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

[System Error Message]

Hardware acceleration is a good thing, but for the kind of people who buy ubiquiti or mikrotik would definitely be using their firewall and QoS capability. It is why i claim the numbers for ubiquiti to be misleading. Mikrotik does have hardware acceleration and partial hardware acceleration for NAT but i never highlight it, although they do make a clear tutorial on using it fully or partially. It is also a feature not used much on mikrotik and only available on some of their devices (they also dont highlight it much because only tcp and udp can be accelerated). Hardware acceleration is helpful but when manufacturers use it as their spec things start to get misleading (so many posts of why such router is much slower than claimed) and ubiquiti is supposed to be better than this but they still mislead too.

So from now on we need to change the terminology for wirespeed router to a router that can perform NAT and PPPOE at wirespeed, 2 of the most commonly used at every end point. This isnt the 90s when every device would connect directly to the internet.

 

[Nullity]

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.

I think quick & fast are different things. A 100Mbit link is fast (bitrate), but if it is traverses a few million miles it will not be quick (latency).

Do I have that right?

I am more concerned with quick as it relates to internetworking.

 

[coxhaus]

Hardware acceleration is a good thing, but for the kind of people who buy ubiquiti or mikrotik would definitely be using their firewall and QoS capability. It is why i claim the numbers for ubiquiti to be misleading. Mikrotik does have hardware acceleration and partial hardware acceleration for NAT but i never highlight it, although they do make a clear tutorial on using it fully or partially. It is also a feature not used much on mikrotik and only available on some of their devices (they also dont highlight it much because only tcp and udp can be accelerated). Hardware acceleration is helpful but when manufacturers use it as their spec things start to get misleading (so many posts of why such router is much slower than claimed) and ubiquiti is supposed to be better than this but they still mislead too.

So from now on we need to change the terminology for wirespeed router to a router that can perform NAT and PPPOE at wirespeed, 2 of the most commonly used at every end point. This isnt the 90s when every device would connect directly to the internet.

I think you should implement any hardware acceleration which works with your Mikrotik configuration as you will gain speed.

I think NAT should be included with router internet speeds. I disagree with PPPOE as not everybody uses it and it seems to be going away.

PS
We posted at the same time.

 

[coxhaus]

I think quick & fast are different things. A 100Mbit link is fast (bitrate), but if it is traverses a few million miles it will not be quick (latency).

Do I have that right?

I am more concerned with quick as it relates to internetworking.

Yes. Anything which lengthens the time interval increases latency. Distance is one variable.

I can see quick and fast relating to different things. Quick is more latency and fast as more a clock rate.

Latency to me is very important also.

 

[Nullity]

I am an amateur, but I have not seen the definitions that @System Error Message cites for how we should define link-rates.

How do we define ethernet rates? 10/100/1000Gbit, not bitrate × link duplex type. We define link-rate & duplex type separately.

Perhaps a device's stats are different, but the standardized Cisco and generic computer internetworking books I have read have never defined rates like SEM is. Even the academic lapers I have read have never referred to a 100Mbit full-duplex connection as "200Mbit".



SEM, can you cite some RFC, reference book, or IETF standard that explains your terminology?

 

[System Error Message]

They arent a standard, they're only commonly used to define things easily. On cisco's SG datasheets they define switching capacity as port capacity instead of forwarding capacity. This is isnt used to define bitrates, they're only for device specs as a wholes so they dont apply when you're talking about link rates.

A full duplex 100Mb/s link is defined as 100Mb/s because normally only that amount goes through but a total of 200Mb/s can be transmitted through the port. If a device had 10x100Mb/s ports would you define the port capacity as 1Gb/s or 2Gb/s? If it was a wirespeed switch, obviously you will need 1Gb/s of forwarding to max it out.

https://supportforums.cisco.com/dis...ackplane-forwarding-rate-throughput-bandwidth may help explain a bit but i used the generalised terms instead of going into pps and bandwidth.

I guess i forgot to add that the packet size also needs to be mentioned for the specs.

 

[sfx2000]

I think that the MicroTik/UBNT routers are at a different level than most consumer grade devices...

Both are very powerful platforms - but with great power, perhaps there's a knowledge level that needs to be met...

It's all about requirements - and balancing needs/wants/budget - not everyone needs to have a router of that capability on their network -- some might want, but few actually need...

 

[Nullity]

They arent a standard, they're only commonly used to define things easily. On cisco's SG datasheets they define switching capacity as port capacity instead of forwarding capacity. This is isnt used to define bitrates, they're only for device specs as a wholes so they dont apply when you're talking about link rates.

A full duplex 100Mb/s link is defined as 100Mb/s because normally only that amount goes through but a total of 200Mb/s can be transmitted through the port. If a device had 10x100Mb/s ports would you define the port capacity as 1Gb/s or 2Gb/s? If it was a wirespeed switch, obviously you will need 1Gb/s of forwarding to max it out.

https://supportforums.cisco.com/dis...ackplane-forwarding-rate-throughput-bandwidth may help explain a bit but i used the generalised terms instead of going into pps and bandwidth.

I guess i forgot to add that the packet size also needs to be mentioned for the specs.

Most services are majoritively unidirectional with the opposite direction only being for ACKs or similar protocol responses.

You say "commonly used"... by whom?

I cite nothing because my perspective is the status quo. (lazy)

 

[System Error Message]

When manufacturers list device specs they use those terms or some form of it.

Both mikrotik and ubiquiti have nice routers but i find the edgerouters lacking in their firmware by default but at least i can install debian packages on the edgerouters which makes them useful. The reason i made this thread is because even though those brands offer something cost effective, a lot of users coming out the consumer market usually look at the ERL instead of other brands and products that also fit the purpose. If you are going to consider an ERL, theres always x86 too and other brands and solutions such as openWRT so the person who wants to buy one of these routers should also consider other brands and solutions.

While most services are unidirectional it doesnt mean a single machine runs a single service. Torrents and p2p are an example of this and there are others too. VOIP uses both directions.

It also seems like squid3 on the ERPRO max speed is 80Mb/s (it only uses 1 core), if only i could overclock the ERPRO, it has active cooling. I wish ubiquiti would put something like mikrotik's system health on the GUI of their products. Now with my CCR modded and running silent the ERPRO is actually noiser. Ubiquiti routers are really lacking in CPU.

 

[Nullity]

I suppose it's the difference between a gateway/edge router and a intermediary/backbone router.

Most consumers are not running a large enough network to care about simultaneous bi-directional throughput, like an ISP does.

The distinction you bring up is important, though I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd. I assume the "right" crowd is well aware of the distinctions you describe... The separation of casual & technical vernacular is large, but I tend to side with the laymen's perspective (as a laymen).

 

[kvic]

On cisco's SG datasheets they define switching capacity as port capacity instead of forwarding capacity.

Perhaps there is simpler answer. The processing power inside the SG switches isn't a limiting factor and powerful enough to give full speed. In this case, you say 56Gbit/s (for 28 port models) 'port capacity' or 28Gbit/s 'forwarding capacity' are equally correct.

For marketeers, which one will you quote? They also have to watch over the shoulder's and check what competitors quote. Going with the bigger numbers make the products look better.

 

[netwrks]

Perhaps there is simpler answer. The processing power inside the SG switches isn't a limiting factor and powerful enough to give full speed. In this case, you say 56Gbit/s (for 28 port models) 'port capacity' or 28Gbit/s 'forwarding capacity' are equally correct.

For marketeers, which one will you quote? They also have to watch over the shoulder's and check what competitors quote. Going with the bigger numbers make the products look better.

Don't forget to factor in the backplane speed...

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

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.

I didn't contact support for the simple stuff (I'd know that)...I contacted them, and got quick and helpful replies, for advanced stuff. And for the really advanced stuff...as they originally recommended, went through the distribution channels.

Again, they don't aim for the residential market. They aim for the SMB/Enterprise market with a target audience of VAR/Consultants. Their name appeared in forums like this because a few quasi IT people drop the name. And "performance hungry" home users see the low price and sport wood for it and get in over their head. You'll find similarly difficult support for other biz/enterprise level products...Cisco, (real Cisco, not Stinksys aka Belkin half breed Cisco), HP ProCurve wireless, Sophos, Sonicwall, <the list can go on>.

 

[kvic]

Again, they don't aim for the residential market. They aim for the SMB/Enterprise market with a target audience of VAR/Consultants. Their name appeared in forums like this because a few quasi IT people drop the name.

The ubnt forum is actually a good read. Quite a few VAR/Consultants and other knowledgeable people there, including some of ubnt staff. Whether they're willing to spend time answering "advanced features" on the forum is a different story but in general they're helpful and enthusiastic.

From there you could also get a glimpse into what sort of markets the VAR/consultants install ubnt products into. There are many successful stories which by themselves are interesting read. By no means though 'enterprise' IMO. Perhaps the shops with bigger accounts don't have incentive to spend time on there...

 

[System Error Message]

I didn't contact support for the simple stuff (I'd know that)...I contacted them, and got quick and helpful replies, for advanced stuff. And for the really advanced stuff...as they originally recommended, went through the distribution channels.

Again, they don't aim for the residential market. They aim for the SMB/Enterprise market with a target audience of VAR/Consultants. Their name appeared in forums like this because a few quasi IT people drop the name. And "performance hungry" home users see the low price and sport wood for it and get in over their head. You'll find similarly difficult support for other biz/enterprise level products...Cisco, (real Cisco, not Stinksys aka Belkin half breed Cisco), HP ProCurve wireless, Sophos, Sonicwall, <the list can go on>.

both mikrotik and ubiquiti rely on the vendors to have that advanced support but what really bugs me is if you ask for something advanced like an advanced NAT config to defeat the best NAT detectors they will not answer that and the only answers you will find are those useless low end ones that come from ametuers that dont work. Changing the TTL does not defeat NAT detection. Sure their devices are well capable of actually doing it especially mikrotik but they will not give any help in that regard. As a computer science student having my own cluster and needing to add security, firewall and all that stuff, having a router do all the filtering is essential but my ISP, being a student ISP not only gives very poor upload to download ratios (i have contacted them about this just too many times), they also block any form of NAT so they have some very advanced NAT detection going on. Its not like i have the time to study their methods and figure it out as passive detection is also very hard to figure out but any form of NAT detected and they block the port. So for someone like myself who needs those features there isnt any tutorial out there or any help or support, sure the devices are capable of doing it and while proxying does work, a lot of things dont work with a proxy and from what i have found hosting is difficult. What the ISP does is give a 1 to 1 NAT which basically exposes the entire system to the internet (they do block anything below ports 1024 but still everything else is exposed).

There have been a few times when a botnet tried spamming me or tried routing things through any of my stuff with 1-2-1 NAT. Security is a shameful with this ISP as a student ISP (when their net goes down, even their network gets spammed with multicasts, broadcasts and DHCP servers and requests and not being able to use a router as a layer of security just makes things harder but another thing that makes it harder is that you would have to rely on their DHCP server which they limit the number of devices you can have online. I still have to put up with them for a few more months. The only good thing about them is that they have very low latency internet but they do have bufferbloat of about 30ms.

 

[kvic]

both mikrotik and ubiquiti rely on the vendors to have that advanced support but what really bugs me is if you ask for something advanced like an advanced NAT config to defeat the best NAT detectors they will not answer that and the only answers you will find are those useless low end ones that come from ametuers that dont work.

Perhaps you ask the question in a wrong way...perhaps they read too much into your question and sense some devil intention...perhaps they aren't advanced enough to answer you really. LOL

If I were still a college student, I would avoid at all cost drawing generalisation based on a few samples.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

If I were still a college student, I would avoid at all cost drawing generalisation based on a few samples.

Yup...there's text book theory, and there's "real world" scenarios. Big differences...and this can apply to all aspects in life.

 

[mackintire]

Ubiquiti hired a couple of quality engineers late last year and It's starting to show.

Edgerouter Firmware 1.8.5 (just released and not yet on the main download page) Is the most polished firmware I've seen yet.

Unifi stuff has improved by magnitudes as well in the last 30 days. The Unifi controller 4.8.17 LTS release, and the 5.0.7 Mainstream Release. The 4.8.17 is massively better for the older UAP series, and the 5.0.7 is geared towards the new stuff. UAP-AC-**** models.

I nearly dumped my UAP-AC, a month ago for one of the newer ones, but installing firmware 4.8.17 made me reconsider.

I also received confirmation, just today, that the Edgerouter Carrier (the flagship model w/10Gbe ports) is still under development. (Not dead)

I think the USG router devices will get some additional focus and attention next along with pushing the 5.0.x controller code forward.

 

[kvic]

fyi.. if of interest to some folks on this forum. Edge router firmware 1.8.5 is here.

A major FW upgrade for the ER-X platform imo.. DPI, HW NAT (Mediatek SoC does fully offload.. not the sort of CTF Broadcom does) and per port VLAN.

A long list of enhancements and bug fix as usual and attribution to inputs from forum members. That guy (ancheng) must have a pretty good way to keep track of all those as well as daily forum engagement..

I heard the guy was the only developer of EdgeMax series FW (until maybe very recently).

 

[System Error Message]

Thats good than that they're finally doing carrier grade routers. I wonder if they could offer a competitive price point compared to mikrotik and use those manycore CPUs. if it means having a 40 core 64 bit MIPS with RAM slots, SATA, PCIe, m.2 all for $1000 that would put some serious dent into mikrotik's sales, but i think ubiquiti might be a little too late as many ISPs have already stocked up on mikrotik.

I still think they have to allow changing the CPU frequency.