We should also not confuse "vendor is junk" with "I used it wrong". Also, there
are times that both may apply.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling Jacobson" <sterl...@avative.net>
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com>
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 12:41:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Official Limitations
Yeah, that’s why there is justification for using Mikrotik “garbage”.
Mikrotik has got us where we are and allowed us to grow and grow our small team
without a large upfront cost.
And then migrate to bigger and better.
Done this method a few times now and it’s worked out well.
Moral of the story is, work the best with what you have and know your platform.
I know Mikrotik. I can get angry and do have my rows with vendors and
manufacturers, but we learn where we can reliably use what hardware over time.
Starting from ground zero I would definitely use Mikrotik again since I know it
and what it can and cannot do.
But I am looking forward to the day when we invest in an MX series of highly
available routers/platform.
Just like it would be awesome if I had enough money up front to run all Cambium
M and Terragraph for our WISP side lol
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 11:06 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Official Limitations
It's 5 digit numbers, however you choose to label it.
The good news is one box will scale to staggering amounts of traffic.
On 3/1/2021 1:03 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
Corvette money. Is that anything like cubic dollars?
bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 3/1/2021 9:51 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
<blockquote>
CGNAT on Juniper requires an IP services card. With licensing it's like
Corvette money.
....but that's kinda where we're at isn't it.
On 3/1/2021 12:36 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
<blockquote>
I gave up the first time they asked me to record data for them during an
instance and wanted us to let it hang and collect data.
I was like no, not going to do that.
And then started removing 1072 connection tracking altogether from my network.
For the time being I’m using 1036 for CGNAT as a transition, then will head to
CHR CGNAT, then Juniper.
I agree that Mikrotik just isn’t focused on the 1072 anymore and this
particular issue seems beyond them to repair.
Which makes the 1072 a no starter for anything conn track for us ever again.
I’ve got one 2004 doing the CGNAT now, and it’s on latest Stable release.
Watching to see if it bails too, or is capable of doing it for the time being.
But our end game it MPLS/VPLS and/or direct switch VLAN type segmentation of
layer2 into our cores where we will do all of the heavy lifting.
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Steven Kenney
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 9:03 AM
To: af <af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Official Limitations
Still fighting with Mikrotik about the 1072 reboots. New hardware didn't fix
it, had several people check the configs all were good. After 2 months of going
back and forth, escalating to a higher tier tech... I officially got a response
that 1 million connections is too much for the 1072 and I should expect it to
reboot and not function properly. That was their conclusion. Even though all of
the 72 processors are under 50%, memory usage is only about 20% etc. Turn off
connection tracking is the their solution.
How about those apples?
logo
STEVEN KENNEY
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283
W: www.wavedirect.net
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
