Now, see this leads back to confusion for me, that product is listed as just a routerboard. I assume this is so you can use your own housing? For that I would just purchase a CA150 separately?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Josh Baird <[email protected]> wrote: > We just haven't had a chance to try it yet. > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Seems like the RB850Gx2 gets no love? >> >> *From:* Josh Baird <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 6:57 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Pros/Cons and recomendations >> >> We have a ton of 450G's out in the field at towers for smaller sites. >> We also typically use the 450G as a 'managed router' solution for dedicated >> business customers. Backhauls go into routed ports, AP's go into a >> bridge. When we need more interfaces, we start to look at the 2011 for >> small to medium sized sites. We have 1100AHX2's at our larger sites mostly >> due to the number of interfaces. We usually don't put switches at sites >> although this will probably change as we are considering deploying the >> Netonix DC switches at the top-of-tower for some sites. >> >> We do not use MT for the edge and core of our network. If you do choose >> to go with MT in the edge role, I would look into x86, especially if you >> are taking full routing tables from your provider(s). As others have said >> (and I will echo); if you are used to a L2 switch like HP/Cisco and need to >> do much with VLANs, you may want to stick with them. >> >> Josh >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:45 PM, That One Guy <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Great input guys, I truly appreciate it. >>> >>> On the RB110 AH, I see "Includes switch to enable Ethernet bypass mode >>> in two ports" What is this? Tell me it turns those two ports into a couple >>> if the router fails, that would be nice if we opt to fully route our >>> backhauls. >>> >>> Currently, at the sites we have routers at, we have all the backhauls >>> and our battery backup coming into a switch ( had a failed RSTP >>> implementation previously, then moved to manual redundant failover), this >>> connects the a port on a router, then the interior port of the router >>> connects to a switch that houses the site APs. assuming I dont exceed the >>> number of ports in the device I can still bridge ports and achieve >>> essentially the same thing, freeing up both battery consumption and cost? I >>> like the modular approach of three things (APs tend to be the source of >>> lighting taking out the internal switch, but leaving the backhauls intact), >>> but it does add substantial hurt when lighting strikes in replacement >>> costs, especially at small sites. >>> >>> We have imagestream rebel routers for our two primary, we have never had >>> any performance issue or trouble out of them. Without actually going and >>> looking at the specs on the two I think I would be safe at this point to >>> replace them with the RB110AH, and move them downstream replacing them with >>> these CCRs or a third party hardware as we progress to a respectable >>> network if there is any impact? >>> >>> This would be a preferred POP router as well, with the option of smaller >>> sites using a smaller (cheaper) unit until the site demanded it. >>> >>> For the customer, we only provide the air router for cheap wireless, >>> with no guarantees on coverage, we set the ESSID based on their name and >>> the key based on their MAC, no exceptions, policy is if theyre having >>> problems, we shut the wireless off and have them purchase their own AP or >>> wireless router and replace ours, seeking in house wireless support from >>> that vendor. If we can source the RB951-2N at a comparable price to the air >>> router, then with our wireless policy in mind it is a sufficient >>> replacement with more potential features including gigabit ethernet? >>> >>> >>> Getting the routed network components under a single interface has a >>> huge amount of benefit to me in regard to getting my guys capable of >>> replacing me if that came to pass. The current network requires familiarity >>> with too many brands and too many interfaces to have an unmotivated second. >>> If I get hit by a bus tomorrow, the company could reach out to the >>> community to get a handle on the design even without my poorly documented >>> notes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Gilbert Gutierrez < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I would also suggest getting a WISP consulting company involved if you >>>> have questions on what products to use. BGP can be an issue with full >>>> routes on a CCR due to the way RouterOS is designed with that processor. >>>> x86 processor handles BGP great. With that being said, I have over a >>>> Gigabit of traffic flowing over some CCR routers with full routing tables >>>> from 2 providers and it works fine (for well over a year). I have a third >>>> provider with one of Dennis' x86 machines and it also works great. >>>> >>>> Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. >>>> Operations Manager >>>> Phoenix Internet >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/30/2015 2:51 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote: >>>> >>>> Steve, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest listening to the people here as well as maybe getting a >>>> WISP consulting company to steer you in the right direction . Also the MT >>>> vendor should be able to give you all of the recommendations that you need >>>> on hardware. . Lots of options, however, you may be able to get off with >>>> less expensive routers but that’s depends on what you are doing, and/or >>>> what you are planning for. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. >>>> >>>> [email protected] – 314-735-0270 – www.linktechs.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >>>> Behalf Of *That One Guy >>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 2:27 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Mikrotik Pros/Cons and recomendations >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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.
