5 ms·

Mikrotik misses the "polished" aspect still, that UBNT does well. As someone with moderate enterprise network experience, setting up RouterOS as a basic L3 swi

Mikrotik misses the "polished" aspect still, that UBNT does well. As someone with moderate enterprise network experience, setting up RouterOS as a basic L3 switch was way more difficult than it should have been. That being said, once I was done I haven't had to think twice about the switch, it just works (which should be default, but isn't always the case).

gh02t 5y ago
To be fair to Mikrotik if you just want basic/intermediate switch they have SwOS, which is FAR easier to set up. I also find RouterOS to be extremely unituitive, but SwOS is a breeze. I think most of their switches can run either and even dual boot.
- synergy20 5y ago
  what's the goal for SwOS(new to me), replacing RouterOS?
  - gh02t 5y ago
    It's a dumbed down RouterOS (afaik they use the same base but I'm not certain) with a lot of features stripped out to focus on just basic switching features. It also has a vastly simplified webui. As the other commenter noted you lose a lot of the remote management features and of course it hides lots of the stuff RouterOS can do, but that's the point. If you only need set it once and be done basic switching, SwOS is vastly simpler.
  - vetinari 5y ago
    No, SwOS is a simple OS only for switches; it's purpose is to configure the switch chip and then get out of the way. I do not like it, it is configurable only via web. No cli, no api, no ansible/terraform-like automation possible.
Alupis 5y ago
Probably different target audiences. Mikrotik originally got big with WISP's years back, where it was common to have Mikrotik handling routing and UBNT handling wireless PtP/PtMP. I've found UBNT's modern switches and routers to be nice from a UI perspective - but oh boy do they have strong opinions on how you should configure them. You have to jump through a ton of hoops to get the Dream Machine Pro to not be your actual gateway, for instance... tricking it into thinking it's the gateway and then unplugging that port, etc. Mikrotik is happy to let you do whatever you want, to your detriment sometimes. UBNT gear seems great for SMB/Home Labs where people just want it to work... Mikrotik is for those who want to tinker, and more power-oriented users looking for non-conventional setups.
vetinari 5y ago
I have mixed experiences with UBNT polish. It looks good on screenshots, it allows to set up simple things, but there it ends. It is often inpractical, shows nonsense data (basically anything dashboard is just random, useless data with zero relevance) and if you want something slightly unexpected (like ipsec tunnels defined by hostnames and not by ip addresses), you are either stuck with json (on older models with config.gateway.json) or it is straight impossible. RouterOS did have a learning curve, and there are some unexpected bugs, but compared to UBNT, I like it much more. Yes, it has more knobs, and they generally allow configuring that needs to be done.

gh02t 5y ago

To be fair to Mikrotik if you just want basic/intermediate switch they have SwOS, which is FAR easier to set up. I also find RouterOS to be extremely unituitive, but SwOS is a breeze. I think most of their switches can run either and even dual boot.

synergy20 5y ago
what's the goal for SwOS(new to me), replacing RouterOS?
- gh02t 5y ago
  It's a dumbed down RouterOS (afaik they use the same base but I'm not certain) with a lot of features stripped out to focus on just basic switching features. It also has a vastly simplified webui. As the other commenter noted you lose a lot of the remote management features and of course it hides lots of the stuff RouterOS can do, but that's the point. If you only need set it once and be done basic switching, SwOS is vastly simpler.
- vetinari 5y ago
  No, SwOS is a simple OS only for switches; it's purpose is to configure the switch chip and then get out of the way. I do not like it, it is configurable only via web. No cli, no api, no ansible/terraform-like automation possible.

Alupis 5y ago

Probably different target audiences. Mikrotik originally got big with WISP's years back, where it was common to have Mikrotik handling routing and UBNT handling wireless PtP/PtMP. I've found UBNT's modern switches and routers to be nice from a UI perspective - but oh boy do they have strong opinions on how you should configure them. You have to jump through a ton of hoops to get the Dream Machine Pro to not be your actual gateway, for instance... tricking it into thinking it's the gateway and then unplugging that port, etc. Mikrotik is happy to let you do whatever you want, to your detriment sometimes. UBNT gear seems great for SMB/Home Labs where people just want it to work... Mikrotik is for those who want to tinker, and more power-oriented users looking for non-conventional setups.

vetinari 5y ago

I have mixed experiences with UBNT polish. It looks good on screenshots, it allows to set up simple things, but there it ends. It is often inpractical, shows nonsense data (basically anything dashboard is just random, useless data with zero relevance) and if you want something slightly unexpected (like ipsec tunnels defined by hostnames and not by ip addresses), you are either stuck with json (on older models with config.gateway.json) or it is straight impossible. RouterOS did have a learning curve, and there are some unexpected bugs, but compared to UBNT, I like it much more. Yes, it has more knobs, and they generally allow configuring that needs to be done.