The guide to choosing between mikrotik or ubiquiti or to ditch them entirely

[kvic]

Back to the CISCO switch... 28 ports total 56 Gbit/s is from: (1 Gbit/s + 1 Gbit/s) * 28 = 56Gbit/s. By the definition of "forward capacity", we have to divide 56 by 2 to yield 28 Gbit/s. For the simple reason that something goes in (to the switch)..has to come out to complete a "forward" act.

I thought only marketeers will try to impress users with these numbers. Why so bothered with if you're not..?

 

[System Error Message]

there tends to be a lot of confusion. You dont divide 56 by 2 to get the forwarding capacity, the forwarding capacity is something found/quoted by the manufacturer.

A complicated example, If a router has 5 gigabit ethernet ports and 5 100Mb/s ports than it has a port capacity of 11Gb/s but it doesnt necessarily have a forwarding capacity of 5.5Gb/s. The forwarding capacity could be 4Gb/s limited by CPU. That means that if you used 2 gigabit ports as WAN than you would be maxing out your forwarding capacity. In order for the device to have wirespeed forwarding it would need to be 5.5Gb/s.

Forwarding capacity isnt specific, it depends on what the device is for. For switches it would be for switching, for routers it would be for routing. It doesnt necessarily need to be layer 2 switching as you can have layer 7 switching (would mean making a custom switch CPU for your own software). For businesses they usually use routers to perform layer 3 routing whereas in homes routers use NAT so for a home or consumer router the forwarding capacity would be the NAT speed.

 

[kvic]

I get your point.

I took unlimited processing power for granted. And zero penalty in moving data across datapath etc... only limit is the port speed. When the number of ports scale up in bigger switches or there are more variety of port speeds, everything in the design counts.

 

[RMerlin]

There is no ACLs in Merlin firmware nor I heard of a plan adding it.

iptables isn't a Merlin feature either but any linux routers come with it. Using iptables can achieve some sort of ACLs but certainly not the kind people used to CISCO or other higher end routers expect.

I add the possibility of configuring any custom iptables entries through custom scripts, something not possible with the stock FW. It opens up a lot of possibilities. Might not be GUI-based, but many advanced features in high-end routers aren't either, and require diving into a command line anyway...

 

[kvic]

I add the possibility of configuring any custom iptables entries through custom scripts, something not possible with the stock FW. It opens up a lot of possibilities. Might not be GUI-based, but many advanced features in high-end routers aren't either, and require diving into a command line anyway...

Gosh, you re absolutely right. iptables rules possible thanks to the custom scripts. I took it for granted. Almost forgotten!

 

[coxhaus]

I looked back on Cisco web site which you could have done and got another statistic. Do you like 41.6 Capacity in Millions of Packets per Second (mpps) (64-byte packets) better. There is also an independent study posted of this company loading down one of these switches while performing a DDOS attack at the same time. The switch worked perfect and never slowed down. It is all on the web under Cisco SG300-28 switch. There are links on details.

I still stand by my statement switches are faster than routers. There may be some routers which work like switches.

 

[L&LD]

I still stand by my statement switches are faster than routers.

If we confine your statement to products from the same generations, yes, I think we would all agree.

However, that doesn't mean that switches can do what routers can, or vice versa.

 

[coxhaus]

I agree layer 3 switches do not do all that routers do. But switches are faster than routers within a reasonable price point.

 

[L&LD]

I agree layer 3 switches do not do all that routers do. But switches are faster than routers within a reasonable price point.

Layer 3 switches are just LAN to LAN devices. Routers are WAN to LAN devices, while also having the possibility of switching too. Firmware is key here.

At the same price point, an L3 switch is a very focused piece of equipment which doesn't provide anything more than a router can (with much more additional capabilities). While the L3 switch performance may be slightly higher on paper specs, it is not worth what is given up for equivalent money for most home users of 100 devices or less.

When we consider multiple routers (even cheap ones) for segregating networks, the ease, stability and further capabilities (with dual wan, etc.) towers above any speed advantage an L3 switch may offer for the same cost or less.

 

[coxhaus]

Layer 3 switches are just LAN to LAN devices. Routers are WAN to LAN devices, while also having the possibility of switching too. Firmware is key here.

This is only true for these low level layer 3 switches. Higher end Cisco switches run MPLS WAN communication networks.

Routers with 4 switch ports is very low level compare to a layer 3 switch and not enough ports to run the average home network much less a small business. Besides I do not use the ports in a router as I want the CPU fully focused on the WAN port.

Oh I think of switches as more stable than routers. Doesn't matter what kind of switch except some China made Dells.

 

[netwrks]

It is true that ubiquiti support has gotten better but that still doesnt stray from the fact that there still isnt any sort of support that involves the advanced features of the product. Even mikrotik has training academy courses but im speaking from the perspective of the buyer, not an IT guy who has to configure one.

The terms help when choosing a router. It tells the maximum amount of data that can be communicated and how fast in a quick way.

IMO, It's a matter of preference. You like Mikrotik, and you have valid reasons to. Others like Ubiquity ( so far I do). Others like pfsense.. Others like Cisco. I use Cisco all day long at work, but their SOHO stuff is shirte..

When it's all said and done it's a matter of budget, an idea of what you want / need, (that's where this forum comes in handy) and ones skill set and, or, limitations.

 

[coxhaus]

IMO, It's a matter of preference. You like Mikrotik, and you have valid reasons to. Others like Ubiquity ( so far I do). Others like pfsense.. Others like Cisco. I use Cisco all day long at work, but their SOHO stuff is shirte..

When it's all said and done it's a matter of budget, an idea of what you want / need, (that's where this forum comes in handy) and ones skill set and, or, limitations.

netwrks would you buy a router which does not have support for ACLs? I ask this because you say you use Cisco all day long at work.

I have to agree the IOS Cisco is better but I can not afford it and I no longer have TAC support to get updates for used gear. I probably have 7 or 8 old Cisco routers in my attic.

 

[netwrks]

At work, no I would not. For home as long as it has a decent stateful firewall setup.

 

[coxhaus]

Interesting. I guess I am old and set in my ways.

From my impression you bought a ERL with ACL support.

 

[System Error Message]

i like neither mikrotik or ubiquiti, i just have both and i use them in ways that people usually dont. Who here powers a board like the raspberry pi from the usb port of the ERPRO or treats their edgerouter as a linux server? I like using the ERPRO as a linux server because it uses less power so i can keep it on 24/7. What the edgerouters offers by default in what you can do with it as a router cannot keep up with what mikrotik offers, the edgerouters do better as a linux server than they do as a router.

Thanks RMerlin for clarifying about your firmware, i have tried say to them that asus with your firmware is a potent choice which is what i was trying to imply in choosing the AC56U over the ERL. The performance specs for the edgerouters are very misleading because of hardware acceleration for their application. Ubiquiti doesnt have the same benchmarks that mikrotik posts for their products on their product page. Its why i really scorn at choosing ubiquiti from their "wirespeed" claim as they only do wirespeed in layer 3 or bridging and not NAT or firewall so people tend to buy the ERL thinking they're getting 3Gb/s forwarding capacity for NAT. They also have bs marketing that shames cisco in an obvious way by trying to show that their products are better than professional cisco, it goes to show that they arent exactly honest (they dont even want to improve their router line, no 8 or 16 core octeon cpu variants used, cant change CPU clocks, ERL v3 still using usb storage). The video may be old but they always keep it on display.

Low end cisco is not in the same catogary as mikrotik and ubiquiti. At the lower price point, for configurable you're looking at a x86, mikrotik, ubiquiti,OpenWRT and ASUS with RMerlin firmware. If you did read the main post the argument on skill and having an IT department. Granted many who have an IT department/hired IT pro still use non configurable.

When i say configurable that includes ACLs or the capability to add it in some sort of way.

What both mikrotik and ubiquiti do is put the embedded configurable routers at the low price point, They shouldnt be used as a replacement to cisco high end stuff. if you're getting low end cisco that means you're in an entirely different market.

 

[netwrks]

Interesting. I guess I am old and set in my ways.

From my impression you bought a ERL with ACL support.

Yes, I have a UBNTPoE. Needed some tinker time...

 

[Nullity]

i like neither mikrotik or ubiquiti
...

You might be surprised to know that from my perspective, it seems like you might be in love with Mikrotik. I would guesstimate that over a third of your posts mention Mikrotik.



Anyway, it is interesting to see the different priorities we all have. My major priority is QoS/traffic-shaping with a minor fascination in ADSL-related protocols (Cisco wins in this area). Max speed is not a concern with 100Mbit being the best I can get for the foreseeable future.

 

[coxhaus]

i like neither mikrotik or ubiquiti, i just have both and i use them in ways that people usually dont. Who here powers a board like the raspberry pi from the usb port of the ERPRO or treats their edgerouter as a linux server? I like using the ERPRO as a linux server because it uses less power so i can keep it on 24/7. What the edgerouters offers by default in what you can do with it as a router cannot keep up with what mikrotik offers, the edgerouters do better as a linux server than they do as a router.

Thanks RMerlin for clarifying about your firmware, i have tried say to them that asus with your firmware is a potent choice which is what i was trying to imply in choosing the AC56U over the ERL. The performance specs for the edgerouters are very misleading because of hardware acceleration for their application. Ubiquiti doesnt have the same benchmarks that mikrotik posts for their products on their product page. Its why i really scorn at choosing ubiquiti from their "wirespeed" claim as they only do wirespeed in layer 3 or bridging and not NAT or firewall so people tend to buy the ERL thinking they're getting 3Gb/s forwarding capacity for NAT. They also have bs marketing that shames cisco in an obvious way by trying to show that their products are better than professional cisco, it goes to show that they arent exactly honest (they dont even want to improve their router line, no 8 or 16 core octeon cpu variants used, cant change CPU clocks, ERL v3 still using usb storage). The video may be old but they always keep it on display.

Low end cisco is not in the same catogary as mikrotik and ubiquiti. At the lower price point, for configurable you're looking at a x86, mikrotik, ubiquiti,OpenWRT and ASUS with RMerlin firmware. If you did read the main post the argument on skill and having an IT department. Granted many who have an IT department/hired IT pro still use non configurable.

When i say configurable that includes ACLs or the capability to add it in some sort of way.

What both mikrotik and ubiquiti do is put the embedded configurable routers at the low price point, They shouldnt be used as a replacement to cisco high end stuff. if you're getting low end cisco that means you're in an entirely different market.

You are entitled to your opinion but from my point of view if they are so much better then they would rank higher in the router charts on this site.

 

[System Error Message]

the current routers in the router graphs all seem to use hardware acceleration. What would be nice is a router graph without hardware acceleration as well. I hope @thiggins will be able to benchmark these routers too assuming he manages to get samples. The router graphs dont tell the whole story.

 

[coxhaus]

I think hardware acceleration is here to stay as it makes your data go faster. I have the same issues and have to work around it. I want my data to go as fast as possible so we need to figure out what works for our networking styles and which equipment fits.