Are there plans to produce RB412 or RB413 models?
There is substantial gap both in functions and price between RB411 and RB433.
Also I’d love to see a RB133 shaped RB4x3.
We’ve installed a big base of RB133’s now are struggeling with bandwidth issues, cause with EoIP we never will reach more than 10Mbps at the client’s side (The CPU of the RB133’s is maxed out by EoIP).
Replacing these boards with RB411 or RB433 is not possible, because RB411 only has one MiniPCI-slot, whereas RB433 is way too big to fit in our outdoor enclosures.
what is the reason of using EoIP for service? (why not simple bridge or route?)
by the way, you can use VPLS too
I use a routed network (some medium sized broadcast domains) and need to transport PPPoE through these segments.
That’s why I use EoIP. VPLS isn’t much faster, because fragmentation and reassembly still happens.
I could use VLANs, though. But these are a big pain to set up, because I’d need to replace several devices in my infrastructure to support VLANs.
Altogether, the RB133 is to slow. It is not possible to reliably deliver 24Mbps to a customer (with proper customer isolation and security).
Yes it is a lot faster, and you can eliminate fragmentation by increasing the MTU of your backhaul links to allow encapsulation of full size (1500 byte) ethernet frames inside VPLS packets.
Even on a fully routed network, you will get the benefits of MPLS switching packets accross your backhaul network.
VPLS is a far superior solution than VLAN’s, especially over a WISP network.
I did a presentation on MPLS at the AU MUM this year, have a look at it for some ideas on how it may benefit your network. http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/AU11/au-thrift.pdf
VPLS is much faster than EoIP when the packets are sent over a router (when they are routed between subnets).
But encapsulation and decapsulation of VPLS and EoIp on a RB133 are roughly equally slow on a RB133.
I cannot raise the L2MTU enough in order to support unfragmented transmission of 1500 bytes packets.
I don’t get it, you want to replace a 133 by a 411 but that is not possible because is has only one card?
I have many 133’s (133) and they have only one card. The 411 has the same size as 133 boards so I am in the process of replacing them.
And, if you want a 411 with two cards, there is the 411 “R” series that has an onboard card plus mini pci.
So I don’t understand your problems.
I operate in 5GHz only, so RB411R is no option.
The onboard card of the 411R is 2GHz according to the description on routerboard.com
Also there are lots of RB133 with more than one card installed.
These had been installed before we were aware of the interference issues while using multiple cards.
Unfortunately the only options are:
- live with it like it is.
- or find a faster Routerboard that can fit into the enclosures.
replacing the enclosures is way to expensive.
Ok, I have about 60 rb133’s (133C3, maybe others existed at the time, can’t recall though). The 133’s definitely have only one slot on board.
You talk about interference issues with multiple cards. I fully agree, I don’t do that any more. One box, one card (or it must be 1x5Ghz + 1x2,4Ghz).
So why are you now still looking for a board that has same physical fitting as rb133 but you don’t like the multi radio system? Makes not a lot a sense imho. 
How is your setup that you need 2 cards in a CPE? Would be a rare kind of network?
It’s a setup where antenns + enclosure + mounting were installed at the customer’s site.
The customer also is a relay to other customers within a redundant network in order to provide himself and the other custumers with redundancy.
The customers are asking for more bandwidth, which the wireless system itself easily could provide.
But tunneling with a rb133 reduces the bandwidth to roughly 9Mbps and also limits wireless forwarding performance.
It is too expensive to exchange the enclosure (including cabling etc.) at the customer’s site.
But it is fairly easy just to exchange to routerboard.
So I asked for a similar shaped routerboard with more cpu power.
? So when is this 2nd radio active? If customers 1rst radio fails? In such case customer gets connectivity via neighbour CPE?
Or is second radio connected to second AP?
I’m interested in how your redundancy setup is working…
It’s just plain RSTP.
Routing is being used for the backbone.
Due to LOS issues the customers are daisy chained.
To still provide service to all active customers
- even if one customer switches his device off or his device is faulty -
there are two or more antennas and wireless cards per CPE.
Alternate (Blocking) links are tuned to low TX-power and low data-rates
in order to minimize interference with the forwarding links.
btw.: I am curious why Mikrotik announced a RB435.
This will make interference issues even worse.
btw.: I am curious why Mikrotik announced a RB435.
This will make interference issues even worse.
now you can replace those 433’s what’s have 3 cards inside - and have less interference using 5 of 3 slots 
(i would welcome a shielding dummy minipci card
You have the RB133c. Perhaps you have never seen the RB133?
http://www.roc-noc.com/mikrotik/routerboard/rb133.html
Three Ethernet ports and there is a third mini-PCI slot on the back side.
Tom
hmm, indeed, never have seen them.. must have missed these. 