Are you taking full routing tables from your provider(s) on the edge? If so, I would probably re-think your thoughts on going with something like a RB 1100AH in this role.
Take a look at the 951's for customer CPE routers. 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. >
