I believe it has software/features to simplify the L2 switching functionality, but the last time I checked, it was still as stupidly complex as it always has been.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:22 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > but isnt it different software? > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Technically, a L3 switch -is- a router. >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:19 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Im not understanding something here, As I understand it the CRS are >>> layer 3 switches. But I see a lot of communication wanting to use them as >>> routers, this seems counterproductive, is there a benefit I am not seeing? >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>> >>>> But I think RB2011 and CRS109/125 have pretty much the same CPU and >>>> memory, not sure why one the packet processing power would be different >>>> between them. >>>> >>>> In your case with fiber, if you are delivering gigabit Internet to >>>> customers, either would probably be underpowered. Oh, and the WiFi won’t >>>> do gigabit either. >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2015 3:20 PM >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CRS109-8G-1S-2HnD-IN vs RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, I ignore the model numbers in comparisons. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Basically if you are switching only, the CRS are ok. >>>> >>>> If you are routing, you need CPU power for connection tracking etc. >>>> >>>> So look at the CPU(s) of each model instead. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The cheaper CRS units switching chips will do full line speed and high >>>> aggregate as long as the CPU doesn’t have to touch packets. >>>> >>>> Once you implement anything where the CPU is involved inspecting >>>> packets throughput drops dramatically IMO. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof >>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2015 1:37 PM >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CRS109-8G-1S-2HnD-IN vs RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can’t compare CRS and RB model numbers. I think the processor and >>>> memory specs are similar if not identical. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not sure the gigabit ports are a big deal, it just always seems a mess >>>> deciding what to plug in where on a 2011. It’s like deciding which GOP >>>> candidates are relegated to the junior varsity debate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Residential users don’t even seem to want wired ports anymore, although >>>> businesses still do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2015 2:30 PM >>>> >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CRS109-8G-1S-2HnD-IN vs RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Do the model numbers indicate beef? like the 1100 vs 2011, you would >>>> think if that is the case the 2011 would be beefier >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Has anyone switched from using RB2011 to CRS109 for WiFi SoHo routers? >>>> Any gotchas? >>>> >>>> Main differences I see are CRS109 has 2 less ports but they are all >>>> gigabit, plus it seems to have a fan which might be a negative in some >>>> environments. Slightly different form factor, and a little more expensive. >>>> >>>> Also do I remember some people saying they were experiencing a high >>>> failure rate on CRS109? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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. >
