Community discussions

 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 23993
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 1:07 pm

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
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
anuser
Member
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 1:24 pm

Only some ideas:

Router A: 16x SFP+
Router B: 16x SFP+/16x RJ45 10GbE (combo ports)
Router C: 8x SFP+/8x RJ45 10GbE (combo ports) + 2x QSFP
:
:
later
(Router X: 24x SFP+)
(Router Y: 24x SFP+ plus 4x QSFP)
(Router Z: 24x SFP+ plus 4x QSFP28)

(Speeking for myself: I do not need 10GbE copper at all as 10GbE SFP+ optics are cheap nowadays)

all with:
- dual power supplies, hot swappable
- 1x RJ45/SFP combo management interface

I didn't know what ASIC you are looking at, but I'd prefer an ASIC/SOC with less CPUs (1big one instead of 72 small ones) According to that slide from Cavium, the biggest highend ASIC is only 500$, so it would be absolutely possible to build an inexpensive highend router, although this means multiple CPUs and therefore single thread performance isn't that great.
Image
The Indigp NPS-400 Network Processor by EZchip looks better. It looks like it has less CPUs. I cannot find pricing information, unfortunately
Image
But you talked about 100Gbit/s throughput, so the NP-5 seems to be the right one:
Image
Last edited by anuser on Sat May 13, 2017 9:46 am, edited 10 times in total.
 
raffav
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 1:34 pm

I think that would be a great idea some group of port be on a expansion slot so we can change the type depending on our needs.



Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 23993
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 1:36 pm

I think that would be a great idea some group of port be on a expansion slot so we can change the type depending on our needs.
What format do you mean?
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
anuser
Member
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 1:37 pm

I think that would be a great idea some group of port be on a expansion slot so we can change the type depending on our needs.
I think that would raise the costs for those routers too much. Fixed configurations would be a less expensive solution. 1x product design / mainboard with different ports attached to the ASIC.
 
raffav
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:40 am

Re: RE: Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 1:48 pm

I think that would be a great idea some group of port be on a expansion slot so we can change the type depending on our needs.
I think that would raise the costs for those routers too much. Fixed configurations would be a less expensive solution. 1x product design / mainboard with different ports attached to the ASIC.
Router with 24 port? Really it not a over port config for a router?

I think a version with expansion slot is not bad, it will be a super core router, I don't think that will make super high cost on the product



Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 23993
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: RE: Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:07 pm

I think that would be a great idea some group of port be on a expansion slot so we can change the type depending on our needs.
I think that would raise the costs for those routers too much. Fixed configurations would be a less expensive solution. 1x product design / mainboard with different ports attached to the ASIC.
Router with 24 port? Really it not a over port config for a router?

I think a version with expansion slot is not bad, it will be a super core router, I don't think that will make super high cost on the product



Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
You can already use a high end PC as your router.
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
raffav
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:40 am

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:10 pm

I think that would be a great idea some group of port be on a expansion slot so we can change the type depending on our needs.
I think that would raise the costs for those routers too much. Fixed configurations would be a less expensive solution. 1x product design / mainboard with different ports attached to the ASIC.
Router with 24 port? Really it not a over port config for a router?

I think a version with expansion slot is not bad, it will be a super core router, I don't think that will make super high cost on the product



Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
You can already use a high end PC as your router.
But do you agree that is not they same of a dedicated hardware for this
I really don't think that someone will build a high end server to be placed on the the core high density network traffic


Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 23993
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:13 pm

The advantage of specifically manufactured hardware is that manufacture can test it at the specific configuration. If you take that away, is becomes the same as any other PC where you have no driver support.
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
User avatar
BartoszP
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:13 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:20 pm

Primo.
Is it possible to just make funcionality of stacking Mikrotik's devices ? High-end ones. Then we can buy models with proper ports and stack them. No need for zyllions versions ....

Secundo.
One mainboard and slots for different daughter cards .... are we going to be CISCO/Juniper like ? :-)
Real admins use real keyboards.
 
raffav
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:40 am

Re: RE: Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Primo.
Is it possible to just make funcionality of stacking Mikrotik's devices ? High-end ones. Then we can buy models with proper ports and stack them. No need for zyllions versions ....

Secundo.
One mainboard and slots for different daughter cards .... are we going to be CISCO/Juniper like ? :-)
And this is a problem?


Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
 
User avatar
AlainCasault
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 587
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Laval, QC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:42 pm

What's wrong with giving the big boys a run for their money? ;)
In an other post, I had suggested a chassis with slots, like the Cat6500 family.
In previous MUMs, consultants have talked about replacing Cisco with MikroTik boxes.

I think MikroTik is going on the right direction.

Stackable is also a great idea. Grow your network with your business.

Off topic, MSTP (pvstp, 802.1Q) pleeease! If you're going big, go all the way. :)

Sent from Tapatalk
___________________________
Alain Casault, Eng.
If I helped you, let me know!
 
User avatar
BartoszP
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:13 pm
Location: Poland

Re: RE: Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:47 pm

...One mainboard and slots for different daughter cards .... are we going to be CISCO/Juniper like ? :-)
And this is a problem?
Not at all.... havn't you spotted :-) ?

Stacking could be even the first step to HA funcionality which is missing for ROS.
Real admins use real keyboards.
 
doush
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:11 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:52 pm

I dont think high end routers should be based on Cavium processors.
They have low freq upto 1.2Ghz and some specific RouterOS tasks require higher clock speeds such as simple queues, BGP, PPP etc..

So unless RouterOS is highly multi-threaded in such scenarios like to be used as a PPP concentrator etc.., I would prefer some different architecture than Cavium which will provide higher clock speeds instead of super-high multiple cores with low clock speeds.
 
raffav
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:40 am

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 2:58 pm

...One mainboard and slots for different daughter cards .... are we going to be CISCO/Juniper like ? :-)
And this is a problem?
Not at all.... havn't you spotted :-) ?

Stacking could be even the first step to HA funcionality which is missing for ROS.
Ah ok
I thought that you was complaining....

Ha and some kind of Hsrp for mk

Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
 
Darryl
just joined
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 3:34 pm

New inexpensive member to the CCR family of routers:

- five 1Gb ports
- five 10Gb ports
- four SFP+ ports
- two USB 3.0 ports

No port sharing / TILE-Gx based CPU
 
gtj
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:52 am
Location: Colorado US

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 3:52 pm

12 x SFP+ (10G)
4 x QSFP (4x10G)
1 x Management (no PoE)
1 x serial management
 
cheeze
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:44 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 4:35 pm

48 port Gb/e and 4x 10Gb/e (SFP+) (TileGX based)
24 port Gb/e and 2x 10Gb/e (SFP+) (TileGX based)
16/32 port 10Gb/e (SFP+) (TileGX based)

The above *NEED* to be able to do line rate for IP/IPv6/MPLS traffic, or close enough to it (like the way UBNT does by using an Octeon ASIC to get a decent level of mpps, although UBNT doesn't do MPLS at the mpps level. We need MPLS at that level too).

Or please support the following chipsets from Broadcom. The Trident II and the Tomahawk.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~warner/Bufs/St ... tation.pdf <-- Trident II
https://www.broadcom.com/products/ether ... c/bcm56850 <-- Trident II
https://www.broadcom.com/products/ether ... c/bcm56960 <-- Tomahawk

Lastly, if one were to compare to say Juniper or Cisco I would say the comparisons would be...

A 'tik equivalent to the Juniper ACX1100, or an equivalent to the Cisco ASR-920-12SZ-IM.

A 'tik equivalent to the Juniper ACX5048 would also be fantastic.
 
psannz
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Renningen, Germany

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 5:37 pm

Personally, I'd be interested 2x QSFP and the rest with SFP+ and the obligatory Management Port paired with a rs232 for console access.

The pair of QSFP would provide redundant access to e.g. core switches, while the SFP+ would connect to ISP, DMZ, or further routers/firewalls/gateways.

In regards to the PoE-in functionality, I very much doubt that even PoE+ will provide sufficient power. PoE++ / 4PPoE on the other hand just might. I'd much rather see a pair of redundant hotswappable PSUs with a bit of headspace.
Speaking of hotswappable: I think we'd all love hotswappable fans.

Grüße,
Philip
 
User avatar
Hammy
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: DeKalb, IL
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 6:06 pm

2x QFP28 (with breakout support), 10x SFP+
2x QFP28 (with breakout support), 3x QFP (with breakout support)
3x QFP (with breakout support)

QFP28 Can do 1x100G or can be broken out into multiple 25G.
QFP can do 1x 40G or can be broken out into multiple 10G.
-----
Mike Hammett

The Brothers WISP
 
User avatar
sguox
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 6:20 pm

+1 for SFP28 and QSFP28, maybe a 4 port router
 
User avatar
IPANetEngineer
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 am
Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 6:26 pm

Great thread!

25 and 40 gig would be my focus. I'll post a longer response when I have a spare minute to think about specific port configurations. Right now, I've got to get ready for the US MUM :-)
Global - MikroTik Support & Consulting - English | Francais | Español | Portuguese +1 855-645-7684
https://iparchitechs.com/services/mikro ... l-support/ mikrotiksupport@iparchitechs.com
 
anuser
Member
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 9:04 pm

48 port Gb/e and 4x 10Gb/e (SFP+) (TileGX based)
:
Or please support the following chipsets from Broadcom. The Trident II and the Tomahawk.
.
- Trident/Tomahawk is meant for switches not for router.

- Does TileGX has a future at Ezchip/Mellanox? There are other options: http://www.mellanox.com/page/npu_overview (NP/NPS):
Image
 
planetcoop
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 2:32 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 9:10 pm

The ccr1036 with two SFP+ (10G) ports based on speed tests is working great.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=104266

Going forward more ports is better and support for QSFP ports would allow additional networking options. I have not tested the CHR yet beyond the SFP+ (10G) ports in my btest CHR but suspect scaling is allowed based on licensing, currently a p10.
SFP+ (10G)
QSFP (4x10G)
 
planetcoop
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 2:32 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 9:14 pm

A side question to Normis and team: any opportunity for routerboard designs with native x86 or x64 support. Tile has been good as a platform but i do also like the x64 potential in the CHR guests. And one more shout out for CHR vmware-tools :)
 
User avatar
TomjNorthIdaho
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:25 pm
Location: North Idaho
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Fri May 12, 2017 10:48 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

I really like this topic !!!

My suggestions are:

- Possible special stack ports
Where there is a minimum of two stack ports per device (or four ports) , which enables the ability to stack more than two Mikrotik devices.
Where there is a new Mikrotik stack interface using normal copper RJ-45 connectors and cat6 compatible (and possible cat7 or cat8 compatible.
Where stacking could enable two stackable Mikrotik routers and possibly two stackable Mikrotik switches to act and behave as a single device.
Where there could be an option that if these copper RJ-45 stack ports are not used in a stack configuration, then they can alternately be used in a 10-gig copper Ethernet environment.
With high-speed stack ports, it would then be possible for Mikrotik to offer a lower-cost basic system, then additional Mikrotik devices could be ordered later, or as/when new Mikrotik stackable devices come out, then can also be added to the stack.
Where with the base system, it is possible to bring up a small--to-medium--to-large number of interfaces by adding to the Mikrotik stack interfaces.
Where a 48 port 10/100/1000 Ethernet option is simply a new stacked device.
Where a 12 to 48 port SFP interface is simply a new stacked device.
Where a 12 to 48 port SFP+ interface is simply a new stacked device.
Where additional 12 port 10-gig copper Ethernet interfaces can be added into the stack.


- The ability to perform true bonded/load-sharing of SFP+ or 10-gig-copper ports to achieve 20 t 40 Gig throughput (True single MAC address to single MAC address balanced load-sharing)
Where it would be possible to have up to four (or more) 10-gig fiber (or copper) which are remotely separated to have greater than 10-gig throughput.

- SFP+ ports are backwards compatible with normal SFP devices ( This would be assumed )

- Possibly four 1-gig Ethernet ports (with POE on each port)

- For faster than 10-gig interfaces (not including stack ports), I would like see the most common/compatible/popular/standard interface used.
I have no experience with SFP28 or QSFP)

- CPU
A bad-ass and popular CPU (Intel XEON), with lots of built-in CPU internal cache
Then as newer & faster CPUs come out, it is just a simple matter of switching to the newer CPU
High-speed RAM (standard high-speed normal memory sticks) (not motherboard surface mounted - user upgradeable & user replaceable)

- Possibly one to four PCI card slots for future cards/interfaces.
There may be a desire to use an already existing PCI card in a Mikrotik - where a quick/simple ROS driver could bring up the PCI card device/interface.

- Dual power supplies (the new system should be able to be powered by industry standardTelco-48-Volts, and/or standard AC outlets
Where the AC power supplies are NOT built-into the new Mikrotik - but instead the AC power supplies are standard telco-48-volts out and then connected to the new Mikrotik.
Were 12 or 24 Volts is not needed or used (except to POE ports)

- One serial port

- All flash ram on removable user replaceable industry standard media

- ROS (Intel/AMD) 64-bit firmware

- Future software/firmware ability for two independent systems can function in a hot-stand-by-redundant mode (something like Cisco HSRP)

- Future ROS firmware/software for true VRF interfaces/routing tables (similar to how Cisco handles VRF interfaces/routes without injecting routed/IP-addresses/MAC-addresses into the entire system.
Where it would be additionally possible to also have a VRF interface for true out-of-band management interface on a router.
Where multiple independent VRF routing tables and interfaces to not see each other and are not seen by the base system.
With VRF features, I suspect a MetaRouter feature will not be needed or even desired.
These new VRF features should support the normal stuff a network configuration will probably encounter - such as VRF to VRF bridges & VRF DHCP & VRF NAT & ability to bridge VRF interfaces to other VRF configurations & bridge VRF interfaces to live interfaces & bridge VRF interfaces to non-VRF interfaces.
Possible idea - Ability CPU limit VRF functions so that a single or multiple or all combined VRF features do not degrade the primary non-VRF configuration (UNIX nice )

- This is a MUST ... The ability to perform full BGP and quickly handle all BGP routes (without the need to upgrade something at the BGP tables increase and more BGP interfaces/peers are added.
Possible idea ... Ability to run full BGP under a VRF environment instead of under the non-VRF environment --- there can be some huge advantages to a VRF BGP environment. And possibly the ability to run multiple independent full BGP environments to multiple up-stream connectivity peering networks.

- No excessive fancy LEDS. Possibly just a small simple LED display which can actually show real-time diagnostic information (verses individual single LET lights)

- Two platforms at first.
A low cost (fewer interfaces & devices mounted to the motherboard. Something most of us -and- our customers can afford without breaking our budgets.

A high-end high-throughput version (exact same motherboard - just with faster parts and all the interfaces mounted on the motherboard.
This simplifies production and the low-cost version gets the product out in the field quicker to the engineers who want to test-drive it in a LAB or evaluate in production.

- Standard rack mount chassis

- No huge big blade chassis in the design - where expansion and additional devices are added to the system using Mikrotik stack interfaces (keep costs down to get started)

- When this low-cost stackable configuration starts to take off and becomes desired and popular, then a blade version of the same thing could then be latter designed which would then use a high-speed back-plane between cards.
By starting with a stack interface (instead of a blade back-plane), the initial costs would be lower.
Later, when a pattern and market develops for an even faster version, then the basic designs could then be slightly re-engineered to use a back-plane in a large chassis (which is more expensive/faster).
Stacking existing and older Mikrotik devices (some with less memory and flash and slower CPUs) could be possibly done with a RO-Stack OS, where the new OS has everything but the minimum necessary software drivers to enable the new RO-Stack OS to participate in the stack and deliver the interfaces over an Ethernet stack interface. This would add value to all existing Mikrotik devices because a fork-lift replacement would not be necessary to get started with this new "Mikrotik stack head-end device".
Consider a CHR stack version of ROS. It might be interesting to combine other CHR systems to be able to participate in the stack (possible VRF BGP via stacked CHR ??? Interesting idea ? ) I would want to name it CHR-Stack (over Ethernet interfaces)

- With a stack interface (using a normal Ethernet interface), it would be great to have all existing Mikrotik ROS devices support 1-Gig or 10-Gig stacking. This adds value to all existing Mikrotik products already in production and already in use.

EDIT/add - If stack interfaces are considered - the stack interfaces do not need to support power over the stack. Each stack device should use it's own (48 volt or AC) power supply.
EDIT/add - A possible hardware reset-/-reboot watchdog. The ROS (or what I would like to call it the RO-Stack OS) could do something like a Netwatch IP ping or something) to keep resetting/clearing the hardware watchdog. If the ROS ( or RO-Stack OS ) locks up - crashes, then the hardware watchdog will continue counting down to zero which could then trigger a full-blown reboot - resulting in an auto-recovered system. The slave stacked devices could also participate in the primary watchdog. Possibly by using a reset wire in the RJ-45 stack cable. Thus, a reboot command on the primary master stack device could possibly reboot everything in the stack if wanted/needed.
EDIT/add - Clarification - When I refer to stacking using Ethernet ports , I am not referring to stacking using IP. It could be something like MAC to MAC. Where the master stacked devices knows the MAC address of everything that is supposed to be in the stack and what it is. The hardware Ethernet switch chips (or ROS software bridge if necessary on old devices) could be used to re-distribute the stack data at wire-speed to other stack ports. It might be even possible to allocate/use a special Vlan for the Ethernet connector(s) stack interfaces.
EDIT/add - Optional - faster than 10-gig stack ports could also be combined and also work with 10-gig or 1-gig interfaces. Possibly, the administrator simply just defines what ports are used for stacking instead of being normal interfaces. This makes it flexible for how the ports are used. With user/administrator selectable stack ports and with the ability for the master stack device to talk to different stacked slave devices at different speeds, the system would never become obsolete - instead it just becomes bigger faster and more desirable for commercial business use/installations.
EDIT/add - slaves on the stack only need to be configured to know the MAC address (or auto-discover) the master slave interface. The master stack device should hold the entire configuration for everything and be as simple as making a backup on any other Mikrotik.

North Idaho Tom Jones
Last edited by TomjNorthIdaho on Sat May 13, 2017 2:49 am, edited 8 times in total.
 
raffav
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:40 am

Re: RE: Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 1:40 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

I really like this topic !!!

My suggestions are:

- Possible special stack ports
Where there is a minimum of two stack ports per device (or four ports) , which enables the ability to stack more than two Mikrotik devices.
Where there is a new Mikrotik stack interface using normal copper RJ-45 connectors and cat6 compatible (and possible cat7 or cat8 compatible.
Where stacking could enable two stackable Mikrotik routers and possibly two stackable Mikrotik switches to act and behave as a single device.
Where there could be an option that if these copper RJ-45 stack ports are not used in a stack configuration, then they can alternately be used in a 10-gig copper Ethernet environment.
With high-speed stack ports, it would then be possible for Mikrotik to offer a lower-cost basic system, then additional Mikrotik devices could be ordered later, or as/when new Mikrotik stackable devices come out, then can also be added to the stack.
Where with the base system, it is possible to bring up a small--to-medium--to-large number of interfaces by adding to the Mikrotik stack interfaces.
Where a 48 port 10/100/1000 Ethernet option is simply a new stacked device.
Where a 12 to 48 port SFP interface is simply a new stacked device.
Where a 12 to 48 port SFP+ interface is simply a new stacked device.
Where additional 12 port 10-gig copper Ethernet interfaces can be added into the stack.


- The ability to perform true bonded/load-sharing of SFP+ or 10-gig-copper ports to achieve 20 t 40 Gig throughput (True single MAC address to single MAC address balanced load-sharing)
Where it would be possible to have up to four (or more) 10-gig fiber (or copper) which are remotely separated to have greater than 10-gig throughput.

- SFP+ ports are backwards compatible with normal SFP devices ( This would be assumed )

- Possibly four 1-gig Ethernet ports (with POE on each port)

- For faster than 10-gig interfaces (not including stack ports), I would like see the most common/compatible/popular/standard interface used.
I have no experience with SFP28 or QSFP)

- CPU
A bad-ass and popular CPU (Intel XEON), with lots of built-in CPU internal cache
Then as newer & faster CPUs come out, it is just a simple matter of switching to the newer CPU
High-speed RAM (standard high-speed normal memory sticks) (not motherboard surface mounted - user upgradeable & user replaceable)

- Possibly one to four PCI card slots for future cards/interfaces.
There may be a desire to use an already existing PCI card in a Mikrotik - where a quick/simple ROS driver could bring up the PCI card device/interface.

- Dual power supplies (the new system should be able to be powered by industry standardTelco-48-Volts, and/or standard AC outlets
Where the AC power supplies are NOT built-into the new Mikrotik - but instead the AC power supplies are standard telco-48-volts out and then connected to the new Mikrotik.
Were 12 or 24 Volts is not needed or used (except to POE ports)

- One serial port

- All flash ram on removable user replaceable industry standard media

- ROS (Intel/AMD) 64-bit firmware

- Future software/firmware ability for two independent systems can function in a hot-stand-by-redundant mode (something like Cisco HSRP)

- Future ROS firmware/software for true VRF interfaces/routing tables (similar to how Cisco handles VRF interfaces/routes without injecting routed/IP-addresses/MAC-addresses into the entire system.
Where it would be additionally possible to also have a VRF interface for true out-of-band management interface on a router.
Where multiple independent VRF routing tables and interfaces to not see each other and are not seen by the base system.
With VRF features, I suspect a MetaRouter feature will not be needed or even desired.
These new VRF features should support the normal stuff a network configuration will probably encounter - such as VRF to VRF bridges & VRF DHCP & VRF NAT & ability to bridge VRF interfaces to other VRF configurations & bridge VRF interfaces to live interfaces & bridge VRF interfaces to non-VRF interfaces.
Possible idea - Ability CPU limit VRF functions so that a single or multiple or all combined VRF features do not degrade the primary non-VRF configuration (UNIX nice )

- This is a MUST ... The ability to perform full BGP and quickly handle all BGP routes (without the need to upgrade something at the BGP tables increase and more BGP interfaces/peers are added.
Possible idea ... Ability to run full BGP under a VRF environment instead of under the non-VRF environment --- there can be some huge advantages to a VRF BGP environment. And possibly the ability to run multiple independent full BGP environments to multiple up-stream connectivity peering networks.

- No excessive fancy LEDS. Possibly just a small simple LED display which can actually show real-time diagnostic information (verses individual single LET lights)

- Two platforms at first.
A low cost (fewer interfaces & devices mounted to the motherboard. Something most of us -and- our customers can afford without breaking our budgets.

A high-end high-throughput version (exact same motherboard - just with faster parts and all the interfaces mounted on the motherboard.
This simplifies production and the low-cost version gets the product out in the field quicker to the engineers who want to test-drive it in a LAB or evaluate in production.

- Standard rack mount chassis

- No huge big blade chassis in the design - where expansion and additional devices are added to the system using Mikrotik stack interfaces (keep costs down to get started)

- When this low-cost stackable configuration starts to take off and becomes desired and popular, then a blade version of the same thing could then be latter designed which would then use a high-speed back-plane between cards.
By starting with a stack interface (instead of a blade back-plane), the initial costs would be lower.
Later, when a pattern and market develops for an even faster version, then the basic designs could then be slightly re-engineered to use a back-plane in a large chassis (which is more expensive/faster).
Stacking existing and older Mikrotik devices (some with less memory and flash and slower CPUs) could be possibly done with a RO-Stack OS, where the new OS has everything but the minimum necessary software drivers to enable the new RO-Stack OS to participate in the stack and deliver the interfaces over an Ethernet stack interface. This would add value to all existing Mikrotik devices because a fork-lift replacement would not be necessary to get started with this new "Mikrotik stack head-end device".
Consider a CHR stack version of ROS. It might be interesting to combine other CHR systems to be able to participate in the stack (possible VRF BGP via stacked CHR ??? Interesting idea ? ) I would want to name it CHR-Stack (over Ethernet interfaces)

- With a stack interface (using a normal Ethernet interface), it would be great to have all existing Mikrotik ROS devices support 1-Gig or 10-Gig stacking. This adds value to all existing Mikrotik products already in production and already in use.

North Idaho Tom Jones
OMG this is big text
But Iiked Image

Enviado de meu XT1580 usando Tapatalk
 
hush
just joined
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Croatia

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 10:06 am

IMHO, there is no point in developing anything new with 10Gbps/40Gbps ports at this point in time and the new 16 x SFP+ switch you presented in Milan this year should have already been made with SFP28 ports. But let's keep it simple for starters...
  • Considering that new SFP28 ports should be able to support old SFP+ modules, how about a CCR2572 with 8 x SFP28 ports as a direct in-place upgrade for CCR1072?
  • Then bring it up a notch and create something like CCR10072 (yes, that's an extra zero) with 8 x SFP28 + 1 (or 2?) x QSFP28, although it would probably need a better CPU.
  • Then let's talk datacenters - how about a new 16 x SFP28 + 2 x QSFP28 switch with enough CPU power for some OSPF/iBGP routing experiments?
Naturally, this would also require some new SFP28 modules, SFP28/QSFP28 DAC cables and so on...

Edit: It looks like some people here aren't aware that new 25/100 Gbps ports can also support "old" 10/40 Gbps speeds? Here's some reading material:
Last edited by hush on Sat May 13, 2017 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
BartoszP
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:13 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 10:55 am

So IMHO the conclusion so far is:

Hardware
1. Stacking as the fastest path for extension
2. Rack chassis with highspeed backplane to connect interfaces and CPU motherboards tailored for current needs
3. True HA funcionality

If we could have CPU-board with ROS kernel separated from interface cards then we can easily upgrade router without changing any rule.
If the interface name will be local and bound to interface card id then rules based on that name will need no change,
Do you need more pure CPU power ? Just replace CPU card.
More memory ? Add it.
Hard disk or any permanent storage ? Add storage card.
etc., etc.
Real admins use real keyboards.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1807
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 11:30 am

@TomjNorthIdaho you win the award for the longest post ;) but it sounds like you want a x86 server.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1807
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 11:52 am

Normis, thank you for asking for our opinions.

If it was at all possible, I would suggest Mikrotik make this new router with 2x modular "interface" bays. Users could then "cold swap" these modules to meet their specific requirements...

Making a modular router would:
- Allow various interface combinations, and would keep everyone happy :)
- Lower the manufacturing risk to Mikrotik (Bulk manufacture the base router, then JIT manufacture the interface modules)
- Allow users to change out the interface modules as their requirements change, e.g. they could start out with a 8x SFP+ module, then later on move to a QSP28 module
- Meet lower cost requirements, e.g. cost sensitive customer could buy base router + 1 PSU + 1 module card. Baller customer could buy base router + 2 PSU + 2 module cards.

Example interface modules could be:
1x QSFP28
2x QSFP28
4x SFP28
8-10x SFP+
16x SFP
16x 1gigabit Copper

If you do decide to go with "fixed" port configs though, my suggestions would be:

Spec1 For people who have exiting 10gigabit networks and do not need higher performance.

- 16x SFP+
- 1x Gigabit Ethernet

Spec2 For people wanting higher speed per "wavelength" or to future proof themselves.

- 8x SFP28
- 2x QSFP28
- 1x Gigabit Ethernet

This will allow 100gigabit throughput via the 8x SFP28 (4in, 4 out) or the 2x QSFP28 (1in, 1 out). It would also mean you could interconnect to other locations via redundant QSFP28 connections and then use SFP28 to connect customers, or to other equipment in the same DC.

I put the 1x Gigabit Ethernet on both of them, as this can be used to netinstall the routers, and for out-of-band management.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
ingen
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 5:04 pm

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
Hello Normis
IMHO sfp+ on router more than enough.
 
haik01
Member
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:25 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 7:19 pm

Maybe not a specifica high speed router, but a PoE switch / router model which has configurable PoE voltages.

So each port should be able to set:
  • no PoE
  • passive PoE (and select voltage, mostly 24V)
  • 48V / 56V PoE.
So that for example a Cisco or HP switch can be replaced by a Mikrotik.

The problem now is that if you have an existing Cisco / HP / Juniper etc.... PoE switch for xxx AP's, and you want to add Mikrotik, you cannot simple do that, since all professional AP's work on 48V. And most Mikrotik (and Ubiquity etc...) work on passive 24V. So you need to find local power (not always available) etc...

So I want to select the power voltage output on each port.
 
planetcoop
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 2:32 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sat May 13, 2017 7:48 pm

@TomjNorthIdaho you win the award for the longest post ;) but it sounds like you want a x86 server.
I second the x86 architecture, but with the configuration and control of a routerboard :)
 
supportingit
just joined
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sun May 14, 2017 6:33 am

Port config, I'd like to see 16 or 24 ports SFP+ with an option on a couple of higher speed ports for interconnection.

Most importantly though, if its a rack model, it MUST have internal psu, with an optional secondary. No more damn wall warts in the rack!
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1807
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sun May 14, 2017 11:09 am

Most importantly though, if its a rack model, it MUST have internal psu, with an optional secondary. No more damn wall warts in the rack!
This router sounds like the Next Gen CCR. The current CCR have internal PSU so I can't see Mikrotik changing now for no reason.

My wishes are for user replaceable PSU on the new product line, so that PSU can be replaced without removing the router from the rack.

And for -48volt DC input like the new RB1100AHx4 has :) this way they can be used in Telco co-lo rooms and road side cabinets that are almost always -48volt only.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
pukkita
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 2979
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:09 am
Location: Spain

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Sun May 14, 2017 1:12 pm

I don't know which are the possibilities of the considered platform so cannot tailor port count/capacities to specific CPU lanes, but these would be sweet combos to have, I assume 1U and routing application (not switch):

- 12 SFP+, 3xQSFP
- 16 SFP+, 2xQSFP
- 16 SFP+, 4xQSFP
- 24 SFP+, 4xQSFP or 2xQSFP28 (2x100G)
Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication - Da Vinci
Getting the most out of this forum
 
mfrabbibd
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:25 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 12:34 am

The advantage of specifically manufactured hardware is that manufacture can test it at the specific configuration. If you take that away, is becomes the same as any other PC where you have no driver support.
Normis, every RM Router Should have a DC power option!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cheeze
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:44 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 2:18 am

48 port Gb/e and 4x 10Gb/e (SFP+) (TileGX based)
:
Or please support the following chipsets from Broadcom. The Trident II and the Tomahawk.
.
- Trident/Tomahawk is meant for switches not for router.

- Does TileGX has a future at Ezchip/Mellanox? There are other options: http://www.mellanox.com/page/npu_overview (NP/NPS)
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.
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1807
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 8:28 am

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.
The chipsets from Broadcom are being used in "routing switches" e.g. Brocade MLX/VDX, Nokia 7210 SAS-T/M and certain Arista switches.

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.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1807
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 8:30 am

Normis, every RM Router Should have a DC power option!
every CCR should have a -48volt DC power option ;)
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
gangz
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:53 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 12:35 pm

If you says about ROUTER, this configuration will be interesting:
2 x Copper 1Gbit
10 x SFP+ 10Gbit
2 x Copper 10Gbit Ethernet
2 x QSFP 40Gbit
 
cheeze
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:44 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 6:16 pm


The chipsets from Broadcom are being used in "routing switches" e.g. Brocade MLX/VDX, Nokia 7210 SAS-T/M and certain Arista switches.

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.
Yes, they are layer 3 "routing switches". Basically routing functionality bolted on. The reason I was looking more at those is because that limitation that you're pointing out (which does exist) is one that GENERALLY isn't hit too often.I was more looking at the MPLS/VXLAN/QinQ/translational as features that can be done at line rate. Usually one would need one or the other, but not all at once. Now I am not pushing super hard to get those chipsets, I'm just more investigating and seeing if they are a fit. I personally would love to see line rate from Mikrotik. Or near line rate (which the Tile GX approach).

Something I was always hoping for was like a CRS226-24G-2S+RM chipset with the Tile GX for forwarding. Or CRS125-24G-1S-RM with Tile GX. Or even the smaller ones like the CRS210-8G-2S+IN.
 
idlemind
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:15 pm
Location: USA

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 6:29 pm

In additional to as many high-speed ports as you can cram into the box either a line-card slot or just a bank of regular 1GB Ethernet ports can be extremely useful to designers and provide a high level of flexibility. Something like 6 - 12 x 1GB ports wouldn't hurt the back-plane of the box significantly I imagine. Something I hated with the earlier Cisco ISRs and even somewhat today is the difficulty to obtain the number of ports necessary to do anything other than trunk down to a L2 switch below it if you are doing anything more than a typical edge router with NAT. This is already a strength with most of your devices shipping with 4+ ports.
 
User avatar
IPANetEngineer
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 am
Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Mon May 15, 2017 9:55 pm

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.
The chipsets from Broadcom are being used in "routing switches" e.g. Brocade MLX/VDX, Nokia 7210 SAS-T/M and certain Arista switches.

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.
Great points as always NZ...

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.
Global - MikroTik Support & Consulting - English | Francais | Español | Portuguese +1 855-645-7684
https://iparchitechs.com/services/mikro ... l-support/ mikrotiksupport@iparchitechs.com
 
User avatar
nz_monkey
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1807
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Straya
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Tue May 16, 2017 12:51 am

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.
@IPANetEngineer I completely agree, the Barefoot Tofino is one of the most interesting developments in networking in the last 10 years.

It will be interesting to see what products make use of Tofino in the next 18 months.
http://thebrotherswisp.com/ | Mikrotik MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCINE | Fortinet FTCNA, FCNSP, FCT | Extreme Networks ENA
 
User avatar
Hammy
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: DeKalb, IL
Contact:

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Tue May 16, 2017 12:55 am

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.
The chipsets from Broadcom are being used in "routing switches" e.g. Brocade MLX/VDX, Nokia 7210 SAS-T/M and certain Arista switches.

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.
Great points as always NZ...

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 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.
-----
Mike Hammett

The Brothers WISP
 
tempName
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 11:57 pm

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Tue May 16, 2017 12:57 am

The question was on a router and around 100 Gbit throughput.

I'd think that would limit it basically to two QSFP-Ports (probably often used as "upstream"). I'd further propose 6x SFP+ - ports and additional 8x 10G copper (10GBASE-T) for compatibility with existing (even GBit) connections. I'd liked an extra (GBit) management lan port and serial connection, too.

It probably makes sense to have (at least optional, if need be external) redundant power supplies as well.

Even if reduced to 4x SFP+, 4x 10GBase-T, 8x 1000Base-T (maybe even partly or all with PoE+) plus mgmt-LAN & serial would it make a great cloud router switch ...
 
SteveWrightNZ
just joined
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:58 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Tue May 16, 2017 1:23 am

And go compete with china?

I think you should stick with wireless stuff, and maybe build a quality FDM full-duplex system with sub-1ms ping over 10km. We'd like that.
 
Revelation
Member
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 5:59 am

Re: Which types of ports would you like to see for a high speed router

Tue May 16, 2017 5:06 am

Coming from a Data Center background, I'd like to see:

Access / Distro #1
24x 1G / 10G Copper
4-6x SFP28 / QSFP28

Access / Distro #2
16x SFP / SFP+
4-6x SFP28 / QSFP28

Core
You could also run a "core" router with:
10x SFP28 / QSFP28
4x 1G / 10G Copper
or
4x SFP / SFP+

I'd still love to see you guys add VXLAN / EVPN features to your devices.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests