3 ms·

Thanks for the suggestion! When this router will be not sufficient, I’ll give a change to Mikrotik, I like their stuff! (But also the nanoPi R5S is nice for 2.5

Thanks for the suggestion! When this router will be not sufficient, I’ll give a change to Mikrotik, I like their stuff! (But also the nanoPi R5S is nice for 2.5Gb)

Nextgrid 4y ago
Mikrotik is a great cost/performance ratio but the complexity and user experience of configuring it is horrible.
- vetinari 4y ago
  I switched to Mikrotik from Unifi. With Unifi, I was always fighting it, with "most users do not need that, why you do?" (like site-to-site ipsec tunnel with the other side having valid dns hostname, but not fixed ip). With Mikrotik, I just set up the way I need it and it's done. So yes, the difference is like this: https://i.redd.it/slaeayro0o061.png https://i.redd.it/slaeayro0o061.png But in the end, it is worth it.
  - PenguinCoder 4y ago
    Agreed; Ubiquiti/unifi is easier to get started with. But as soon as you want to do anything more 'complex', it often can't do it or won't let YOU do it. Mikrotik is at better at not getting in your way. Though, Mikrotik setup is more involved and requires a bit more knowledge about networking than Unifi does. Only thing I really don't like about Mikrotik is the CAPSMAN/AP situation. They're pretty bad and very difficult in my experience, to get working right/seamlessly.
- blibble 4y ago
  most of it seems to be a very thin layer on top of the standard linux networking tools (e.g. iptables) this can be both a pro and a con :)
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Agreed about the firewall side of things! I was complaining about the switch & VLAN side of things - I find myself pretty proficient in general Linux networking tools but couldn’t figure out their switching/bridging/VLAN configuration despite easily being able to do it on a Linux command line with brctl/etc. I suspect it’s a necessary evil though as Mikrotik’s custom config system for this may not actually use Linux networking subsystems and interacts directly with the hardware to enable hardware offload.
vladvasiliu 4y ago
Are you happy with the latency? The wired buffer bloat screenshot seems quite high to me at 53 ms. Not sure if it's router or something else related. Have you tried connecting directly through the modem? In my setup, FTTH of the GPON variety (1000/400), I get around 5 ms latency on the buffer bloat page. My old FTTC setup (1000/60, fiber to the curve + COAX through the building) was around 8. My setup is GPON box -> managed switch -> Router (virtualized on KVM with pass-through NICs) -> managed switch (again) -> 2nd managed switch -> PC.
- giuliomagnifico 4y ago
  I’m very happy with the bufferbloat (0ms) not quite with the latency but I can’t do much, is my ISP that has about 15/20ms ping time. The fiber arrives only to the street cabinet, and then there’s a copper cable to my home, I don’t know how you can have 1000/60 on FTTC setup, this is absolutely impossible in my country (Italy), we can have 200/20 max speed on FTTC (and this is what I’m using). There’re already the fiber cables on the street, I’m waiting for the vertical lines to my home.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    > I don’t know how you can have 1000/60 on FTTC setup This was in an apartment building in Paris, not a detached house. It was a quite common setup when fiber started rolling out: it would arrive in the basement and apartments would be connected through the existing coax (TV) cables. Checking Wikipedia, maybe FTTB is a more appropriate term. Now it's mostly GPON FTTH. --- edit: regarding the latency, your setup adds around 30 ms of latency, which to me seems rather high.
    - giuliomagnifico 4y ago
      Oh okay, then FTTB is more appropriate. Anyway the 30ms it’s only on this service/server, my setup adds about 1-1,5ms: https://www.speedtest.net/result/i/5236800213 https://www.speedtest.net/result/i/5236800213 Ping time from router to AP root@R4S:~# ping 192.168.1.3 PING 192.168.1.3 (192.168.1.3): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=0 ttl=64 time=1.150 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.252 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.117 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.170 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.210 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.204 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.232 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.190 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.207 ms^C --- 192.168.1.3 ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 1.117/1.192/1.252 ms

Thanks for the suggestion! When this router will be not sufficient, I’ll give a change to Mikrotik, I like their stuff! (But also the nanoPi R5S is nice for 2.5Gb)

Nextgrid 4y ago

Mikrotik is a great cost/performance ratio but the complexity and user experience of configuring it is horrible.

vetinari 4y ago
I switched to Mikrotik from Unifi. With Unifi, I was always fighting it, with "most users do not need that, why you do?" (like site-to-site ipsec tunnel with the other side having valid dns hostname, but not fixed ip). With Mikrotik, I just set up the way I need it and it's done. So yes, the difference is like this: https://i.redd.it/slaeayro0o061.png https://i.redd.it/slaeayro0o061.png But in the end, it is worth it.
- PenguinCoder 4y ago
  Agreed; Ubiquiti/unifi is easier to get started with. But as soon as you want to do anything more 'complex', it often can't do it or won't let YOU do it. Mikrotik is at better at not getting in your way. Though, Mikrotik setup is more involved and requires a bit more knowledge about networking than Unifi does. Only thing I really don't like about Mikrotik is the CAPSMAN/AP situation. They're pretty bad and very difficult in my experience, to get working right/seamlessly.
blibble 4y ago
most of it seems to be a very thin layer on top of the standard linux networking tools (e.g. iptables) this can be both a pro and a con :)
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Agreed about the firewall side of things! I was complaining about the switch & VLAN side of things - I find myself pretty proficient in general Linux networking tools but couldn’t figure out their switching/bridging/VLAN configuration despite easily being able to do it on a Linux command line with brctl/etc. I suspect it’s a necessary evil though as Mikrotik’s custom config system for this may not actually use Linux networking subsystems and interacts directly with the hardware to enable hardware offload.

vladvasiliu 4y ago

Are you happy with the latency? The wired buffer bloat screenshot seems quite high to me at 53 ms. Not sure if it's router or something else related. Have you tried connecting directly through the modem? In my setup, FTTH of the GPON variety (1000/400), I get around 5 ms latency on the buffer bloat page. My old FTTC setup (1000/60, fiber to the curve + COAX through the building) was around 8. My setup is GPON box -> managed switch -> Router (virtualized on KVM with pass-through NICs) -> managed switch (again) -> 2nd managed switch -> PC.

giuliomagnifico 4y ago
I’m very happy with the bufferbloat (0ms) not quite with the latency but I can’t do much, is my ISP that has about 15/20ms ping time. The fiber arrives only to the street cabinet, and then there’s a copper cable to my home, I don’t know how you can have 1000/60 on FTTC setup, this is absolutely impossible in my country (Italy), we can have 200/20 max speed on FTTC (and this is what I’m using). There’re already the fiber cables on the street, I’m waiting for the vertical lines to my home.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  > I don’t know how you can have 1000/60 on FTTC setup This was in an apartment building in Paris, not a detached house. It was a quite common setup when fiber started rolling out: it would arrive in the basement and apartments would be connected through the existing coax (TV) cables. Checking Wikipedia, maybe FTTB is a more appropriate term. Now it's mostly GPON FTTH. --- edit: regarding the latency, your setup adds around 30 ms of latency, which to me seems rather high.
  - giuliomagnifico 4y ago
    Oh okay, then FTTB is more appropriate. Anyway the 30ms it’s only on this service/server, my setup adds about 1-1,5ms: https://www.speedtest.net/result/i/5236800213 https://www.speedtest.net/result/i/5236800213 Ping time from router to AP root@R4S:~# ping 192.168.1.3 PING 192.168.1.3 (192.168.1.3): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=0 ttl=64 time=1.150 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.252 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.117 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.170 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.210 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.204 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.232 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.190 ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.207 ms^C --- 192.168.1.3 ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 1.117/1.192/1.252 ms