|
Derpes Simplex posted:Sounds nice! There typically won't be multiple streams, but being able to burst gigabit and not kill the rest of the network at the same time is extremely compelling. Check out http://routerboard.com/pdf/routerboard_performance_tests.pdf The 493G and 450G have the same processor as the 750G, but they also have 256Mb RAM vs only 32Mb RAM in the 750G. I don't think that is the sole reason the 400G's outpace the 750G (it may have to do with the switch chips used), but you may want to look at the 400G series for full gigabit bursting. I also work at an ISP that uses MikroTik pretty extensively (276 RouterOS devices in the Dude, not counting any CPE. I've got a BSD and cisco background, so I was pretty skeptical of the "Latvian Linux Appliance", but it has really grown on me, in a price/performance sense.
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:Bumping for my new guide on how to setup a mikrotik to act like a home router with NAT-ing, port forwards and dhcp. I used Winbox for the examples to make this as easy as possible. This guide will change your life. This is gold. I think I have a VP convinced to present this in a video conference as our new documentation standard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Any thoughts on the RB250GS? I've been looking for some cheap managed gigabit switches for my home network and these are priced almost the same as the unmanaged D-Links I usually buy. I'm pretty much looking for VLAN support, preferably also with SNMP stats available per-port, anything else on top of that is a bonus. I'm about 30 minutes into evaluating a couple, and as a managed switch, I'm a little disappointed. Rather than the software being based on RouterOS, it is a tiny 38KB image. Management seems to be http and SNMPv1 read only (no https, ssh, or telnet). The strangest thing of all is that they dispense with this quaint notion that IPv4 hosts need to have a netmask and a gateway to go with their IP address, and they basically implement the IP stack as reply-only, and instead of using an arp cache and routes, the switches just respond to the IP and MAC address of the original request. Probably not the device of choice if you have old fashioned notions about being RFC compliant, etc. So, I got all worked up and disappointed about the issues in this device, and then I remembered, it's  + . If you are thinking about this vs a catalyst ... run away. If you are thinking about this vs an unmanaged D-Link, go nuts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Can you comment on the VLAN performance or if it supports LACP? Haven't tested performance nor LACP support I'm afraid. johnnyonetime posted:I've got an organization that cannot afford a wireless solution that utilizes a Wireless LAN Controller. I want to outfit their three story building with about 12 access points that can handle meshing. I understand MikroTik can do all this and more as well as not break the bank. I'm going to also recommend the Ubiquiti UniFi. The (free) controller software was 2d based for planning coverage area, so the multi-story layout might be a bit tricky. How necessary is mesh capability, or can you get an ethernet drop to each AP? We have 3 UniFi APs at our office and have been very happy with them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
I'm heading to the Vegas MUM! (as well as the Ubiquiti AirMax Conference, and the Motorola Canopy stuff going on after Wispapalooza) I also have a RB1100 and a couple of RB1200s in production in the network now. They appear to be performing well, except that one RB1200 has an unexplained cold-start and all our ROS 5.X devices going nuts on CPU from the Dude. We are also going to be doing a massive network reconfig shortly where I convert all OSPF non-backbone areas into NSSA areas (we redistribute connected into OSPF instead of making all connected networks be native OSPF networks). We are also in the midst of changing our Simple Queues to PCQs. We found that with Simple Queues, customers with routers that were constantly attempting DHCP queries (mostly Belkins) would cause packet loss on the router when it tried to apply the Simple Queue rules from the Radius response to the DHCP query. Does anyone have any experience with the PowerRouter product line? I am seriously considering one as a second upstream-facing router running BGP along with a decent cisco box.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:Woah! That's is some seriously weird behavior. What OS are you running? We run PPPoE all over the place and they get a dynamic simple queue injected after hookup but I wonder if this is happening for us. Sadly, we've got a mixed bag of firmwares out there so I don't know if we're seeing this or not. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up on our network eventually. We've got a mix as well, but the bulk of the routers experiencing this were running 4.14 through 4.17. We've had to go to 5.7 on the PCQ routers because bursting w/PCQ wasn't available until 5.X. We've had just enough routerboards (mostly 493AHs and 450Gs) lock up on upgrade that we wait for a field tech to be within 15 minutes of a tower before we'll do a remote upgrade, and that has left us with a lot of older images through the network.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
yarrmatey posted:We've had just enough routerboards (mostly 493AHs and 450Gs) lock up on upgrade that we wait for a field tech to be within 15 minutes of a tower before we'll do a remote upgrade, and that has left us with a lot of older images through the network. So we may have narrowed down the lockup-on-upgrade problem. If you upgrade from 3.X to 4.X where it subsequently complains about an invalid license key, you hit system->license->update key, and then reboot (whether it is system->reboot, or from the update prompt), it will shutdown instead of restart, requiring a power cycle. Anyone else experiencing this problem?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
Mostly 493AHs, 433AHs, and 450Gs with the occasional old 532/532A, 333, and 1 or 2 112/113s, Plus the new 1100 and 1200s. The Dude's count is ... 327 RouterOS devices, with only about 3 of them being CPE.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:I think NAT rules are in the "prerouting" chain, which is (as the name implies) rules that are applied before the traffic hits the "forward" chain and is routed to wherever it's going. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Packet_Flow There isn't one single flowchart that describes this scenario, but the order of events here, I believe is: Input Interface -> Not a bridge -> Prerouting Prerouting has Connection Tracking, Mangle Prerouting, and Destination NAT. I am not sure which combination of those that a reply packet to an established masqueraded session will be touched by, but by the time the packet exits the Prerouting phase, it's destination is now the internal private IP instead of the public external IP of the router. Next is the routing decision, and because the destination IP is now the private internal address, it is sent to the Forwarding phase instead of the Input phase. The Forward phase contains the Filter Forward step, so that is where the filter rules will be checked, and then you finish up with Postrouting and any extra Bridging.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
movax posted:I just stumbled onto those units, they look pretty solid. Expensive to get 5GHz capability in addition to the 2.4GHz though, but ~$250 for 3 of those sleek little bastards isn't bad at all. Odd that the 300Mbps N is bottlenecked by the 100Mbit interface, but will just have to see how it performs. Hopefully each one can handle a few clients. May need to dig up another box to handle running the UniFi controller software. The 300Mbps signalling rate (MCS15 on a 40Mhz channel) is really only going to get you 75-80Mbps real throughput bidirectional in ideal conditions, which a 100Mbps FE port can mostly handle. movax posted:e: Are there multiple access levels per-chance for RouterOS? Like, could I delegate out specific port forwarding requirements, or would I end up writing my own scripts to enable that type of functionality. There are different rights that you can grant different administrative users, but there really isn't any granularity to rights in modifying firewall/mangle rules. Can you expand a little on what you're wanting?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
movax posted:How much of a performance impact am I going to see with QoS though? I still a bit scared of the SoC performance vs. say, x86 or dedicated ASICs. Will I still get my full WAN bandwidth if QoS is busy slaughtering fifty torrents? If you can differentiate everything by internal IP, you can do simple queuing, but more complex scenarios or CPU limitations may mean you need to check out PCQ. For some real-world numbers, I have a 450G at a tower peaking at 150/25Mbps layer-3 forwarding generic Internet traffic w/Connection Tracking turned off that hits about 65-69% CPU. A 493AH (same CPU as the 450G) has 55/11Mbps of customer-facing traffic w/Connection-Tracking on and PCQ queues and hits 85% CPU at peak. I'm going to do some digging and try to find my highest-traffic customer-facing simple queue router and see what it is doing CPU-wise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2012 03:44
|
|