think there are more DOA's and early failures > with the RB951, or at least the same. > > So yeah, you get what you pay for. It's like that Russian guy said in > Armageddon: "American component, Russian component....all made in Taiwan." > > RB2011 is pretty much the Swiss Army knife of routers. CCR has lots of > cajones (up to 32!). 951 is "meh". The little switches that run SwitchOS > are "meh". > > The CRS switches are nice because you get the same user interface as the > routers, but I find I have to keep reminding people that they are a lousy > router and don't use them as a router. Configure it as a switch and you > have wire speed on every port. Configure it like a router and you have a > 450 with lots of ports. > > > On 3/30/2015 5:06 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > 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]> > 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]> >> 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. >> > > >
