I've never used a CRS, but... aren't they still running plain old Mikrotik RouterOS? As far as I can tell from the specs, they're pretty much just an RB2011 with extra ports.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >> > >
