I was playing around with the latest stable RouterOS for x86 in Trial Mode.
I’ve used netinstall to install RouterOS on two of our Alix boards to play around with it (in the Lab env.) as our company is looking for an alternative for WiFi enterprise solutions.
I have been recommended RouterOS by a friend and Co-IT-Systems-Engineer.
I just started a simple Test setup with two Alix boards and while i wanted to create a Virtual-AP I came across a message stating:
“Couldn’t add New Interface - license level does not allow virtual AP (6)”
So did i just waste my time, setting everything up. Because the Trial Mode is limited in features?
If so how are we supposed to Test RouterOS fully in its features for 24h when the features are limited?
At this point i don’t think the 24 Trial is useful for testing RouterOS fully for 24 hours.
Don’t get me wrong.
I was planning to setup the whole environment including the required features and hold a presentation to the “decision makers” to convince them (if successful and stable) to switch to RouterOS and possibly Routerboard products. But at this point the Trial Mode is useless.
Also, does the (6) indicate that License Level 6 would be required for that feature to work in an x86 system?
That sounds odd, could you paste a full export? What’s the output of /system license print ?
From experience (have worked in the past with Alix boards) I think evaluating ROS on them won’t provide you with the Real Thing, hardware-wise the difference in reliability and resiliency is night and day vs typical routerboards.
A modern routerboard, will provide you a truer experience. Good candidates: RB951, Hap ac, wAP ac, etc… (won’t break the bank either)
On Mikrotik, specially on wireless line, is the “marriage” between routerboard + ROS what provides the known Mikrotik performance and reliability.
I have worked deeply with OpenWRT and derivatives, including payed ones, and once I tested Routerboards + ROS I never looked back; theres simply no comparison.
There’s another factor: nowadays that wireless = Atheros, all opensource projects using binary HAL portion drivers can’t simply compete in stability and features with ROS.
Our Core business is not Wireless (such as an WISP) itself.
I do see the advantages from an WISP point of view, when using RB’s + ROS. Which I believe is MikroTik’s main revenue.
However not every business is an WISP. A lot of businesses use and depend on x86/AMD64 systems. In our case especially SuperMicro boards.
I just discovered while searching the forum that RouterOS doesn’t even support Intel i210AT and i211AT. Which kinda already kills the use of ROS on most SuperMicro boards.
However. Back to the 24h Trial Mode:
As soon as i try to setup an Virtual-AP i get the above mentioned message.
The 24h Trial simply does NOT allow an Virtual-AP.
The Trial in my case is useless. Only two ways around this.
Buy a L4 License for each Alix. OR buy two Routerboard’s for a simple presentation to convince the “decision makers” to switch to MikroTik.
The irony is. When i order any of the above it needs to be approved by the same people.
And i don’t think for a presentation they want to spend money on a product which they have NOT even seen in action.
Seriously. I think both decisions, NOT supporting above mentioned Intel Nics and leaving features out of a trial are “business politics” by MikroTik.
I will probably stick to our current solution and everything that requires Wireless will simply be done by “ready to deploy” boxes like Ubiquiti’s wireless solutions.
Don’t change things that work especially if you are trying to reinvent a wheel… Your wage was surely more expensive than two cheapest routerboards with WiFi. So you have spend money of your decision makers without any output… Good job.
Does this error happen too with the proper wireless modes?
I didn’t assume you were a WISP, would have suggested different devices instead, the ones I suggested are those commonly deployed on hospitality and Wireless Enterprise scenarios.
Apart from that, wireless is wireless, same reliability, cost and performance applies no matter if for outdoor or indoor, for WISP, SMB or hospitality applications.
x86 for enterprise wireless APs? No way.
Which kind of businesses are we talking about? no matter if WLAN or WMAN deployments, you’ll find most companies trying to avoid x86 as much as possible but for very specific purposes. BTW, Mikrotik non-wireless devices installed base is bigger than wireless ones by far: NOCs, Large hospitalities, iX’s, Corporate LANs… in the end their motto is “Routing the world”
The reasons:
Costs
On x86 the cost per ether port (speaking worthy NICs) is much higher and can cost almost the same price (worthy 4 port intel gigabit nic for example) than a RB1100AHx2 alone.
Power draw (important not only for the electric bill, but for UPS equipment)
Another point: suitable Routerboard (RB1100Ahx2, CCR line…) already includes an L6 license, whereas for x86 costs an additional $250.
Performance, Reliability
Routerboard hardware is much more reliable to provide a 24/7 service than PC hardware. The reason resides in its simplicity. And it’ll beat the pants off in performance (but for really specific usage applications) of most x86 setups, let’s not speak of reliability or total port count.
As reliability is the paramount in these kind of setups, a routerboard wins: for a fraction of what a good x86 setup will cost you, you can get 2 routerboards and setup HA.
Really? how will you test them before purchasing?
I still don’t have a clear idea of what do you want or need. In any case AFAIK there’s no limitation, so this could be a bug, or misconfiguration.
RouterOS doesn’t support those NICs yet because trends nowadays are different, no conspiracy theories here… CHR was the answer for those applications where x86 is the way to go (NOCs, Cloud, etc); so you won’t have any problem using i2xxAT, i350, 10GbE or whatever, using CHR VMs on top of the hypervisor of your liking.
Free CHR License is only limited in throughput to 1Mbps, there aren’t time or feature limitations AFAIK.
What are you talking about?! No one was talking about reinventing the wheel. I did this Lab test setup in my free-time. So during the 15mins setup and testing they paid me Zero wage. I have full access to the facility after hours. And yesterday was a holiday. Guess what i did i worked in my free-time on something. So the decision makers spend Zero money on this test.
The topic is about the Trial Mode not offering the Virtual-AP feature and it is not being stated anywhere. The wiki needs to be updated to reflect that it does NOT support Virtual-AP in Trial Mode.
Yes it happens with proper wireless modes. Thats the first thing i have tried.
It just happens that station-pseudo-bride mode was the last test in did that was exported using the terminal.
We have Ubiquiti hardware in stock. So we already have very good experience with Ubiquiti gear.
Like said. If it were up to me. I would stick with MikroTik + Ubiquiti for our enterprise network and future deployment. But I’m not the one making the decision.
I’m the one that needs to convince those mrns to switch. All they see are the cost if changes are up. I need to convince them, that in the long run they will “save” money.
When i started here over 10 years ago, they were still running bare metal with windows servers. After heavy convincing fights. We were one of the first companys to use VMware and needless to say everything is HA, redundant and virtualized using Linux and Citrix for clients.
I can see myself buying two RB’s using my own money for the presentation.
Which shouldn’t be the case if the Trial Mode would simply allow Virtual-AP’s.
Which again is the whole topic about.
Yes it happens with proper wireless modes. Thats the first thing i have tried.
It just happens that station-pseudo-bride mode was the last test in did that was exported using the terminal.
Ok, then I think this is either a bug, or should be noted on the Wiki… (already contacted support).
Another possible area: which Wireless cards do the Alix boards use? Could it be an unsupported feature for your specific wireless chipset, please post
/system resource pci print detail
again if you share what is your intended project, and any hardware restrictions we would have better info to help/guide you.
