Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
User avatar
sytex
Trainer
Trainer
Topic Author
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 10:35 am
Location: Hungary

260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:33 am

We got some new 260GSP-s.

On the box label there is 260GSP and Type: CSS106-1G-4P-1S
It came with SWOS 2.0 as default.
Can we found somewhere the downloadable FW for this?
Is there a changelog somewhere?
What are the main differencies?
 
PeterEs
just joined
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:19 am

Did you find anything about this? I have the same device. I'm trying to get vlans work for a week, but it looks like there is a bug or something in the os.

I tried to downgrade the OS to 1.17 but the device doesn't accept the firmware file :(
 
User avatar
sytex
Trainer
Trainer
Topic Author
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 10:35 am
Location: Hungary

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:39 pm

Also the same issue here... cannot get VLANs working properly
 
becs
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:26 am

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:23 pm

Hello,
CSS106-1G-4P-1S with SwOS 2.0 is very similar to RB260GSP. Additionally, it supports RSTP.
We are working on it and soon SwOS2.0 will be available for download at MikroTik webpage.
 
reverged
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:30 am

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:56 am

We received some of these today.
It looks like this is a new design, which may explain why there has been no stock for months.
The Taifatech CPU is gone and replaced with a STM32F107xxx. That's probably good long term.
The switch chip is under a heat sink and since we need to ship, we didn't remove to compare.

In true Mikrotik fashion, a new device shows up under the old part number with no warning!
I would much prefer the RB260GSP be formally obsoleted and replaced by the CSS106.
Then we know we are dealing with a new beast before plugging one in.

This device is new and therefore by definition: unproven!
Add to that version 2.0 of SWOS with no means to downrev, since older revs are presumably incompatible with this CPU.

The only thing that isn't changed is the plastics.......maybe.
 
scirchirillo
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:40 pm

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:02 pm

Hi,

Have You got News about new firmware ?
We have errors on Vlan..
Configuration Vlan aren't match.
When we configure Vlan and we trace with Wireshark, it show another Vlan ID.

Thanks
 
aliclubb
newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:29 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:59 pm

I would like to add to this, in that VLANs appear to be seriously broken on SwOS 2.0.

In previous versions of SwOS, namely 1.17, starting from a factory defaulted RB260GSP, all that was needed to allow tagged VLAN management access to the device was to assign the switch an IP address on the management subnet, then simply enter the correct VLAN ID in System -> Allow from VLAN.

On SwOS 2.0 this process does not work at all, and once carried out, access cannot be gained either through original IP (192.168.88.1) or the IP on the management subnet, be it with management VLAN tagging or without.
 
taduikis
Member
Member
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:09 pm

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:51 pm

Sorry for resurecting old topic, but my new one would go with similar name.

What is known regarding this new sw chip (STM32F107xxx) in CSS106? I'm particularly interested in packet buffer size. Is it larger even by few kilobytes compared to old RB260GS(P)?
 
User avatar
xvo
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:12 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:26 pm

STM32F107xxx is not a switch chip it's the CPU.
 
taduikis
Member
Member
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:09 pm

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:10 pm

Thanks for correcting me. But my question stands as before: did packet buffers increase?
 
0pl0pl0pl
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:41 pm

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:18 pm

Thanks for correcting me. But my question stands as before: did packet buffers increase?
No. Still 1Mbit (128kB)
 
taduikis
Member
Member
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:09 pm

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:52 am

Yeah, thanks. I’ve figured that out already.
 
User avatar
anav
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 18958
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:28 pm
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Contact:

Re: 260GSP vs. CSS106-1G-4P-1S

Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:03 am

Thanks for correcting me. But my question stands as before: did packet buffers increase?
No. Still 1Mbit (128kB)
Can you elaborate....... I feel a stupid question coming on!!!

How is 1Mbit = 128kB? and thus so is 4Mbit = 512kB
Reason I ask is that I am looking at two switches, one is advertised as the following.

PERFORMANCE UNIT A
Bandwidth/Backplane 20 Gbps
Packet Forwarding Rate 14.88 Mpps
MAC Address Table 8K
Packet Buffer Memory 4.1 Mbit
Jumbo Frame 9 KB

And the other
PERFORMANCE Unit B
Switching Capacity 20Gbps
Packet Forwarding Rate 14.9Mpps
MAC Address Table 8K
Packet Buffer Memory 512KB
Jumbo Frame 9KB

Are you saying that they are exactly the same in terms of Packet Buffer Memory???
ahh its a bytes to bits issue different B!!
1byte=8bits got it!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests