5 years ago, having been a decade of experience in networks and telecommunications, I had to solve the task of organizing hotspot. Study materiel showed that there is a company MikroTik with RouterOS platform. The problem was solved by building hotspot, and platform features were so great, and the setting is so comfortable that MikroTik equipment we have used consistently and regularly. MikroTik’s devices worked with us (the customers) as firewalls, routers, as a VPN client and server, as access points and hotspot, wireless extension and more. RouterOS certainly not without bugs, but it is developing, bugs are fixed or can be avoided. Our customers were happy - for a small price they received working systems with easy support. All these years watching MikroTik RouterOS and I can not understand why these local successes in certain regions and specific areas of applications, qualitative change does not come to everyone's popularity and mass distribution. And the company MikroTik did not become on par with Cisco or Juniper, although RouterOS is on par with the IOS and JunOS.
I wrote some "thinking out loud" about why it happens and what how this situation can be changed. Thought was surprisingly a lot and get a large amount in the format of a post on this forum would be reading uncomfortable. So I had to make two pdf file - English http://dl.dropbox.com/u/65105404/mikrot ... deasen.pdf and the original in Russian http://dl.dropbox.com/u/65105404/mikrot ... deasru.pdf (because my English is not very much and who understand Russian better read this file.)

Long story short - the MikroTik should stop "innovating" for a while and fix all outstanding bugs and implement features to their fullest defined functionality, that is it. All the rest is marketing and stuff what is derailing them all the time.

Innovation does not interfere with bug fixes. Another thing, if the number of employees can either fix old bugs or create new ones. And even in this case, innovation is more important in a changing world. For example what is the point of ideal dialup access server now? Why do you need a perfect DSLAM when PON / ETTH / FTTH are mainstream?

The truth is that MT is to cheap. They need to charge more for the software (plus certain features should be additional charge) to fund better development and testing. If they don't do it now - they never will as their market share will only be shrinking.

Most likely the truth is that MikroTik too little. Very difficult to develop a similar product being 100 to 1000 times less than the competition.
But I see a way out is not to increase the cost of software but the increase in sales. The increase in cost will close the market of inexpensive CPE for them.

I will just comment on a few things:

- books already exist, you can find them here: http://www.mikrotik.com/mfm
- there are plenty of web shops that ship internationally, check our "BUY" page
- have you seen Quickset? it's not perfect yet, but from your text, it seems you have not seen it
- Why do we need a Commit command? Not having it, is an advantage in my opinion. If you are scared of what you configure, we have the CTRL+X mode

About Commit.
Commit is useful when you need to make changes that will lead to a loss of connection. Such as changing the single time logins, tunnels, encryption, IP-addresses, routes and more. Commit command / concept allows you to not think about whether this is a command to the problems or not, as All changes will be implemented only after they are confirmed.
Except the Commit command syntax can be used - commit confirmed <timeout>. Without proof of change within <timeout> configuration will be roll back to a previous version. Ctrl + X mode matches only confirmed <timeout> without functional of commit.
Furthermore commit works in any configuration mode - in console or in GUI.
Automatic running of the configuration command is just an automatic commit after each command. This mode can be done by default. Winbox can have a global check box near to Hide Passwords which will enable / disable autocommit.

About Quickset.
We talk a bit about various things. QuickSet not replace the need to "dumb mode" and vice versa. QuickSet is a minimal set of configuration required to put the router in work.
It can not include too much or else it will be difficult to use. Possibilities RouterOS not fit in a single configuration window. If admin/engineer is not an expert in telecommunications it does not mean that he can not use full RouterOS functionality. The task of "dumb mode" to configure the device that is already in work.
Let me explain with on simple example of configuration DHCP server. Now to do this you need to use the IP/DHCP Server/DHCP, IP/DHCP Server/Networks, IP/Pool/Pools. In the "dumb mode" must be only one window with two fields - DHCP Start IP address and Finish IP address.
I could write other examples, but you simply go to the nearest store and buy some cheap Chinese routers and look at yourself how should look "dumb mode" By the way Quickset there is also in them.

About Internet shopping.
Find Russia in Buy page. We find there is a great distributor NAG Telecom. We worked with them it is a known and respected company. They have an excellent website http://www.shop.nag.ru/search?word=mikrotik&page=1, which I use it.
Hmm. I need to translate the expression "Наличие: Под заказ"? Or translate "Наличие: Транзит 66 шт" for topsales model RB751U-2HnD? Another example? A month or two ago, a client in the "promised land" sought your router. I must say that he still found it to spend a day, though not quite the model I recommend.
But if you think that this is not a problem, I will not insist. You know better.

And more.
What else can be useful your online shop. How to buy the license for RouterOS in case installation on a PC (now, quick and easy)?

About the book.
Books? I wrote a "books"? No, I wrote a "book" let it be "THE BOOK".
A book that everyone can found - quickly, simply and clearly. A book to be read in order to become a specialist in network and telecom. A Mikrotik there only as a platform for practical training. A book that will make for you the same as http://cdn.oreilly.com/books/9780596510480.pdf for Asterisk. The book in which will be Cisco courses - Internetworking Basics and ICND, but in the context of MikroTik.
Do you have such book? Then buy the author's right on it and put free link on your home page.

bugs and support options. Can't beat Cisco tac.

Really can not beat Cisco TAC. I just now looked up and saw that MikroTik has not paid support which would be analogous to Smartnet.
http://www.mikrotik.com/support.html - "3.You can hire a certified consultant for detailed configurations or network diagnostics"
This is simply not serious to a solid organization.
In telecom such support could be relevant. That's just not clear whether begin buying this paid support.
In order to organize daily 3 shifts of several engineers they need (24 * 7) / (8 * 5) * (N + 1) employees. To get a shift of at least 3-engineers take an additional 17 employees. This is not a developer, find them easier and they are cheaper.
I do not know how much it costs one person of this nature with the workplace and in the reality of taxes in Latvia. Well, let it be 3000 euros per month. 3000 * 17 = 51,000. Round to 60,000 euros per month (service must also bring profit).
How many incidents will allow an engineer for their 8-hour shift? We're talking about a paid support, there are unlikely to be simple cases. Let there be five incidents. The number of incidents over the last month with all the services will not exceed 5 * 3 * 3 * 30 = 1350
Since the frequency at which the client once a month will serve ~ 1,000 contracts, 2 times per month ~ 500, one every two months ~ 2000
The cost of one contract is obtained from 30 to 120 euros a month (from 360 to 1440 per year). For operators, the reasonable costs. But if they can find a number of contracts (500-2000).
Hmm I think will not be a paid support from Mikrotik Or they give it to the Indians ...
But most importantly, the lack of support is not a fundamental barrier to the spread. Otherwise, on servers would not setup Linux or setup only RedHat.

We rely on consultants, because we have so many and so good ones. They are available in your local language and timezone. They are trained and certified, and we can vouch for their knowledge.

As you can see from our MUM presentation keynotes, MikroTik has 90 employees total.

I'm afraid to ask, programmers have outsourced work too? I'm afraid the answer to that question.

But seriously I'm surprised that you do not understand the difference between CAN and SHOULD support. Your consultant will assist in nonworking time? on holidays? He will configure and reload equipment at 5 am? He could instantly sober up? Throw a holiday? Rushed back from a fishing trip? He never gets sick?
You understand the difference between the problems of the home network and the problems of internet service provider? In one case, one week of downtime is not a problem, and in another hour and a disaster. And have your experts access to the "senior", to developers? How can they understand that the reason is bug in the code, not configuration?
Yes, consultant can work remotely, BUT MikroTik must receive applications, distribute them, be responsible for the escalation, control and monitor process.

Tell one story from real life. One of my partner actually performs the function of second line helpdesk for a large ISP. In his area of ​​his responsibility this provider has tens of thousands subscribers. So there is no outsourcing and telecommuting. No crying children and screaming women in the handset. Two shifts - morning and evening on weekdays, one shift at the weekend and on holidays. Working in the office. Each shift has a senior. There is head of all the technical support. There is a standard implementation of applications. There is a list of applications and mechanism of accounting and distribution.
Support engineers have access to ISP billing, monitoring and configuration of some equipment, there is direct access to the body of system administrators (3rd level helpdesk). And such system has been running for many years.
I hope all your consultants to organize similar (if they are so good)? Do not want you to say that the support Windows PC requires greater responsibility than support systems based on RouterOS?

we do not use any outsourcing. all staff works in our office in Latvia

Since the question seems based on questionable assumptions I offer a tongue in cheek answer:

Because it is more fun being Mikrotik!

Mikrotik has done fairly well at identifying areas not served well by the likes of Cisco and hopefully the owners are seeing a reasonable return on the capital invested.

The CCR offers the possibility of a new chapter and a new customer base. Managing that growth alone is a sufficient challenge while hopefully still allowing it to be a fun place to work!

The investment and risk involved in (say) challenging Cisco v. HP's daily slugfest in the switch market would change the nature of the company completely. Maybe they don't relish that future. Who could blame them!

I thought about the fact that my assumptions are questionable. Just did not write these doubts in a long document. I even believe that the founders have enough income from the company and they do not want more money. As we say - enough for bread and butter, and sometimes on the loaf with caviar.
But I would not believe that the founders are not interested in a professional challenge - to be the same or even better. I can not believe that they are not interested to be the ones who change the world. That is why, not because of profits, IPO and other company had to grow in breadth.
On the Web site there is no information about how they understand their mission in this world, so we can only speculate about it.
But now I have the impression that you are right. MikroTik believe that they have achieved their mission - they were the same as giants. Not the same size, but the same in words "Yes, we can!". They can do as well, but that goes beyond the routine - bug fixes, technical support, logistics is not funny. And easier to be a company of 100 people and live happily.
Also this is the reason for the development of such projects as the Dude and SwOS - just fun and interesting.

If you have a product but no customers, then you will fail, whereas Mikrotik seems to have customers who want way more than company can offer. You might get a better understanding of their approach after watching the interview with Arnis Riekstins. It is an "I do it my way" approach and it's been successful so far, because demand is growing from customers like me and you. Your post just confirms it.

I looked and found the interview. True, it was in Latvian, but with subtitles.
Arnis Riekstins says that they are a global company. At the same time, even indicated in an interview approach to the selection of staff says that they want to stay "company as the family." My opinion it is the opposite trend. The company in 10 people managed differently than in 100 people, and 100 people managed differently than in 1000.
MikroTik can not be afraid of the competition so far because he exceeded one by functionality, other by price, third by usability.
But recently, I saw <censored> Edge<censored>. (we will not violate the rules of the forum) Advertising video is fun It seemed to me that they stole Mikrotik ideology entirely. We want to buy for test one device, touch it by hands.

If you have a product but no customers, then you will fail, whereas Mikrotik seems to have customers who want way more than company can offer. You might get a better understanding of their approach after watching the interview with Arnis Riekstins. It is an "I do it my way" approach and it's been successful so far, because demand is growing from customers like me and you. Your post just confirms it.

That only works if there's no competition. It looks like UBNT want's to eat MT's lunch now with EdgeMax and my guess is that they will if MT does not step up.

That only works if there's no competition. It looks like UBNT want's to eat MT's lunch now with EdgeMax and my guess is that they will if MT does not step up.

Considering the HUGE difference in feature set, it is going to take EdgeOS some years to even reach feature parity with what RouterOS currently offers, and I cant imagine Mikrotik are exactly sitting on their hands.

Each will carve out their niche in the market, their is certainly room for both.

As for the original question. I use Juniper gear on a daily basis, as do I use Extreme Networks and Fortinet. What is the primary difference between these vendors and Mikrotik? Support.

I know I can log a TAC request directly with any of these vendors and someone will call me within the hour and no matter how large or small the issue is stay on the phone with me until the issue is resolved, or my configuration query is answered. I once spent 18 hours on the phone with Extreme's TAC in Europe to resolve an issue. I have had countless tickets with these vendors escalated to "Confirmed Bug" status and have in most cases been provided with ETA's on software patches, and in the cases of Juniper and Fortinet received custom software builds with our specific bugs resolved in them.

This support does not come cheap. On average, vendor support contracts cost around 1/3rd the purchase price of the equipment per year to the "End User".

As a top tier partner, we are also able to log higher priority tickets. A facility most end users would not get with these vendors.

Maybe as a start towards a "tiered support model" Mikrotik could offer MTCRE/MTCWE and greater certified individuals the ability to log Priority 2 tickets, and MTCINE to log Priority 3 tickets. This would help filter out the noise, and allow people who have invested their time and money in Mikrotik to receive better support, rather than the log a ticket and wait for a response that may take a long time to come.
Of course this would most likely mean having a web based ticketing system. This could easily be integrated in to the "Account" section on http://www.mikrotik.com similar to how the "Try Development Version" feature is now, and could see the users current certification level and unlock the ability to log higher priority tickets.

Thats my 2c, take it with a grain of salt.

That only works if there's no competition. It looks like UBNT want's to eat MT's lunch now with EdgeMax and my guess is that they will if MT does not step up.

Considering the HUGE difference in feature set, it is going to take EdgeOS some years to even reach feature parity with what RouterOS currently offers, and I cant imagine Mikrotik are exactly sitting on their hands.

Each will carve out their niche in the market, their is certainly room for both.

Sales volume and market share is not just a matter of having certain features. Support, logistics, marketing, sales machine are important too. Of courese the presence of mandatory features is necessary. Now UBNT have more wireless market despite the fact that the MikroTik have more features. While the market is growing everyone can find their niche.
I understand that UBNT take time to debug and MikroTik is ahead here. But I do not know if you noticed, but I noted two fundamental features that immediately push forward UBNT. First general-purpose operating system at the basis. And second using a separate chip for data plane. And if the second advantage is controversial because advances in multi-core CPU can make this approach impractical. Then use such OS is a huge plus (IMHO).

As for the original question. I use Juniper gear on a daily basis, as do I use Extreme Networks and Fortinet. What is the primary difference between these vendors and Mikrotik? Support.

How so? You yourself are an expert! Are you the one about whom it was written: "We rely on consultants, because we have so many and so good ones." Why do you need to support yourself? That is to say support for support. As I expected, this model does not work well in practice.

And second using a separate chip for data plane. And if the second advantage is controversial because advances in multi-core CPU can make this approach impractical. Then use such OS is a huge plus (IMHO).

It sounds like you are comparing RouterOS to a general purpose operating system, which it is not.

As for hardware accelerated forwarding, Mikrotik do this too, you may want to check out Fast-Path http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Fast_Path

How so? You yourself are an expert! Are you the one about whom it was written: "We rely on consultants, because we have so many and so good ones." Why do you need to support yourself? That is to say support for support. As I expected, this model does not work well in practice.

I am not claiming to be an expert. I need support from Mikrotik as much as the next person, I was just putting my personal observation of the differences between Mikrotik and the "Big Boys" out there.

Consultants rely on MikroTik for support (they also need Training). Although of course, anyone can contact MikroTik directly, but reply time is 1-3 business days. We also have a Forum where anyone can ask questions while waiting for an answer from support. I guess you know that.

And second using a separate chip for data plane. And if the second advantage is controversial because advances in multi-core CPU can make this approach impractical. Then use such OS is a huge plus (IMHO).

It sounds like you are comparing RouterOS to a general purpose operating system, which it is not.

As for hardware accelerated forwarding, Mikrotik do this too, you may want to check out Fast-Path http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Fast_Path

No I'm not comparing RouteOS with general-purpose operating system. I understand the advantages of specialized systems - ready to use out of the box, stability, ease of setup.
But all specialized platforms even if they work on the core of the general purpose system (as RouterOS) restrict the ability of their adaptation. At the same time as the ability to adapt of general OS are almost limitless.
UBNT EdgeMAX tries to combine advantages of both approaches. Make the system ready for use, with no loss of functionality of the base OS.

Fast-Path is far to transfer data plane on a separate chip. Just look at the list of restrictions when Fast-path is automatically used.
Although in terms of adaptation of control plane it is a big step forward. Software of control plane now understands about distributed processing.

when you have restricted environment and that is working for you - it is fine, when you grow out of it you have a problem. Either you have to upgrade using technology from your current provider or you have to go to new equipment provider. As far as RouterOS goes - you can get basic device that has restrictions on how well it can perform, but it is possible to use stuff from us to upgrade further while still being in same environment you are used to know. This gives you speed of deployment, gives you device upgrade path and device re-use when you expand your network. I do not see this in competition products you are so eager to promote on this technical forum.

And this is for most part me talking as home user. Who started out with RB532 when that device was all the rage, now updated with 802.11n card still provides wireless.

That concludes it.

when you have restricted environment and that is working for you - it is fine, when you grow out of it you have a problem. Either you have to upgrade using technology from your current provider or you have to go to new equipment provider. As far as RouterOS goes - you can get basic device that has restrictions on how well it can perform, but it is possible to use stuff from us to upgrade further while still being in same environment you are used to know. This gives you speed of deployment, gives you device upgrade path and device re-use when you expand your network. I do not see this in competition products you are so eager to promote on this technical forum.

And this is for most part me talking as home user. Who started out with RB532 when that device was all the rage, now updated with 802.11n card still provides wireless.

It's no doubt that ROS hardware addresses most of networking needs, from wired to wireless, from edge to datacenter. However MT's success is limited by lack of stability. Even rudimentary knowledge base about bugs and available features is nonexistent. Change logs are incomplete and lack detail. It's pretty much left to end user to do live tests to see if features continue on working. Everyone does a lot of redundant work validating if features are working. Maybe having users as testers keeps the cost in check, but it certainly does keep MT from competing with Cisco/Juniper in deployments where downtime is money lost.

Your accusations are unfair. I did not endorse and I say not the name of the competitor first. I picked up this theme to make your platform better. Not because I'm an altruist, but because I like it, we use it, and I do not want to re-learn again to a new vendor. "I come in peace"

The discussion showed that your customers see the main problem in the support. For me, it was unexpected. But just as soon as I was surprised that our client has a problem between Mikrotik and Juniper J-series. Mikrotik had a very low rate for download. The study showed that the cause of the high CPU load by management process. The result was that the reason in sha1. If IPSec uses this hashing algorithm, this results in high CPU utilization and low speed. Changing in both sides to md5 solved the problem . Have such bugs in version ending with .22 just ugly.
The problem was solved independently without seeking support. But I imagine a situation that I would not have access to the Juniper router and I could not go to the md5. We would have to wait a few days and without warranties of positive results?
Can be that the most resentful write in topic and they are wrong about the support? Conduct a survey . But do not pretend that everything is going as it should. Or write honestly that such support as it is now was, is and will be a part of your business model. We are not little children we can all understand.

When I wrote this topic I did not know about <censored> Edge<censored>. Maybe they have not announced these products, and maybe it's just I'm so "dumb". But reading the information about <censored> inner voice said to me - "Hey guy. This is what you wanted. Inexpensive specialized system with high perfomnce and without restrictions in the underlying operating system." Of course it can be that they will not work. But so far I can only say - MikroTik do the same and I'll be happy. If I wrote a long document right now a few points I would replace this phrase.

Hello

why the bad implementation would not come from Juniper or Cisco side ?
are you aware of the routers crash generated by RIPE announcing specific options in BGP ? ROS was not affected
do you ever submit a bug to Juniper or Cisco ?

i did whith Juniper and i just get answers like :
- please let us use your equipment for testing
- this will be send to developers
- we are aware of it and we cannot help you
- we may try to fix it for next release

the hardware approach for CCR as been discussed 10 years ago when multicore processors where emerging
i remember clearly some explanation about connecting processors directly to IO avoiding routing dedicated processors

may be all is not perfect but i think Mikrotik is a clear competitor for existing routing equipment providers
we have setup networks with ROS and RB providing same stability and efficiency with 10 times less money

i think that Mikrotik approach implies that IT must also change the way they design networks
and start innovating not trying to just reproduce what they saw

my 2 cents

when you have restricted environment and that is working for you - it is fine, when you grow out of it you have a problem. Either you have to upgrade using technology from your current provider or you have to go to new equipment provider. As far as RouterOS goes - you can get basic device that has restrictions on how well it can perform, but it is possible to use stuff from us to upgrade further while still being in same environment you are used to know. This gives you speed of deployment, gives you device upgrade path and device re-use when you expand your network. I do not see this in competition products you are so eager to promote on this technical forum.

And this is for most part me talking as home user. Who started out with RB532 when that device was all the rage, now updated with 802.11n card still provides wireless.

It's no doubt that ROS hardware addresses most of networking needs, from wired to wireless, from edge to datacenter. However MT's success is limited by lack of stability. Even rudimentary knowledge base about bugs and available features is nonexistent. Change logs are incomplete and lack detail. It's pretty much left to end user to do live tests to see if features continue on working. Everyone does a lot of redundant work validating if features are working. Maybe having users as testers keeps the cost in check, but it certainly does keep MT from competing with Cisco/Juniper in deployments where downtime is money lost.

This^^^^^^

Where is the +100 button?





Sent in semaphore with flags and glowsticks. Oh, and Tapa 2...

I guess it comes back to the age old question? Would you rather do a bit of extra work and save a large amount of cash. Or do you spend big bucks and make it a no brainer? In the business were in we go for the first one and we love Mikrotik for giving us that chance. After all that's actually their niche in the market if you think about it. If it was to change then maybe you would just have another Cisco or Juniper and then you may as well just buy them anyway if that's what you want. In my opinion your also overstating the quality of Cisco etc and understating the quality of Mikrotik anyway. They all make the odd mistake. I have never come across any big problems with Mikrotik in over 10 years as long as you do a bit of work fining out the hardware requirements etc?

It is not obvious from the website that anyone can contact Mikrotik for technical questions.

I guess it comes back to the age old question? Would you rather do a bit of extra work and save a large amount of cash. Or do you spend big bucks and make it a no brainer? In the business were in we go for the first one and we love Mikrotik for giving us that chance. After all that's actually their niche in the market if you think about it. If it was to change then maybe you would just have another Cisco or Juniper and then you may as well just buy them anyway if that's what you want. In my opinion your also overstating the quality of Cisco etc and understating the quality of Mikrotik anyway. They all make the odd mistake. I have never come across any big problems with Mikrotik in over 10 years as long as you do a bit of work fining out the hardware requirements etc?

Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly...

It's all about the right tool for the job. If I need UTM features, I generally use something else. Otherwise, I'd rather spend little cash AND make it a no-brainer. Configuration is NOT difficult once you have gained the experience. Experience also lets you know what versions of RouterOS to install for your clients. Do I need to spend thousands of dollars or hundreds, when hundreds will actually net me better performance and greater features / flexibility? THAT is the no-brainer.

Proper use of production and test environments are not isolated to Mikrotik, nor are patches that take down networks -- I've seen that plenty from Cisco.