>From a Slack chat I'm in with a few other Mikrotik guys (one of whom seems to >have a direct line to get feature requests done) :
"Something has changed at Mikrotik. It's like they want to be great again." ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Beckman" <m...@beckman.org> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 2:22:29 PM Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 Often I find that used Cisco gear is more reliable and just as affordable than newer gear with that tasty, flakey crust. I've had a terrible time with CCRs falling over with 1GB traffic while Cisco L3 3750s don't even breathe hard at 10Gbps. I see no reason to use anything like 2500w even with Cisco gear. A dual Cisco 3750 stack consumes maybe 500W. Cisco firmware, for all its faults, seems to be much better tested than Mikrotik's. I once asked Mikrotik's support engineers how they performed regression testing, and they said "because we are a small, agile, disruptive innovator we don't follow old-school testing regimens. We're more interested in shipping affordable product." That's also their excuse for poor documentation. >From what I can see, "small, agile, disruptive innovator" is an excuse newer >networking companies often give for "sloppy, poorly tested, ill-conceived" >product development. -mel beckman > On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small business > with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big business > with big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support big router. > > I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a need to > throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled with the > times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something more > power, space, heat, etc. efficient. > > > I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco > routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so > they weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll > be worse in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old setup > consumed at most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in power... and > is worse. > > Stop using old shit. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM > Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router >> I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If >> someone's network can't match that today, should I really have >> any pity for them? > > Hi Mike, > > The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more > precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap) > end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a > general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB). > They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large > routing tables at the same time. > > For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out > https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see > folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content > Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and > SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an > O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural > differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your > $100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. > > Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100 > router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers. > That makes it expensive. > > Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the > systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement: > http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >
