Hi,
I have an CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+ with 2 ISPs as BGP session with static routes. I want replace it with another hardware that have 2 power supply. Because the actual router has RouterOS 6 and the new hardware supports only RouterOS 7, what hardware model do you recommend , up to $600?
Thank you!
CCR2004-16G-2S+?
$465,=, dual power and better BGP performance than the 1009.
replaced 4 cisco 3925/k9 with CCR2004-1G-12S+2XS
working flawless with iBGP and eBGP running as it was on the 3925 units
with way less power consumption
i presume CCR2004 would be a valid option to replace CCR1009 in your case
The RB4011, RB5009, and CCR2004 all have relatively the same speed of quad-core processor, with 4011 being arm32 and 5009 and 2004 arm64. The 5009 has three ways to power it (triple redundancy), and has a POE-out option should you need/want it. Heck, you can get two or three RB5009’s for $600.
The CCR2004 models have more ports; arguably the 16-port GBE models would probably make more sense since they have actual switch chips so the ports can run wire-speed vs. CPU bridging across the SFP+ ports on the other model.
specify what you intend for other model…
The RB5009 and CCR2004-1G-12S+2XS is the only model with SFP directly connected to switch chip…
CCR2004-16G-2S+ and RB4011 not.
The CCR2004-1G-12S+2XS does not have a switch chip. All ports are bridged to the CPU by way of the PIPE chip thing.
The CCR2004-16G-2S+ (and Passively Cooled version) has two 8-port switches. (We’re ignoring the PCIe version of the CCR2004.)
The RB4011 has two 5-port switches.
The SFP+ ports on the 4011 and all 2004’s are connected to the CPU directly.
The RB5009 has a single switch chip for all ports.
For the devices with switches, the ports on the switches can switch at wire speed with each other. For the 12S+2XS, all traffic has to go through the CPU.
For the routers with multiple switches (2004-16G, 4011), switch-to-switch traffic goes through the CPU.
My point was that the RB5009 (or two or three of them) would be my first choice, followed by one of the two 2004 models with the 16GBE ports, which would make more sense than the 12S+2XS because of the switches vs. the PIPE.
If the budget was higher, closer to $700-800, I’d recommend the CCR2116 due to the much better processor + RAM, M.2 NVME slot, all-switched ports, and L3HW offload support.
I own two of them and have run a series of throughput tests, both bridging across ports and routing across ports. They are lousy at routing much over 3Gbps unless you have zero filters/rules, at which point the CPU can push about 19Gbps in+out (at 99% utilization).
By including the diagram, you’re proving my point. It doesn’t have a switch. It has the Marvell port extender, with two of the 25G ports connecting to the CPU, two of them to the outside world, and 12 downstream 10G ports. All cross-port traffic goes through the CPU, and at best case is “fast pathed/fast bridged”.
From https://packetpushers.net/blog/marvells-pipe-802-1br-port-extenders-pointless/:
Port extenders hardware are cheaper than Ethernet switches because > they don’t perform forwarding
and
A hardware port extender device looks like 1RU switch with 48 front ports and some number of ASICs > but no forwarding between the ports occurs on the device> . Software port extenders were to be implemented in vSwitch’s of various types.
Why do you think badly? It wasn’t to contradict you, but to confirm: I also modified my previous post…
i think ccr2004 is a good replacement for ccr1009 but i must be clear, is not much an upgrade
do yourself a favor and go with ccr2116 995USD, you will not regret the investment, the price to performance ratio is much better
OK, that makes more sense.
No USB port 
for storage ccr2116 has 1 x M.2 PCIe slot
Hi all, I’m new to the forum, I’m also considering to purchase a CCR2004-16G-2S+ ,
just a question about the two 8-ports switch chips, do they support advanced hw.offloaded features like 802.3ad LACP, VLANs and QoS priorities?
…or for example LACP bound traffic is directed through CPU?