+1
On 3/1/2021 1:41 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Yeah, that’s why there is justification for using Mikrotik “garbage”.
Mikrotik has got us where we are and allowed us to grow and grow our
small team without a large upfront cost.
And then migrate to bigger and better.
Done this method a few times now and it’s worked out well.
Moral of the story is, work the best with what you have and know your
platform.
I know Mikrotik. I can get angry and do have my rows with vendors and
manufacturers, but we learn where we can reliably use what hardware
over time.
Starting from ground zero I would definitely use Mikrotik again since
I know it and what it can and cannot do.
But I am looking forward to the day when we invest in an MX series of
highly available routers/platform.
Just like it would be awesome if I had enough money up front to run
all Cambium M and Terragraph for our WISP side lol
*From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of * Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Monday, March 1, 2021 11:06 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Official Limitations
It's 5 digit numbers, however you choose to label it.
The good news is one box will scale to staggering amounts of traffic.
On 3/1/2021 1:03 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
Corvette money. Is that anything like cubic dollars?
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 3/1/2021 9:51 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
CGNAT on Juniper requires an IP services card. With licensing
it's like Corvette money.
....but that's kinda where we're at isn't it.
On 3/1/2021 12:36 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
I gave up the first time they asked me to record data for
them during an instance and wanted us to let it hang and
collect data.
I was like no, not going to do that.
And then started removing 1072 connection tracking
altogether from my network.
For the time being I’m using 1036 for CGNAT as a
transition, then will head to CHR CGNAT, then Juniper.
I agree that Mikrotik just isn’t focused on the 1072
anymore and this particular issue seems beyond them to repair.
Which makes the 1072 a no starter for anything conn track
for us ever again.
I’ve got one 2004 doing the CGNAT now, and it’s on latest
Stable release.
Watching to see if it bails too, or is capable of doing it
for the time being.
But our end game it MPLS/VPLS and/or direct switch VLAN
type segmentation of layer2 into our cores where we will
do all of the heavy lifting.
*From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com>
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Steven Kenney
*Sent:* Monday, March 1, 2021 9:03 AM
*To:* af <af@af.afmug.com> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Mikrotik Official Limitations
Still fighting with Mikrotik about the 1072 reboots. New
hardware didn't fix it, had several people check the
configs all were good. After 2 months of going back and
forth, escalating to a higher tier tech... I officially
got a response that 1 million connections is too much for
the 1072 and I should expect it to reboot and not function
properly. That was their conclusion. Even though all of
the 72 processors are under 50%, memory usage is only
about 20% etc. Turn off connection tracking is the their
solution.
How about those apples?
logo <https://www.wavedirect.net/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed><https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/><https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/><https://twitter.com/wavedirect1><https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect>
*STEVEN KENNEY *
*DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY **A: 158
Erie St. N | Leamington ON
E: st...@wavedirect.org <mailto:st...@wavedirect.org> | P:
519-737-9283
W: www.wavedirect.net <http://www.wavedirect.net>*
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
