|
Did they ever change their stance on putting out a router with fiber interfaces or is it still "velcro tape + media changer"? e: oh poo poo RB2011 gimmie! 
CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Apr 28, 2011 |
#
¿
Apr 28, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
falz posted:Simple is routing only. Adding anything such as NAT, firewall rules, etc becomes more complex and would benefit less from whatever fix this is. It's really the same as in Cisco-land, the pps specs they annpunce are for routing only. Yep. In one interface, out another. Anything inbetween pushes the packets off into CPU land.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:I'm guessing that the logic is "most people won't use the wired ports anyways and ISP speeds generally don't go above 100Mbps". Also, wireless spectrum is divided among the number of active clients connected, so 3 people connected to 150mbps wifi-n get ~50mb each, whereas 3 people connected to a 1gb switch can have 1gb each to other switch ports.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Also, what technically is an active client? If some clients are idle, does a single active client get closer to full bandwidth, or is bandwidth divided between connected devices no matter what? Think of wifi as talking in a room full of people, and only one person can talk at a time, but everyone else can listen. Switched wired networks is like each person having a direct telephone line to every other person in the room, and each person can talk/listen at the same time. Another option for people who want wifi with a gig backbone, is getting a RB750G as their router, and then using another RB wifi access point connected to it. *shrug* CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:
They call it "hairpin nat" http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Hairpin_NAT
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:VPN setup is a little fiddly from what I remember but not too terrible. How much bandwidth do you want to push through the tunnels? These units don't have VPN accelerator hardware which keeps them cheap but if you are looking for gigabit throughput then you should look elsewhere. Though also keep in mind that pptp isn't encrypted, so it should be significantly less overhead on mikrotik than L2TP or IPSEC would be.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
I wish I could put a few of those in some of my customers' buildings. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
falz posted:Looks like they still haven't figured out SFP yet since the first RB2011 (2011L-IN) has none. Seriously. Some of the things they do just lend more and more credibility to the half-assed appearance of the whole project.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Why not break the critical / high priority stuff out in its own private VLAN? Is there any particular reason why the tenants would need to access those with their desktops/laptops/phones?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Nystral posted:Does anyone have a number I can use to contact Roc-noc? they haven't responded to my query via the form yet. You might try Tom whom I've exchanged email with before: tom@roc-noc.com
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Any of you guys play with Mikrotik's IPoE tunneling yet? How well does it work and how much overhead does it take up?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Honestly I would probably look at Vyatta for your hub VPN concentrator, because at least that way if you're hitting CPU bottlenecks, you can move the config over to a faster machine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Yeah, they're great little boxes, but they do have CPU limits in how much you can do with them. QoS tends to tax things more than anything else.nexxai posted:Has anyone used the EdgeRouter Lite system from Ubiquiti, and if so, what did you think of them? Also if you have a pc laying around, you can install the community version of Vyatta and run the current revision of the same software the Ubiquiti's running. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
movax posted:2. What is the least painful VPN method to set-up? I'm not an expert in this field, but I enjoy the hell out of the setup we have at work where I turn on the Juniper Pulse client and it only VPN's the traffic it needs too (i.e. it doesn't completely cut off every active connection on my machine). I think this is IPSec? Ipsec is the encryption protocol. You're thinking about a "split tunnel" where your regular internet bound traffic is not tunneled over the VPN, but VPN remote-network traffic is. Yes mikrotik should be able to do this. PPTP is the simplest vpn to setup, but also the least secure since encryption can be option with PPTP. Don't use PPTP if you're using a VPN for security reasons. Yes, VPN clients should have their own subnet so that you can establish access policies. Treat VPN clients like a separate zone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
I love how they screwed up racking those shelves properly and mounted each one at the half-U marks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:I love how they screwed up racking those shelves properly and mounted each one at the half-U marks. Cut MikroTik some slack. After all, they just started producing rack-mounted devices, so they're still getting the hang of these rack standards from the distant past of tube-based radio gear and telco installations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Cut MikroTik some slack. After all, they just started producing rack-mounted devices, so they're still getting the hang of these rack standards from the distant past of tube-based radio gear and telco installations. I'm still lol'ing at how the above is supposed to be a valid excuse for a hardware manufacturer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Yes it's overkill. Truthfully, the only thing a meraki (or any fancy enterprise AP) will get you is a few more options and centralized provisioning control, guest portals built-in, etc. The chromecast probably ate up all your wifi throughput because it had a slower connection to the AP, and therefore consumed a large amount of air-time to accomplish the same thing that other devices could do in half the time with a better connection. Streaming from one wifi device to another wifi device effectively cuts your throughput in half again, because now the traffic has to go in to the AP and out again to the other device. Your best bet is to stream from a wired device, or have a second AP for other non-chromecast streaming traffic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
The Chromecast is 2.4ghz 802.11b/g/n only, so 5ghz won't help much with that. Your streaming source device can be mitigated by putting it on 5ghz or using it on a hard-line.
CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Wow, I am hugely impressed by this. So much nicer than the lovely netgear I was using before. The leap from making GBS threads consumer gear is a stark difference. Pretty soon you'll have a 19" half-rack in your basement with 96-port patch panels, and telling all your friends that they don't know what they're missing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
I put a sticker over reset holes now, as a matter of policy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
quote:The cAP lite supports 802.11b/g/n 300Mb/s two Hmmmmm
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
redeyes posted:Anyone know if a p2p bridge using some SXT units would pass VLAN stuff without extra config? IIRC 802.1q VLAN tagging is not part of the 802.11 wifi spec, so probably won't work. more specifically: 802.11 wifi network frames do not have space in the header for 802.1q VLAN tagging bits. The way most "enterprise" wifi deployments separate VLANs over wifi is to use separate SSIDs per VLAN and then tag ingress/egress packets matching that SSID when it bridges back to ethernet links, a la Meraki, Ruckus, Aruba, Ubiquiti etc. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 18:36
|
|