Your CHR expertise and knowledge would be best put to use for this. It will be far faster than a "real" MikroTik off the shelf product.
thanks for your info/post
One of the things I am also weighing when considering a ROS based high-throughput system is the following:
- With Mikrotik hardware , I could use a CCR1072 or CCR1036 product ( 72 CPU cores or 36 CPU cores)
- With a CHR running under the free VmWare ESXi (basic free license), I have a limitation of 8 CPUs I can allocate to a virtual machine.
(It is possible to purchace a VmWare ESXi license (for $90k or so) that will allow more CPUs to a virtual machine)
(it is also possible to dump VMware and switch/rebuild over to a different Linux (Ubuntu) hyper-visor system that also allows more cores be allocated to a virtual machine)
- Per core , a Xeon can easily out perform any processor currently in any Mikrotik product.
- BGP at this time , only uses a single core (out of many processor cores available)
- Additional cores on a BGP system can and are still used by other processes such as routes and firewall rules and such
Although I am leaning toward CHR on a VmWare ESXi system with 8 CPU cores , I am just not sure how well it stacks up to a physical Mikrotik product with 36 or 72 cores , when the system is under full load running BGP and all of the other normal firewall/routes configurations at the same time.
At this time, I am running BGP on a VmWare ESXi 8-core system and also running another BGP on a Mikrotik CCR1036. The 36-core CCR1036 always shows one core at normally 100 percent (BGP I assume). The 8-core CHR sometimes hits 100 percent on one core (BGP) but normally averages around 35 percent (constantly changing from 2 percent to 100 percent). In my testing, the CHR appears to be always faster for everything. However , bandwidth demands are growing and I want to keep on top of what works best for the $
North Idaho Tom Jones