Take a look at Baltic or roc-noc.com. They sell them with cases.
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:33 PM, That One Guy <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We just haven't had a chance to try it yet. >> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>> Seems like the RB850Gx2 gets no love? >>> >>> From: Josh Baird >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:57 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> 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 <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 >>>>> <mailing-li...@phoenixinternet.net> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 – www.linktechs.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:27 PM >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com >>>>>> 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.
