Can I suggest you not use a $1000 software driven device to do the job of a 500 watt device on a 10 Gbps network?
Mikrotik has its faults, yes, but it certainly has a place as well. That just happens to not be where the $4,000 Cisco is. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Mel Beckman <[email protected]> wrote: > Often I find that used Cisco gear is more reliable and just as affordable > than newer gear with that tasty, flakey crust. I've had a terrible time > with CCRs falling over with 1GB traffic while Cisco L3 3750s don't even > breathe hard at 10Gbps. I see no reason to use anything like 2500w even > with Cisco gear. A dual Cisco 3750 stack consumes maybe 500W. Cisco > firmware, for all its faults, seems to be much better tested than > Mikrotik's. > > I once asked Mikrotik's support engineers how they performed regression > testing, and they said "because we are a small, agile, disruptive innovator > we don't follow old-school testing regimens. We're more interested in > shipping affordable product." That's also their excuse for poor > documentation. > > From what I can see, "small, agile, disruptive innovator" is an excuse > newer networking companies often give for "sloppy, poorly tested, > ill-conceived" product development. > > > > -mel beckman > > > On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small > business with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big > business with big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support > big router. > > > > I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a > need to throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled > with the times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something > more power, space, heat, etc. efficient. > > > > > > I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco > routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so > they weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll > be worse in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old > setup consumed at most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in > power... and is worse. > > > > Stop using old shit. > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "William Herrin" <[email protected]> > > To: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "NANOG" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM > > Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 > > > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router > >> I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If > >> someone's network can't match that today, should I really have > >> any pity for them? > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more > > precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap) > > end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a > > general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB). > > They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large > > routing tables at the same time. > > > > For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out > > https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see > > folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content > > Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and > > SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an > > O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural > > differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your > > $100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. > > > > Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100 > > router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers. > > That makes it expensive. > > > > Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the > > systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement: > > http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > > > > > -- > > William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > > >
