Maybe I was misinformed.
The VAR told me JunOS would only do 1:1 NAT unless you had an IP
Services card, and that I had to have an MX240, 480, or 960 to use that
card.
On 3/1/2021 3:27 PM, fiber...@mail.com wrote:
If your needs are more modest, I guess you could get away with an MS-MIC-16G
card in a low end MX router. The MIC can be had for less than four grand, as
can an older MX router. That should be good for CGNAT needs under 9 Gbps.
- Jared
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2021 at 1:41 PM
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Official Limitations
I should have said it's 5 digits on top of having a Juniper router which can accept the
IP services card (eg MX240, MX480, or MX960). You'll be into 6 digits before you have
the whole BOM. Maybe I should have said "Lamborghini money". Depends whether
you already have the Juniper router or if you had to start from square one.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Juniper, I'm just saying you have to
bring your checkbook if you want to do CG-NAT with them.
On 3/1/2021 1:06 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
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:
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:
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>[mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of
Steven Kenney
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 9:03 AM
To: af <af@af.afmug.com>[mailto: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?
[https://www.wavedirect.net/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed]
[https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/]
[https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/]
[https://twitter.com/wavedirect1] [https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect]
STEVEN KENNEY
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON
E: st...@wavedirect.org[mailto:st...@wavedirect.org] | P: 519-737-9283
W: www.wavedirect.net[http://www.wavedirect.net]
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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
