[AusNOG] Looks like a total beast but would you dare run your core network on it?

[Matt Richards]

VMXNET3 is only supported in the "Cloud Hosted Router" version, which 
currently isn't suitable for production use (limited to 1Mbps). VMXNET3 
(and the other virtualisation drivers) are *NOT* included in the 
standard x86 version, and probably never will be.

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=98981

Regards,
Matt.


On 24/08/2015 5:45 p.m., Alex Samad - Yieldbroker wrote:
>
> Oh….. I was on 29.2 ….
>
> THANK YOU
>
> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of 
> *Matt Keen
> *Sent:* Monday, 24 August 2015 3:38 PM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Looks like a total beast but would you dare 
> run your core network on it?
>
> VMXNet 3 is supported as of 6.31 (14^th Aug Release)
>
> http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=99531
>
> Matthew Keen
>
> Senior Network Engineer
>
> Comwire IT Pty Ltd
>
> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of 
> *Alex Samad - Yieldbroker
> *Sent:* Monday, 24 August 2015 2:48 PM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Looks like a total beast but would you dare 
> run your core network on it?
>
> Hi
>
> Got 6 of the CCR1036-8G-2Splus
>
> Same points as below
>
> Limit to 1Gb/s tcp stream, but with multistreams or udp I have pushed 
> up to 9.8Gbs
>
> BFD issue
>
> I like them, I would like for them to make the RouterOS VM;s vmware 
> aware and use the vmxnet3 nics, then I could be really happy with 
> Mikrotek.
>
> A
>
> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of 
> *Joseph Goldman
> *Sent:* Monday, 24 August 2015 3:01 PM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Looks like a total beast but would you dare 
> run your core network on it?
>
> Mikrotik's have been discussed for a while - plenty are using at the 
> edge, some are using at the core. I personally use CCR1036-8G-2Splus 
> at my core, which use the same CPU architecture as the 1072 just less 
> cores, and different interface options.
>
> I haven't had much issue with them, but I also pick and choose my 
> software releases, and don't configure new (or unused) features on 
> production to avoid bugs.
>
> I run 2 with as much active-active and failover redundancy as I can, 
> and the cost of the 2 ($3k~) still far cheaper than a couple of Cisco 
> routers for my networks ~500mbit / 200kpps throughput. (1 router is 
> currently doing most of that work sitting at 10-15% CPU with 
> conntracking + firewall mangle rules + about 10 simple queues)
>
> The biggest problem is multi-threaded use for some of the important 
> processes in them, BGP being the main one, and single TCP stream being 
> the other. They each seem to be limited to a single core at a time so 
> importing full tables and updates/withdraws can take a bit to 
> propagate in the route table. TCP single stream only seems to be able 
> to get to 1gbps, again seems to be a single core restriction.
>
> ROSv7 is meant to fix a lot of this but still in alpha stage, no 
> public betas even heard of yet.
>
> On 24/08/15 14:48, James Mcintosh wrote:
>
>     http://routerboard.com/CCR1072-1G-8Splus
>
>     With equivalent gear from Cisco costing 10x or more might it be
>     worth taking a chance?
>
>     If not what else similar is this alternative. I don't mind paying
>     a premium for quality but 10x is a bit ridiculous...
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     AusNOG mailing list
>
>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>
>     http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150825/34259979/attachment.html>