5 ms·
I think this is good to point out, but I feel like you left out the reason why this is so. Mikrotik allows installing of both SwitchOS and RouterOS. The CRS is
by lukevp 2y ago
I think this is good to point out, but I feel like you left out the reason why this is so. Mikrotik allows installing of both SwitchOS and RouterOS. The CRS is a switch. That means it can do vlan-aware switching between all its ports, and it’s a managed switch. It has ASICs that can do line rate switching of 10gbe on all ports simultaneously. You can use it as a router (NAT is something a router would typically be responsible for) but that will be super slow because it’s not using the switch hardware. The CCR2004 is a totally different type of product. It’s a router, not a switch. It can do NAT faster because it has a faster CPU, but it also can’t switch at line rate across all its ports simultaneously because it doesn’t have the ASIC switching hardware. Mikrotik is good about providing both the switching and routing performance metrics, but it’s kind of unclear unless you know what you’re looking for.
- PreInternet01 2y agoIt's not a SwitchOS (which can and should be ignored) versus RouterOS issue, more that Mikrotik is limited by the capabilities of the off-the-shelf switching SoCs they have to use due to their size. Once you run into limitations there (which can already be due to something like "needing to use VLANs"), it's all CPU-based, which isn't necessarily a problem (the amount of switching performance you get out of a Tile-based 'router' is pretty amazing). The most interesting piece of documentation about any piece of Mikrotik kit is the block diagram, followed by close reading of the L2/L3 offload docs...