Hi all,

I might need 4 or more of routers wherein I need to create a 4 port bond on each router to connect to a Cisco stacked core switch. The plan will be to have TLB load balancing on the router and then no special configuration on the Core switch. TLB allow and recommends this approach. In doing so, is there any preferences for what port numbers should I use on the CCR1009 as there might be hardware architecture that may recommend or demand LAG to use last ports and not first 4 ports etc.?

The CCR will be a simple hotspot (in a apartment building) where it is mostly one time mac address caching (not by the CCR but by backend Freeradius). Hotspot splash page will also be redirected back to freeradius. CCR will be set up for http PAP plus mac authentication to be done via freeradius. There will always be few guests of course that will use hotspot splash page every 4 hours for example. Up to 60 apartment could be on one CCR and hence multiple CCRs. Each CCR will also do a NAT to a dedicated Public IP and will also be DHCP server for up to 60 apartments and guests.

Please advise if CCR1009-7G-1C-1S+ is good for such applications. Dual PSU is always good so that each box can be connected to two separate power sources.

Thanks

Hello Support team,

@sergejs
@normis
@janisk

Can someone please advise me on this simple requirement?

Thanks

CCR1009 is not a switch, it's all routed interfaces attached to the CPU, hence all kind of bonding/LACP will be done in software.

Thank you @mada3k

I was earlier thinking of RB1100AHx4 that has a switch chip. But has two many ports. Will that be a better option then?

No, same thing, routers. It will probably work but it will cost a bit of CPU load.

If you need wire speed LACP/bonding then a switch is the answer. The CRS3xx-series can do LACP/bonding groups.

Do you need 4 Gbps of bandwidth? Can you use the SFP+ port instead maybe?

Thanks again @mada3k.

I do need router and not the switch. The purpose is the hotspot with radius backend. And I need to resiliently connect the hotspot router with two existing switches that are part of the same switch stack, so that if a switch were to fail, then router is still reachable thru the second stack member. The users will see the same bond interface even if one switch dies, thru the second inerface of router connected to the working switch stack member.

All the traffic thus is destined to internet and will go thru the CPU for Natting and for serving the splash page etc, yes there will be CPU use for this additional bonding, and that is why I was trying to overengineer by using a multi CPU core CCR. As I said, there are about 60 apartment units, so we can expect easily 500 online devices, most just connected and not using much, but at anytime, we can assume 1/3rd the devices to be utilizing bandwidth / resources. We will have a commercial Gigabit service and each apartment will be allowed to burst to a 100Mbps. Based on my tests, average usage is only 6Mbps per unit or about 360Mbps in total. I was hoping CCR1009 with dual PSU will be a good one and then connect to two switches for failover.

Ultimately, I will like to set up two routers in VRRP.

Appreciate again.

Further, I can use SFP or SFP+ ports, but my experience is that failover does not work thru SFP ports as Mikotik requires setting up such ports to have auto-neg off and that causes ports to be seen as always up (LED remains lit and MII does not see port to be down if I unplug the cable and somehow ARP monitoring also does not work). This is not a problem if I use copper RJ45 ports.

Today we will provision for 1Gig but in future, this may get upgraded to 2Gig service). I will have 2 ports to each switch, but with active / backup bonding, at any time, 2Gbps will be usable and that will work for future (next 5 years).