We became very enthousiast when reading the Newsletter #74, since it included the announcement of the CRS317-1G-16S+RM.
We currently use multiple CCR1072’s in the core of our network to ‘aggregate’ all the sites using 10Gbit links, all sites (buildings) are connected using CCR1016-12S-1S+ routers.
But! I do have one question, the specs tell that the CRS317-1G-16S+RM will support RouterOS, but what about ‘wire-speed’ / ‘in hardware’ / ‘fast-path’ features, will this device support MPLS at ‘wire-speed’?
There is no need for MPLS support to forward MPLS packets over the switch, so yes MPLS packets can be forwarded at wire speed.
If you want to do MPLS label switching on this device, then no since it is software only feature.
I don’t think such an incredibly rude response is going to help anyone here. Maybe take a step back and reread his response.
I believe the response was intended as: 1) MPLS forwarding at wire speed is not a “hardware” issue, forwarding is done already. 2) MPLS Switching is not done at wire speed and requires the MPLS package.
Even if I’m wrong in reading that - being rude and name calling isn’t needed, and didn’t help bring any details to the subject.
To clarify the original question. This is just like any other CRS we have made.
There will be wirespeed L2 switching on the CRS317.
There will be no ASIC features, wirespeed L3 routing or MPLS switching. Some features may be added via software updates.
To “Mr. Polite” aka roadracer96,
Since original post did not contain specific use case, two possible scenarios were described when wire speed is possible and when it is not.
It is really hard even to imagine anything rude in my response.
Peace out.
You know damn well what he meant. It had a very specific and obvious question. "Will this device support MPLS at wire speed?.
The answer is no. There is no yes answer. It will forward Ethernet frame at wire speed. It will likely have no concept of what mpls is other than perhaps the ethertype and even then I’d be surprised.
Even trying to sneak a yes into the answer is irresponsible and misleading.
The answer is (now) clear (enough), the device won’t support MPLS Label Switching, and this is what I was looking for…
So this new CRS will not be the solution for us, can we expect a new Cloud Core Router device with more than 8 SFP+ ports (or a CRS with label switching support via ASIC) ?
For example a CCR1100-1G-16S+ or even CCR1100-1G-24S+ based on the TILE-Gx100 CPU?
Or probably even a device with (some) QSFP+ ports?
I’m totally not into CPU architectures, but a dual CPU CCR2072-1G-16S+ would be nice / an option for us as well..
As written our current ‘core’ is build using multiple ‘stacked’ CCR1072’s (the CCR’s are interconnected using 10G DAC SFP+), we really like the flexibility, feature richness and affordability of Mikrotik but as a FttH and (Unicast) IPTV ISP we need more 10G ports and probably even some 40G or 100G uplinks in the core, this type of technology is currently being offered by competing companies like Juniper, Brocade and Cisco. I’m very interested if we are the only company being interested in such a device from Mikrotik.
You are not the only one wishing to buy Mikrotik hardware with more 10g ports and more routing capability. We are also into that. We are a small datacenter looking to push 10G switches TOR (top of the rack), but we need an aggregation switch to interconnect them. We are very excited about this new switch, looking forward in buying it!
As far as I know, all Routerboards perform LACP on CPU. So no Mikrotik device can provide wirespeed LACP, for instance, 20gbit/s passing through two aggregated 10G SPF+ ports. Gentlemen, am I correct about this or am I missing something?
We are working on LACP support and also on accelerated routing and MPLS (including for this product). But since it is not ready yet, I did not want to make early promises.
How deep are the buffers on this switch? Is there a per-port, an aggregate shared, or both?
Also, how many forwarding rules are supported in the switch ASIC.
Finally, are there dual power supply options?
I realise these questions are not strictly related to the topic but they lend towards the high stability requirements of a transit LSR
