4 ms·

RouterOS is basically designed for network engineers. From our perspective, NAT loopback is extremely complex and has many implications, which RouterOS doesn't

RouterOS is basically designed for network engineers. From our perspective, NAT loopback is extremely complex and has many implications, which RouterOS doesn't hide from you. And we typically don't run a VPN concentrator on the same device as a router. I think it's just a matter of different practices in different industries. ETA: > What's even worse - the defaults are all wrong. There is a new-ish thing in the web UI called "QuickSet" for these use cases.

izacus 7y ago
Yes, I fully understand that it was built for company admins to have fun and cover their use-cases. But unfortunately I constantly see those admins recommend them for prosumer, unmanaged small business and home use-cases. In those cases they're horrible to manage and lack features users expect.
- stiray 7y ago
  What features? I have heard a lot of complaining over mikrotik, but lack of features was typically not one of them.
  - milankragujevic 7y ago
    An easy to use, user friendly WebUI is a feature. The only part of that MikroTik has is WebFig, which is neither easy to use nor user friendly.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mopsi 7y ago
      Everyone uses either CLI or WinBox GUI app, which is excellent. https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Winbox#Work_Area_and_child_windows https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Winbox#Work_Area_and_c...
      - milankragujevic 7y ago
        Which is covered by >horrible to manage and lack features users expect Users expect WebUIs, and WebFig is horrible to manage.
        mopsi 7y ago
        Users expected faster horses, got cars. WinBox is so much better than any web UI I've ever seen, didn't know I wanted it before I had it.
        milankragujevic 7y ago
        1. WinBox only works on Windows. 2. Android version of WinBox is buggy and also only works on Android 3. It may be better if you have expertise in network administration and know RouterOS inside and out. Most people who buy Ubiquiti gear do not, but their needs aren't met by regular consumer routers which do not allow any kind of "prosumer" settings. MikroTik may well be better for you (I used it for 5km PTP links, but that's because it's cheap, if I had the budget I would've gotten LiteBeam or AirGrid), but that doesn't imply it's a suitable replacement for everyone. And it is most certainly not a suitable replacement of airOS for most people who use airOS.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
stiray 7y ago
I agree. Mikrotik has great devices but they are great if you can cope with them. Imagine as getting Cisco Catalyst and then complaining it is not as good as Ubiquiti due to the sheer number of options. It just doesnt work that way, there is equipment for the masses which is "good enough" and the other side where you can tacle everything in transmission but you need to know what you are doing. Anyway, I wouldnt recomend ubiquiti as replacement for microtik. It is just too complex for most home users and even technical users (on the other side I wouldnt use ubiquity even if it is a giveaway).
- yardie 7y ago
  Honest question. What is the market for Mikrotik? I’ve only seen them in use at home by enthusiasts and a few SMBs trying to maximize bang for buck. There offerings just don’t seem very enterprisy.
  - godzillabrennus 7y ago
    Having had the displeasure of managing a network for a company that installed about 40 mikrotik switches behind a mikrotik firewall, I can safely say they belong in a small business with max 1 or 2 at a time. Managing more than that is crazy with the current software. Not to mention these are some of the cheapest and lowest build quality switches you will find with these insanely powerful features. Unifi switches are a materially better build quality. If you want great carrier grade look at Arista. You can even score a 10Gbit 48 port Arista switch off eBay used for about $700 last I checked.
  - bluedino 7y ago
    Quite popular in the WISP market
  - dboreham 7y ago
    Lower tier ISPs.

izacus 7y ago

Yes, I fully understand that it was built for company admins to have fun and cover their use-cases. But unfortunately I constantly see those admins recommend them for prosumer, unmanaged small business and home use-cases. In those cases they're horrible to manage and lack features users expect.

stiray 7y ago
What features? I have heard a lot of complaining over mikrotik, but lack of features was typically not one of them.
- milankragujevic 7y ago
  An easy to use, user friendly WebUI is a feature. The only part of that MikroTik has is WebFig, which is neither easy to use nor user friendly.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mopsi 7y ago
    Everyone uses either CLI or WinBox GUI app, which is excellent. https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Winbox#Work_Area_and_child_windows https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Winbox#Work_Area_and_c...
    - milankragujevic 7y ago
      Which is covered by >horrible to manage and lack features users expect Users expect WebUIs, and WebFig is horrible to manage.
      - mopsi 7y ago
        Users expected faster horses, got cars. WinBox is so much better than any web UI I've ever seen, didn't know I wanted it before I had it.
        milankragujevic 7y ago
        1. WinBox only works on Windows. 2. Android version of WinBox is buggy and also only works on Android 3. It may be better if you have expertise in network administration and know RouterOS inside and out. Most people who buy Ubiquiti gear do not, but their needs aren't met by regular consumer routers which do not allow any kind of "prosumer" settings. MikroTik may well be better for you (I used it for 5km PTP links, but that's because it's cheap, if I had the budget I would've gotten LiteBeam or AirGrid), but that doesn't imply it's a suitable replacement for everyone. And it is most certainly not a suitable replacement of airOS for most people who use airOS.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

stiray 7y ago

I agree. Mikrotik has great devices but they are great if you can cope with them. Imagine as getting Cisco Catalyst and then complaining it is not as good as Ubiquiti due to the sheer number of options. It just doesnt work that way, there is equipment for the masses which is "good enough" and the other side where you can tacle everything in transmission but you need to know what you are doing. Anyway, I wouldnt recomend ubiquiti as replacement for microtik. It is just too complex for most home users and even technical users (on the other side I wouldnt use ubiquity even if it is a giveaway).

yardie 7y ago
Honest question. What is the market for Mikrotik? I’ve only seen them in use at home by enthusiasts and a few SMBs trying to maximize bang for buck. There offerings just don’t seem very enterprisy.
- godzillabrennus 7y ago
  Having had the displeasure of managing a network for a company that installed about 40 mikrotik switches behind a mikrotik firewall, I can safely say they belong in a small business with max 1 or 2 at a time. Managing more than that is crazy with the current software. Not to mention these are some of the cheapest and lowest build quality switches you will find with these insanely powerful features. Unifi switches are a materially better build quality. If you want great carrier grade look at Arista. You can even score a 10Gbit 48 port Arista switch off eBay used for about $700 last I checked.
- bluedino 7y ago
  Quite popular in the WISP market
- dboreham 7y ago
  Lower tier ISPs.