Mikrotik Cloud Core Router and BGP real life experiences?

Alexander Neilson alexander at neilson.net.nz
Fri Dec 27 22:36:10 UTC 2013



Alexander Neilson
Neilson Productions Ltd
Alexander at Neilson.net.nz
021 329 681

> On 28/12/2013, at 5:06 am, Eduardo Schoedler <listas at esds.com.br> wrote:
> PPPoE Server is single thread too.

PPP package is getting a multicore upgrade in 6.8 or 6.9 release. 

May introduce bugs but they are working to Multi core all the processes properly. 

> 2013/12/27 Nick Olsen <nick at flhsi.com>
>> Exactly what Faisal Said. The BGP process appears to be single threaded at
>> the moment. So taking on full BGP tables can be a bit slow compared to a
>> decent X86 box. But in terms of raw forwarding power they are pretty
>> monstrous.
>> We replaced a few Maxxwave 6 port Atom's with the CCR. ~400Mb/s and ~40K
>> pps aggregate across all ports. CPU load went from ~25% to ~0-2%. These are
>> in a configuration where they have little or no firewall/nat/queue rules.
>> And in most cases are running MPLS.
>> We've not had any issues with stability so far either (Knock on wood).
>> Nick Olsen
>> Network Operations
>> (855) FLSPEED  x106
>> ----------------------------------------
>> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
>> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 10:33 AM
>> To: "Geraint Jones" <geraint at koding.com>
>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org, "Martin Hotze" <m.hotze at hotze.com>
>> Subject: Re: Mikrotik Cloud Core Router and BGP real life experiences?
>> FYI... Mikrotik Cloud Core routers are nice, however one has to keep
>> something in mind when deploying them...
>> Only One Core (of the CPU) is dedicated to each port / process.
>> So this is good so as  to contain what happens on a single port from taxing
>> the whole CPU..
>> But not so good when you need more cpu power than a single core for that
>> port.
>> Also, BGP process will only use one core.
>> While these units make for great 'customer facing' edge routers, with
>> plenty of power and the ability to keep issues contained... The X-86 based
>> (Core2Duo/i5/i7) Mikrotik are more suitable (Processing power wise) for
>> running multiple full BGP tables peering.
>> Regards & Good Luck.
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Geraint Jones" <geraint at koding.com>
>>> To: "Martin Hotze" <m.hotze at hotze.com>
>>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>>> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 4:02:45 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Mikrotik Cloud Core Router and BGP real life experiences?
>>> I am going to be deploying 4 as edge routers in the next few weeks, each
>> will
>>> have 1 or 2 full tables plus partial IX tables. So I should have some
>>> empirical info soon.
>>> They will be doing eBGP to upstreams and iBGP/OSPF internally. I went
>> with
>>> the 16gb RAM models.
>>> However these boxes are basically Linux running on top of tilera CPUs,
>> in
>>> terms of throughput as long as everything stays on the fastpath they have
>> no
>>> issues doing wire speed on all ports, however the moment you add a
>> firewall
>>> rule or the like they drop to 1.5gbps.
>>>> On 27/12/2013, at 9:47 pm, Martin Hotze <m.hotze at hotze.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> looking at the specs of Mikrotik Cloud Core Routers it seems to be to
>> good
>>>> to be true [1] having so much bang for the bucks. So virtually all
>> smaller
>>>> ISPs would drop their CISCO gear for Mikrotik Routerboards.
>>>> We are using a handful of Mikrotik boxes, but on a much lower network
>> level
>>>> (splitting networks; low end router behind ADSL modem, ...). We're
>> happy
>>>> with them.
>>>> So I am asking for real life experience and not lab values with
>> Mikrotik
>>>> Cloud Core Routers and BGP. How good can they handle full tables and a
>>>> bunch of peering sessions? How good does the box react when adding
>> filters
>>>> (during attacks)? Reloading the table? etc. etc.
>>>> I am looking for _real_ _life_ values compared to a CISCO NPE-G2.
>> Please
>>>> tell me/us from your first hand experience.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> greetings, Martin
>>>> [1] If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
> -- 
> Eduardo Schoedler
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6151 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20131228/53465c9b/attachment.bin>

More information about the NANOG mailing list