Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

RouterOS General
21

+1 for SFP28 and QSFP28, maybe a 4 port router

22

Great thread!

25 and 40 gig would be my focus. I’ll post a longer response when I have a spare minute to think about specific port configurations. Right now, I’ve got to get ready for the US MUM :slight_smile:

23

24

The ccr1036 with two SFP+ (10G) ports based on speed tests is working great.
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/public-mikrotik-bandwidth-test-server-s-now-shutdown-as-of-april-1st-2025/94863/1

Going forward more ports is better and support for QSFP ports would allow additional networking options. I have not tested the CHR yet beyond the SFP+ (10G) ports in my btest CHR but suspect scaling is allowed based on licensing, currently a p10.
SFP+ (10G)
QSFP (4x10G)

25

A side question to Normis and team: any opportunity for routerboard designs with native x86 or x64 support. Tile has been good as a platform but i do also like the x64 potential in the CHR guests. And one more shout out for CHR vmware-tools :slight_smile:

26

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

I really like this topic !!!

My suggestions are:

  • Possible special stack ports
    Where there is a minimum of two stack ports per device (or four ports) , which enables the ability to stack more than two Mikrotik devices.
    Where there is a new Mikrotik stack interface using normal copper RJ-45 connectors and cat6 compatible (and possible cat7 or cat8 compatible.
    Where stacking could enable two stackable Mikrotik routers and possibly two stackable Mikrotik switches to act and behave as a single device.
    Where there could be an option that if these copper RJ-45 stack ports are not used in a stack configuration, then they can alternately be used in a 10-gig copper Ethernet environment.
    With high-speed stack ports, it would then be possible for Mikrotik to offer a lower-cost basic system, then additional Mikrotik devices could be ordered later, or as/when new Mikrotik stackable devices come out, then can also be added to the stack.
    Where with the base system, it is possible to bring up a small–to-medium–to-large number of interfaces by adding to the Mikrotik stack interfaces.
    Where a 48 port 10/100/1000 Ethernet option is simply a new stacked device.
    Where a 12 to 48 port SFP interface is simply a new stacked device.
    Where a 12 to 48 port SFP+ interface is simply a new stacked device.
    Where additional 12 port 10-gig copper Ethernet interfaces can be added into the stack.

    \

  • The ability to perform true bonded/load-sharing of SFP+ or 10-gig-copper ports to achieve 20 t 40 Gig throughput (True single MAC address to single MAC address balanced load-sharing)
    Where it would be possible to have up to four (or more) 10-gig fiber (or copper) which are remotely separated to have greater than 10-gig throughput.

  • SFP+ ports are backwards compatible with normal SFP devices ( This would be assumed )

  • Possibly four 1-gig Ethernet ports (with POE on each port)

  • For faster than 10-gig interfaces (not including stack ports), I would like see the most common/compatible/popular/standard interface used.
    I have no experience with SFP28 or QSFP)

  • CPU
    A bad-ass and popular CPU (Intel XEON), with lots of built-in CPU internal cache
    Then as newer & faster CPUs come out, it is just a simple matter of switching to the newer CPU
    High-speed RAM (standard high-speed normal memory sticks) (not motherboard surface mounted - user upgradeable & user replaceable)

  • Possibly one to four PCI card slots for future cards/interfaces.
    There may be a desire to use an already existing PCI card in a Mikrotik - where a quick/simple ROS driver could bring up the PCI card device/interface.

  • Dual power supplies (the new system should be able to be powered by industry standardTelco-48-Volts, and/or standard AC outlets
    Where the AC power supplies are NOT built-into the new Mikrotik - but instead the AC power supplies are standard telco-48-volts out and then connected to the new Mikrotik.
    Were 12 or 24 Volts is not needed or used (except to POE ports)

  • One serial port

  • All flash ram on removable user replaceable industry standard media

  • ROS (Intel/AMD) 64-bit firmware

  • Future software/firmware ability for two independent systems can function in a hot-stand-by-redundant mode (something like Cisco HSRP)

  • Future ROS firmware/software for true VRF interfaces/routing tables (similar to how Cisco handles VRF interfaces/routes without injecting routed/IP-addresses/MAC-addresses into the entire system.
    Where it would be additionally possible to also have a VRF interface for true out-of-band management interface on a router.
    Where multiple independent VRF routing tables and interfaces to not see each other and are not seen by the base system.
    With VRF features, I suspect a MetaRouter feature will not be needed or even desired.
    These new VRF features should support the normal stuff a network configuration will probably encounter - such as VRF to VRF bridges & VRF DHCP & VRF NAT & ability to bridge VRF interfaces to other VRF configurations & bridge VRF interfaces to live interfaces & bridge VRF interfaces to non-VRF interfaces.
    Possible idea - Ability CPU limit VRF functions so that a single or multiple or all combined VRF features do not degrade the primary non-VRF configuration (UNIX nice )

  • This is a MUST … The ability to perform full BGP and quickly handle all BGP routes (without the need to upgrade something at the BGP tables increase and more BGP interfaces/peers are added.
    Possible idea … Ability to run full BGP under a VRF environment instead of under the non-VRF environment — there can be some huge advantages to a VRF BGP environment. And possibly the ability to run multiple independent full BGP environments to multiple up-stream connectivity peering networks.

  • No excessive fancy LEDS. Possibly just a small simple LED display which can actually show real-time diagnostic information (verses individual single LET lights)

  • Two platforms at first.
    A low cost (fewer interfaces & devices mounted to the motherboard. Something most of us -and- our customers can afford without breaking our budgets.

A high-end high-throughput version (exact same motherboard - just with faster parts and all the interfaces mounted on the motherboard.
This simplifies production and the low-cost version gets the product out in the field quicker to the engineers who want to test-drive it in a LAB or evaluate in production.

  • Standard rack mount chassis

  • No huge big blade chassis in the design - where expansion and additional devices are added to the system using Mikrotik stack interfaces (keep costs down to get started)

  • When this low-cost stackable configuration starts to take off and becomes desired and popular, then a blade version of the same thing could then be latter designed which would then use a high-speed back-plane between cards.
    By starting with a stack interface (instead of a blade back-plane), the initial costs would be lower.
    Later, when a pattern and market develops for an even faster version, then the basic designs could then be slightly re-engineered to use a back-plane in a large chassis (which is more expensive/faster).
    Stacking existing and older Mikrotik devices (some with less memory and flash and slower CPUs) could be possibly done with a RO-Stack OS, where the new OS has everything but the minimum necessary software drivers to enable the new RO-Stack OS to participate in the stack and deliver the interfaces over an Ethernet stack interface. This would add value to all existing Mikrotik devices because a fork-lift replacement would not be necessary to get started with this new “Mikrotik stack head-end device”.
    Consider a CHR stack version of ROS. It might be interesting to combine other CHR systems to be able to participate in the stack (possible VRF BGP via stacked CHR ??? Interesting idea ? ) I would want to name it CHR-Stack (over Ethernet interfaces)

  • With a stack interface (using a normal Ethernet interface), it would be great to have all existing Mikrotik ROS devices support 1-Gig or 10-Gig stacking. This adds value to all existing Mikrotik products already in production and already in use.

EDIT/add - If stack interfaces are considered - the stack interfaces do not need to support power over the stack. Each stack device should use it’s own (48 volt or AC) power supply.
EDIT/add - A possible hardware reset-/-reboot watchdog. The ROS (or what I would like to call it the RO-Stack OS) could do something like a Netwatch IP ping or something) to keep resetting/clearing the hardware watchdog. If the ROS ( or RO-Stack OS ) locks up - crashes, then the hardware watchdog will continue counting down to zero which could then trigger a full-blown reboot - resulting in an auto-recovered system. The slave stacked devices could also participate in the primary watchdog. Possibly by using a reset wire in the RJ-45 stack cable. Thus, a reboot command on the primary master stack device could possibly reboot everything in the stack if wanted/needed.
EDIT/add - Clarification - When I refer to stacking using Ethernet ports , I am not referring to stacking using IP. It could be something like MAC to MAC. Where the master stacked devices knows the MAC address of everything that is supposed to be in the stack and what it is. The hardware Ethernet switch chips (or ROS software bridge if necessary on old devices) could be used to re-distribute the stack data at wire-speed to other stack ports. It might be even possible to allocate/use a special Vlan for the Ethernet connector(s) stack interfaces.
EDIT/add - Optional - faster than 10-gig stack ports could also be combined and also work with 10-gig or 1-gig interfaces. Possibly, the administrator simply just defines what ports are used for stacking instead of being normal interfaces. This makes it flexible for how the ports are used. With user/administrator selectable stack ports and with the ability for the master stack device to talk to different stacked slave devices at different speeds, the system would never become obsolete - instead it just becomes bigger faster and more desirable for commercial business use/installations.
EDIT/add - slaves on the stack only need to be configured to know the MAC address (or auto-discover) the master slave interface. The master stack device should hold the entire configuration for everything and be as simple as making a backup on any other Mikrotik.

North Idaho Tom Jones

27

OMG this is big text
But Iiked [emoji6]

Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk

28

IMHO, there is no point in developing anything new with 10Gbps/40Gbps ports at this point in time and the new 16 x SFP+ switch you presented in Milan this year should have already been made with SFP28 ports. But let’s keep it simple for starters…

  • Considering that new SFP28 ports should be able to support old SFP+ modules, how about a CCR2572 with 8 x SFP28 ports as a direct in-place upgrade for CCR1072?
  • Then bring it up a notch and create something like CCR10072 (yes, that’s an extra zero) with 8 x SFP28 + 1 (or 2?) x QSFP28, although it would probably need a better CPU.
  • Then let’s talk datacenters - how about a new 16 x SFP28 + 2 x QSFP28 switch with enough CPU power for some OSPF/iBGP routing experiments?

Naturally, this would also require some new SFP28 modules, SFP28/QSFP28 DAC cables and so on…

Edit: It looks like some people here aren’t aware that new 25/100 Gbps ports can also support “old” 10/40 Gbps speeds? Here’s some reading material:

29

So IMHO the conclusion so far is:

Hardware

  1. Stacking as the fastest path for extension
  2. Rack chassis with highspeed backplane to connect interfaces and CPU motherboards tailored for current needs
  3. True HA funcionality

If we could have CPU-board with ROS kernel separated from interface cards then we can easily upgrade router without changing any rule.
If the interface name will be local and bound to interface card id then rules based on that name will need no change,
Do you need more pure CPU power ? Just replace CPU card.
More memory ? Add it.
Hard disk or any permanent storage ? Add storage card.
etc., etc.

30

@TomjNorthIdaho you win the award for the longest post :wink: but it sounds like you want a x86 server.

31

Normis, thank you for asking for our opinions.

If it was at all possible, I would suggest Mikrotik make this new router with 2x modular “interface” bays. Users could then “cold swap” these modules to meet their specific requirements…

Making a modular router would:

  • Allow various interface combinations, and would keep everyone happy :slight_smile:
  • Lower the manufacturing risk to Mikrotik (Bulk manufacture the base router, then JIT manufacture the interface modules)
  • Allow users to change out the interface modules as their requirements change, e.g. they could start out with a 8x SFP+ module, then later on move to a QSP28 module
  • Meet lower cost requirements, e.g. cost sensitive customer could buy base router + 1 PSU + 1 module card. Baller customer could buy base router + 2 PSU + 2 module cards.

Example interface modules could be:
1x QSFP28
2x QSFP28
4x SFP28
8-10x SFP+
16x SFP
16x 1gigabit Copper

If you do decide to go with “fixed” port configs though, my suggestions would be:

Spec1 For people who have exiting 10gigabit networks and do not need higher performance.

  • 16x SFP+
  • 1x Gigabit Ethernet

Spec2 For people wanting higher speed per “wavelength” or to future proof themselves.

  • 8x SFP28
  • 2x QSFP28
  • 1x Gigabit Ethernet

This will allow 100gigabit throughput via the 8x SFP28 (4in, 4 out) or the 2x QSFP28 (1in, 1 out). It would also mean you could interconnect to other locations via redundant QSFP28 connections and then use SFP28 to connect customers, or to other equipment in the same DC.

I put the 1x Gigabit Ethernet on both of them, as this can be used to netinstall the routers, and for out-of-band management.

32

Hello Normis
IMHO sfp+ on router more than enough.

33

Maybe not a specifica high speed router, but a PoE switch / router model which has configurable PoE voltages.

So each port should be able to set:

  • no PoE


  • passive PoE (and select voltage, mostly 24V)


  • 48V / 56V PoE.

So that for example a Cisco or HP switch can be replaced by a Mikrotik.

The problem now is that if you have an existing Cisco / HP / Juniper etc… PoE switch for xxx AP’s, and you want to add Mikrotik, you cannot simple do that, since all professional AP’s work on 48V. And most Mikrotik (and Ubiquity etc…) work on passive 24V. So you need to find local power (not always available) etc…

So I want to select the power voltage output on each port.

34

I second the x86 architecture, but with the configuration and control of a routerboard :slight_smile:

35

Port config, I’d like to see 16 or 24 ports SFP+ with an option on a couple of higher speed ports for interconnection.

Most importantly though, if its a rack model, it MUST have internal psu, with an optional secondary. No more damn wall warts in the rack!

36

This router sounds like the Next Gen CCR. The current CCR have internal PSU so I can’t see Mikrotik changing now for no reason.

My wishes are for user replaceable PSU on the new product line, so that PSU can be replaced without removing the router from the rack.

And for -48volt DC input like the new RB1100AHx4 has :slight_smile: this way they can be used in Telco co-lo rooms and road side cabinets that are almost always -48volt only.

37

I don’t know which are the possibilities of the considered platform so cannot tailor port count/capacities to specific CPU lanes, but these would be sweet combos to have, I assume 1U and routing application (not switch):

  • 12 SFP+, 3xQSFP
  • 16 SFP+, 2xQSFP
  • 16 SFP+, 4xQSFP
  • 24 SFP+, 4xQSFP or 2xQSFP28 (2x100G)
38

Normis, every RM Router Should have a DC power option!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

39

I respectfully disagree. Those chipsets from Broadcom are fully functional and capable routers. I was hoping Mikrotik could jump into the bandwagon to disrupt Cisco/Juniper/Nokia and bring down the overall costs of networking. Eventually I’d like to start an ISP business, but well…equipment isn’t exactly cheap. That being said, it’s not equipment that bothers me so much as having to grease the wheels by buying political power to get right of way and whatnot.

40

The chipsets from Broadcom are being used in “routing switches” e.g. Brocade MLX/VDX, Nokia 7210 SAS-T/M and certain Arista switches.

They are great for fixed scenarios but are not good as a “General Purpose” router, and have some pretty hard limitations. e.g. Broadcom Trident II can do VXLAN and QinQ and vlan re-write, just not all together, and due to everything being “baked” into the silicone, that cannot be changed.

Mikrotik have a lot more experience now than when they started the CCR project, so I am confident they will select an architecture that is suitable for use as a general purpose router.