And Dont forget:Let's not forget that QSFP and QSFP28 both support breakout or fanout cables.
This is getting pretty OT now, but:I'd still love to see you guys add VXLAN / EVPN features to your devices.
Mike, Barefoot is looking to scale down as well as up. It's a question I specifically asked them when I visited their corp HQ in January. Look for Barefoot going into smaller boxes in next 12 months.I assume that chip is a bit larger scale than Mikrotik is looking to go... given that it handles 65x the performance Mikrotik hinted towards in the initial post.Great points as always NZ...The chipsets from Broadcom are being used in "routing switches" e.g. Brocade MLX/VDX, Nokia 7210 SAS-T/M and certain Arista switches.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.
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.
However, I will add that ASIC limitations are no longer an issue for any of the newer whitebox switch gear running the Barefoot Tofino chip as the ASIC can be programmed on the fly with the P4 language. Barefoot is being put in switches that would have otherwise run a Trident 2+ chipset.
I've said this many times and I get yelled at and disparaged.I know this is probably not going to go over well, but I'm going to say it anyway: it's time for Mikrotik to have an Apple equivalent of "Back to the Mac"; except the Mac is RouterOS. I don't want to see another piece of hardware. I want to see a commitment to releasing RouterOS 7. All these different devices they are releasing, yeah.. they make sense for a small portion of your customers. Why not focus some effort on something that _all_ your customers can benefit from? There are numerous wish lists on the forums talking about what we'd all like to see in v7, so it's not worth re-iterating here.
Hopefully someone out there will see the logic in what I'm saying.
Software engineers != Hardware EngineersI know this is probably not going to go over well, but I'm going to say it anyway: it's time for Mikrotik to have an Apple equivalent of "Back to the Mac"; except the Mac is RouterOS. I don't want to see another piece of hardware. I want to see a commitment to releasing RouterOS 7. All these different devices they are releasing, yeah.. they make sense for a small portion of your customers. Why not focus some effort on something that _all_ your customers can benefit from? There are numerous wish lists on the forums talking about what we'd all like to see in v7, so it's not worth re-iterating here.
Hopefully someone out there will see the logic in what I'm saying.
Well there's also no point in bringing out hardware, if the software to utilize the hardware, isn't thereSoftware engineers != Hardware EngineersI know this is probably not going to go over well, but I'm going to say it anyway: it's time for Mikrotik to have an Apple equivalent of "Back to the Mac"; except the Mac is RouterOS. I don't want to see another piece of hardware. I want to see a commitment to releasing RouterOS 7. All these different devices they are releasing, yeah.. they make sense for a small portion of your customers. Why not focus some effort on something that _all_ your customers can benefit from? There are numerous wish lists on the forums talking about what we'd all like to see in v7, so it's not worth re-iterating here.
Hopefully someone out there will see the logic in what I'm saying.
x86 which is being phased out (and supports a few, at best hardware devices. MT even said no more new drives till the mythical v7 makes an appearance), CHR which to say the least carries piles of additional licensing fees, and misses crucial functionality. Hell, I may just as well take a trusty linux distro with Quagga, Bird or something else then I suppose. Why then bother with MT, and MT's hardware at all (and what about the thousands I've already invested in hardware that promised the world and delivered everything but)? I suppose it's much more important to rather have a ROUTER running a SMB server, or HTTP Proxy server, or even insecure DNS servers by defaultJust different requirements\designs. The CCRs are great performance for the price when you're not considering large routing tables. Whatever this platform is may have big enough cores to overcome the large routing table issue. BGP works just fine on x86 and CHR. If not, you use these boxes for MPLS and they don't carry full Internet tables. Just stick on an x86 box for your full tables routers.
Let's keep this thread on topic. If you must whine, elegantly incorporate it in an appropriate response to the original request.
If you don't think I criticize or allow criticism, you clearly haven't been paying attention.Anyways, that's pretty much the response I expected yes. Say anything bad and you are "whining" Never allowed any criticism against MT, they can't do anything wrong... All I'm saying, MT needs to get its priorities straight... There's a lot of people starting to notice these... issues...
Make RouterOS great again ?it's time for Mikrotik to have an Apple equivalent of "Back to the Mac"; except the Mac is RouterOS.
omg you savage! =)Make RouterOS great again ?it's time for Mikrotik to have an Apple equivalent of "Back to the Mac"; except the Mac is RouterOS.
Ok, then lets's count how many of them has two PSU? I suspect there is only ONE (ok, two, since one was a replacemnet for another one) When it comes to this point all I got from Mikrotik was advice to supply second power source via PoE, either via MT-compatible switch (tricky thing to find to use in rack in high-end DC) or via use PoE injector with - yes - China made cheap external PSU.None of the rack mountable CCR units has an external power supply
That's not even the question of how reliable the PSUs themselves are. That's the question of the ability to power the router from two separate UPSs and be able to keep the router running while you're replacing the batteries in one of them.Ok, I understand: your CCRs are so strong and reliable so you don't even believe anyone may want to have two PSU?
But I would like a desktop unit with a single internal PSU.None of the rack mountable CCR units has an external power supply
Not a problem, but this is not high-end device, right? And this topic is for 100G ports, something you just don't need in desktop unit, after all.But I would like a desktop unit with a single internal PSU.None of the rack mountable CCR units has an external power supply
So MikroTik is now working on a 100 Gbit/s router. The only decision is which ports that device should support. Can we get a hint what ASIC / platform is currently used?We are working on some future high speed routers with around 100Gbit throughput,
Wish to look at it! Modular 13U router from Mikrotik with add-in blades full of different ports, with built-in support for hardware redundancy of CPU cards, storage.Modular router is fundamental requirement
Will people please stop talking about multicore BGP! It isn't going to happen! The performance enhancements are coming from other areas, not multi thread support.If you bring out ROS7 (BGP Multicore), then please build routers with 2-4 Tilera72 or newer CPU's with:
4x CFP4 (100GE) (router should be able to handle a total amount of 200 Gbit/s)
8x SFP+
1x RJ45 Gbit
I think the future is CFP4 at the moment.
This is the market that Mikrotik does not reach at this time (Brocade CES, Juniper, Cisco,...).
But why not build a plattform like Brocade MLX with linecards (24x RJ45, 8x SFP+, 4x CFP4,...) and CPU cards that can be placed?
A case with 2 power supplies and line card slots could be cheap to produce.
Well, they did do some work on it and were talking about it. I personally am not a big fan of making it too complicated....I think 1 thread for 1 neighbor should be good enough. But that's up to 'tik. However their competitors are multi-threading all of their daemons so........there's that.Will people please stop talking about multicore BGP! It isn't going to happen! The performance enhancements are coming from other areas, not multi thread support.
Who is doing multi-threaded BGP? I think there's one or two platforms out of all BGP platforms that are multithreaded. Gah, I got suckered into a hijack....Well, they did do some work on it and were talking about it. I personally am not a big fan of making it too complicated....I think 1 thread for 1 neighbor should be good enough. But that's up to 'tik. However their competitors are multi-threading all of their daemons so........there's that.Will people please stop talking about multicore BGP! It isn't going to happen! The performance enhancements are coming from other areas, not multi thread support.
If Mikrotik is to keep up then they kinda have to do so.
I personally have never had that much of a problem with the "speed" of a router/network convergence. This coming from working on networks that throw around tens of Tb/sec, the speed of convergence is generally not that much of a problem. Unless one works in like financial services I don't see this as much of a big deal.
To be honest, having separate daemons (as in a separate daemon for LDP, BGP, OSPF, ISIS, RSVP, so on) is more important than the daemons being multithreaded themselves.
At one point in time I thought there was a powerpoint presentation and a video talking about multithreaded BGP daemon for CCRs in v7. I'm having a hard time finding it now but I did read through it a few times.To attempt to bring it back on-topic, bigger CPU cores postpones the need for v7's new routing. Unless MT is going x86 or CHR with the new platform, version 6 will need major rewrites, which just seems silly at this point.
https://youtu.be/ihZiAC-Rox8?t=37m09sAt one point in time I thought there was a powerpoint presentation and a video talking about multithreaded BGP daemon for CCRs in v7. I'm having a hard time finding it now but I did read through it a few times.To attempt to bring it back on-topic, bigger CPU cores postpones the need for v7's new routing. Unless MT is going x86 or CHR with the new platform, version 6 will need major rewrites, which just seems silly at this point.
Hijack wasn't meant at least on my end.
On the hardware front, the reason I personally wanted to go towards the Broadcom or Octeon chipsets is mainly because one thing that networks need is wire rate (or near wire rate) performance for all packet types. I personally as a network engineer would be fine building a network that can wire rate 256 byte packets, and really any smaller than that requires specific ASICs even. Most network vendors struggle to do wire rate at 64 byte packets. At the moment the 'tik can't really do near wire rate when using non-fast path/firewall filters/NAT/marking/QoS/MPLS edge services. To build the networks that are needed for today one kinda needs to be able to approach wire rate even with services enabled. Either 'tik needs to do multiple Tilera chips working together to provide the processing power needed or they need to go the ASIC route. Either would be fine with me. Or they can stay where they are, but they shouldn't expect to be able to break into the network that will buy tens of thousands of 'tik routers without those features. I would personally love to be able to use them as MPLS services edge boxes but, they just aren't there yet. Would love to use them as core devices but they aren't there yet either.
Agreed.Now I am at 10G network, and I prefer to deploy the 10G to 25G to 100G migration path instead of the 40G to 100G, so I hope the high speed routers with 25G ports.
The single lane 25G network will become more popular in the near future.
In my recommendation, you could do both.Now I am at 10G network, and I prefer to deploy the 10G to 25G to 100G migration path instead of the 40G to 100G, so I hope the high speed routers with 25G ports.
The single lane 25G network will become more popular in the near future.
Yes, these are for a new tier of high end Mikrotik routers. As they said initially, 100 gigabit capacity.Like not for home use right? I am bit confuse. I have a 100mbps connection and Gbit is a lot considering the experience I get on 100.
+148x SFP+
6x QSFP
as a BGP router...
edit: any ETA?
I think Mikrotik are talking about a high-touch(services) router, not a low-touch router. This will be a services router like the CCR that can run PPP/NAT type services, not a "low-touch" router/switch that can just forward frames quickly.48x SFP+
6x QSFP
as a BGP router...
edit: any ETA?
Don't we all ?I want 100gb and -48vdc power.
for BGP in IX we need something which have as much ports as possible. And quick forwarding/routing is they key functionalityI think Mikrotik are talking about a high-touch(services) router, not a low-touch router. This will be a services router like the CCR that can run PPP/NAT type services, not a "low-touch" router/switch that can just forward frames quickly.
now and in the future, there is not difference between L3 switch/router, speed is the key... hardware ASIC with TCAM is what you need.why even people post switch gear links? we are talking about the next gen ccr
Well this is good news then! So can I get it on my home network?Yes, these are for a new tier of high end Mikrotik routers. As they said initially, 100 gigabit capacity.Like not for home use right? I am bit confuse. I have a 100mbps connection and Gbit is a lot considering the experience I get on 100.
An IX shouldn't be doing any routing. An IX should only be switching. Layer 2 only.for BGP in IX we need something which have as much ports as possible. And quick forwarding/routing is they key functionalityI think Mikrotik are talking about a high-touch(services) router, not a low-touch router. This will be a services router like the CCR that can run PPP/NAT type services, not a "low-touch" router/switch that can just forward frames quickly.48x SFP+
6x QSFP
as a BGP router...
edit: any ETA?
inspiration here .. http://e.huawei.com/en/products/enterpr ... s/ne/ne40e
until then 802.1ad can be used to connect CRS switches (CRS317-1G-16S+ will make lots of things possible) to CCRs as port extendersFor the "more ports" people, check out 802.1BR
If Mikrotik were to implement 802.1BR on their routers and switches, it would allow "port extension", e.g. there could be a Mikrotik Router connected to a Mikrotik Switch in "Port Extender" mode, all of the ports on the switch would then appear as if they were local ports on the router.
An IX shouldn't be doing any routing. An IX should only be switching. Layer 2 only.
why two or more boxes? it is twice more chance something went broken. One box with enough SFP+ and QSFP port is preferredFor the "more ports" people, check out 802.1BR
If Mikrotik were to implement 802.1BR on their routers and switches, it would allow "port extension", e.g. there could be a Mikrotik Router connected to a Mikrotik Switch in "Port Extender" mode, all of the ports on the switch would then appear as if they were local ports on the router.
802.1BR is supported by the switch chips used in the new CRS3xx series of switches, so it would be possible for Mikrotik to add the ability to use the CRS3xx as port extenders for their routers.
The IX infrastructure doesn't do BGP. It just does basic Ethernet. Many (most) do have route servers that do run BGP, but those are best ran on servers, not routers.An IX shouldn't be doing any routing. An IX should only be switching. Layer 2 only.for BGP in IX we need something which have as much ports as possible. And quick forwarding/routing is they key functionalityI think Mikrotik are talking about a high-touch(services) router, not a low-touch router. This will be a services router like the CCR that can run PPP/NAT type services, not a "low-touch" router/switch that can just forward frames quickly.48x SFP+
6x QSFP
as a BGP router...
edit: any ETA?
inspiration here .. http://e.huawei.com/en/products/enterpr ... s/ne/ne40e
BGP is L2 ?
The IX infrastructure doesn't do BGP. It just does basic Ethernet. Many (most) do have route servers that do run BGP, but those are best ran on servers, not routers.
I have built and operate two Internet exchanges and am in regular discussion with my colleagues on IX operations. If you are running an IX, you want a switch, not a router. This is because Internet exchanges don't route themselves. They provide a platform to allow operators to connect to. Those operators then run BGP.The IX infrastructure doesn't do BGP. It just does basic Ethernet. Many (most) do have route servers that do run BGP, but those are best ran on servers, not routers.
BGP is L2 ?
Brocade, Juniper, Arista, Cisco, Huawei ... do you really mean "servers" ? Sorry maybe we talking about two other things, in IXP we have routers and interconnection with other providers by BGP, public IX have "routing servers" most of them Bird I guess.
But if you want to peer with other providers, you need router, with many ports, some ports you use for interconnect, some for transport. Ok, you can do it by two boxes, switch + router, but why? One box is better in may ways. Power, failure, security, backup ....
no flame, but we prefer private direct peering (dedicated fiber), not through public IX. So from our point of view, as many ports as router can have, is better for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_exchange_point
However, I feel as though we have gone far beyond the OP's question in explaining to you how an IX works. We can continue this conversation elsewhere, if you'd like.
That sounds like a switch rather than a router..I would like a a 48 SFP's with one or 2 SFP+'s
ideally if it can be Stack-able to have expansion
This topic is not about 100Gb ports, but about 100Gb throughput.Not a problem, but this is not high-end device, right? And this topic is for 100G ports, something you just don't need in desktop unit, after all.But I would like a desktop unit with a single internal PSU.None of the rack mountable CCR units has an external power supply
Which you also don't typically need in a desktop unit. Most of those commenting seem to have lost the initial scope of the request.This topic is not about 100Gb ports, but about 100Gb throughput.Not a problem, but this is not high-end device, right? And this topic is for 100G ports, something you just don't need in desktop unit, after all.But I would like a desktop unit with a single internal PSU.None of the rack mountable CCR units has an external power supply
What OS and what hardware?but OpenBGPd is making a comeback. We have built ours on OpenBGPd and are loving it.
Running OpenBSD on Proxmox and vSphere VMs now. Well, some older Dell hardware too. Low load, so don't need much power behind it.Way, way off topic, sorry:
What OS and what hardware?but OpenBGPd is making a comeback. We have built ours on OpenBGPd and are loving it.
I played with it on a PC just to see how it worked but it's been a while. Would be cool to deploy that on OpenBSD on beefy hardware, should be solid based on what I've seen.
That is great, I hope you can launch a router with at least 4 QSPF ports.We are working on some future high speed routers with around 100Gbit throughput, and we would like your input on what types of ports you would want to see in such devices.
If you imagine a device with around 16 ports (just an example), how many of them would you want to be (just examples, you can add your own ideas):
SFP+ (10G)
SFP28 (25G)
QSFP (4x10G)
10Gbit copper (10G)
Management with PoE
Let us know in the replies here
Question re "...routers with around 100Gbit throughput..."We are working on some future high speed routers with around 100Gbit throughput, and we would like your input on what types of ports you would want to see in such devices.
If you imagine a device with around 16 ports (just an example), how many of them would you want to be (just examples, you can add your own ideas):
SFP+ (10G)
SFP28 (25G)
QSFP (4x10G)
10Gbit copper (10G)
Management with PoE
Let us know in the replies here
second that.12 x SFP+ (10G)
4 x QSFP (4x10G)
1 x Management (no PoE)
1 x serial management
6x10Gbit Copper, 4xSFP+, 2xSFP28We are working on some future high speed routers with around 100Gbit throughput, and we would like your input on what types of ports you would want to see in such devices.
If you imagine a device with around 16 ports (just an example), how many of them would you want to be (just examples, you can add your own ideas):
SFP+ (10G)
SFP28 (25G)
QSFP (4x10G)
10Gbit copper (10G)
Management with PoE
Let us know in the replies here
Which other routers are stackable ?Hi!
I think you first need to learn how to make stackable hardware.
WBR,
Fyodor.
Switch chips typically have ACL capabilities built-in.Given that there are switch chips and encryption chip, how about other types of specialized ASICs to further offload the cpu and give the boxes better performance.
A firewall chip perhaps??
Sent from my cell phone. Sorry for the errors.
Limited to layer 2 I assume??Switch chips typically have ACL capabilities built-in.Given that there are switch chips and encryption chip, how about other types of specialized ASICs to further offload the cpu and give the boxes better performance.
A firewall chip perhaps??
Sent from my cell phone. Sorry for the errors.
So , I am assuming that you think/feel that a hardware switch-chip and/or a XEON processor and/or 10-Gig SFP+ and/or 10-Gig copper-ethernet ports and/or a faster than 10-Gig expansion slot would would not make a router run faster for Layer 1, Layer 2 and Layer 3 throughput ?I apologize, but the name of the topic about the "high speed router", and not on the switch...
Usually big announcements are at the EU MUM.It´s 01/2019: Any rumors when the new router will be released?
LOLOnce per three years is more than enough.
I'm assuming the one that this thread was started for.Wait, which new router?
Yea. But my first wish is to make interfaces work perfect which are there. I still cant see how flow control is negotiated. It happens flow control is not negotiated at all. And I often have the problem with negotiation on sfp interfaces. I need to disable/enable an interface after reboot (made a script) to make it work.Thread was started to get ideas about potential requirements in hypothetical devices that may come in the future, not a specific product. To see what standards people see as becoming more needed etc.
This.I would like a CCR 1036 with 4 SFP+
Ehm, that 2-4 QSFP ports and 24 SFP+ already exists:Interesting thread. I would like 2-4 QSFP ports with 24 SFP+ ports that are both 1 and 10 Gig capable. For the CPE HAP ac's etc a VOIP port RJ11 connection.