So... Are we going to talk about it or is it tabu topic?

I'm personally quite disappointed with lack of LCD and USB.

NOTE: There's poll related to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138969

The images released were probably just prototype. I can't see MT negating a feature like the USB from it's mid level tier lineup. LCD I wouldn't blame them from dropping, they're a waste of resource at best.

LCDs on Routerboards are particularly sexy. Without one, I can't show RB4011 to my better half. Neither can I show it to her with LCD ... obviously

LCDs are this tiny "premium" touch that makes device look better than it actually is xD I love them. It's not like they're super useful but they just feel nice. It's not common to see LCD screens in this kind of hardware. F5 puts similar LCDs in their newer appliances that are waaaaay more expensive than mtk.

Two versions:
Rackmount: http://files.i4wifi.cz/inc/_doc/attach/ ... iGS_RM.pdf

with wifi: http://files.i4wifi.cz/inc/_doc/attach/ ... HnD_IN.pdf

Two versions:
Rackmount: http://files.i4wifi.cz/inc/_doc/attach/ ... iGS_RM.pdf

with wifi: http://files.i4wifi.cz/inc/_doc/attach/ ... HnD_IN.pdf

It doesn't really look like prototype :/ I think there won't be usb for us this time. No 3G backup links :/

Expected Delivery: October 2018

Hum

Really hope wifi will perform.

I wonder what processors will we see in future RB1100 and CCR series, as RBx011 has 4x1.4GHz now...

I wonder what processors will we see in future RB1100 and CCR series, as RBx011 has 4x1.4GHz now...

Prices are probably estimated but from what resellers suggest RB4011 won't be direct RB2011 successor as it's gonna be priced significantly higher (which obviously makes sense, after all it has the same CPU as RB1100AHx4) so I wouldn't be too enthusiastic. Iirc highest Tile-Gx variant had 100x1.2 Ghz or something so it's probably current limit of CCR capabilities.

I wonder what processors will we see in future RB1100 and CCR series, as RBx011 has 4x1.4GHz now...

Prices are probably estimated but from what resellers suggest RB4011 won't be direct RB2011 successor as it's gonna be priced significantly higher (which obviously makes sense, after all it has the same CPU as RB1100AHx4) so I wouldn't be too enthusiastic. Iirc highest Tile-Gx variant had 100x1.2 Ghz or something so it's probably current limit of CCR capabilities.

RB3011UiAS-RM --> 179$
RB4011iGS+RM --> ~ 215$
RB1100AHx4 --> 299$

So it is still closer to RB3011 than to RB1100.
And keeping in mind SFP+ port, the price is quite good.

...
So it is still closer to RB3011 than to RB1100.
And keeping in mind SFP+ port, the price is quite good.

Yep. I wonder how it compares to CCRs if we're handling single TCP tunnel. Because single TCP tunnels don't really scale well so ironically this device could perform better with single 10G TCP connection than CCR1009

Rackmount: http://files.i4wifi.cz/inc/_doc/attach/ ... iGS_RM.pdf

Oh boy, it does look ugly with those rack-mount ears attached. Luckily I can close rack's door. I wonder if LCD would suffice to maintain minimum level of sexapeal ...

Oh boy, it does look ugly with those rack-mount ears attached. Luckily I can close rack's door. I wonder if LCD would suffice to maintain minimum level of sexapeal ...

Well... At least it's not full width rackmount case that is like idk... 10cm deep or something similarly comical like RB2011 used to be It always made everyone in my company giggle a bit when they saw full U1 case that has depth of patchpanel. Especially with Cisco modular beasts around xD This one at least doesn't pretend to be beefy, full U1 router.

Oh boy, it does look ugly with those rack-mount ears attached.

It's a pretty clever way of combining rack-mount capability and desktop case into the same product. Not exactly pretty, but very funktional; I like it.

Oh boy, it does look ugly with those rack-mount ears attached.

It's a pretty clever way of combining rack-mount capability and desktop case into the same product. Not exactly pretty, but very funktional; I like it.

I too

Oh boy, it does look ugly with those rack-mount ears attached.

It's a pretty clever way of combining rack-mount capability and desktop case into the same product. Not exactly pretty, but very funktional; I like it.

Agree. It'd be much prettier though if the RB itself was almost 1U high (unit height should have been 43.7 mm) instead of only 30mm Those rack-mount ears wouldn't stand out (much). Being positive person I guess lower height of device is on purpose, perhaps to enhance air flow when 10 pieces of 4011 are stacked in rack one immediately above other.

I wonder how would two units, rack-mounted side-by-side (custom rack-mount hardware needed), would look like. I guess ugly as well due to weird (for rack-mounting at least) unit height.

I wonder how would two units, rack-mounted side-by-side (custom rack-mount hardware needed), would look like. I guess ugly as well due to weird (for rack-mounting at least) unit height.

With 228mm width two of them won't easily fit side-by-side.

Hummm ... used switch chip RTL8367 seems not to support VLAN in hardware. So usability of those 10 ethernet ports will be limited as switched ports when VLANs are in use ... as all the traffic will hit CPU.

It seems like I won't have to defend the level of sex appeal of this unit from my better half after all.

I wonder how would two units, rack-mounted side-by-side (custom rack-mount hardware needed), would look like. I guess ugly as well due to weird (for rack-mounting at least) unit height.

With 228mm width two of them won't easily fit side-by-side.

Not easy but should be doable ... 19" racks accept 482 mm wide equipment. With two 4011 side-by-side there is some 26 mm of space left for mounting equipment. Both units can be placed tightly close to each other so all the remaining space can be used for the rack-mount ears.

I wonder how would two units, rack-mounted side-by-side (custom rack-mount hardware needed), would look like. I guess ugly as well due to weird (for rack-mounting at least) unit height.

With 228mm width two of them won't easily fit side-by-side.

Not easy but should be doable ... 19" racks accept 482 mm wide equipment. With two 4011 side-by-side there is some 26 mm of space left for mounting equipment. Both units can be placed tightly close to each other so all the remaining space can be used for the rack-mount ears.

The distance between inner sides of the rails is 450mm.
That means, they will need to sit deeper, and the mount has to be more complicated.
Not sexy at all

The distance between inner sides of the rails is 450mm.
That means, they will need to sit deeper, and the mount has to be more complicated.
Not sexy at all

Ah, I never measured the distance between inner sides of rails ... and was referring to (obviously incomplete) web page for dimensions. Bites me

Ah, well, seems like I'll still use third-party managed rack-mount switch and un-sexy small RB (such as hAP ac2) as router (placed on un-sexy shelf built in the same 19" rack) due to low-end switch-chip that is built in RB4011.

Hummm ... used switch chip RTL8367 seems not to support VLAN in hardware. So usability of those 10 ethernet ports will be limited as switched ports when VLANs are in use ... as all the traffic will hit CPU.

It seems like I won't have to defend the level of sex appeal of this unit from my better half after all.

The chip itself supports VLANs.
So the limitations of this switch chip implementation in RB1100 are at some point artificial, or at least not dependant on switch chip only.

The chip itself supports VLANs.
So the limitations of this switch chip implementation in RB1100 are at some point artificial, or at least not dependant on switch chip only.

Right again. So let's hope MT fixes this on RB1100AHx4 before launch of RB4011 ... then the new unit might become more sexy again

The chip itself supports VLANs.
So the limitations of this switch chip implementation in RB1100 are at some point artificial, or at least not dependant on switch chip only.

Right again. So let's hope MT fixes this on RB1100AHx4 before launch of RB4011 ... then the new unit might become more sexy again

I would say, let's hope that MT uses this chips differently on RB4011, as it looks more like a design limitation on RB1100, not something that can be fixed.

Hmmm Wonder why they did away with the USB and LCD ? USB is great since the facelifted 2011 for those hard to reach places to reach to just write backup config to.LCD is awesome when you use the thing as a type of "managed" fiber converter as you get stats flowing through ISP offloads without needing to log into a machine somewhere and get SNMP stats from it.Could possible be heat or space related ?

I'd be really interested if they do something with a small form factor like that in the style of the CRS106-1C-5S but replace the RJ45's with SFP slots.I have lots of sites that I manage that tends to be a mish mash of fiber and wireless handoffs backhauled via AirFiber and each port usually requires it's own set of shaping/qos.The CRS CPU's are just too slow to do any sort of useful shaping.

That RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN is deffo making it into my home to replace some WAP's I got

Really impressed by the forwarding performance.

according to manual it has 2,4ghz on R11e-2HnD so I assume there is one minipci-e slot underneath?

I'm actually interested to test this router with a full BGP table given the high clock speed and 10 gig port.

Who knows? Could be a diamond in the rough for a border router

I'm actually interested to test this router with a full BGP table given the high clock speed and 10 gig port.

Who knows? Could be a diamond in the rough for a border router

The non-WiFi version seems like a polished version of RB1100AHx4 so it should perform similarly ... hopefully they polished not only the case but also some functionality (e.g. VLAN support on switch chip level).

I'm actually interested to test this router with a full BGP table given the high clock speed and 10 gig port.

Who knows? Could be a diamond in the rough for a border router

I'm especially interested in RB4011 vs CCR1009 on single 10G point to point connection. CCR seems to struggle with that.

Hummm ... used switch chip RTL8367 seems not to support VLAN in hardware. So usability of those 10 ethernet ports will be limited as switched ports when VLANs are in use ... as all the traffic will hit CPU.

It seems like I won't have to defend the level of sex appeal of this unit from my better half after all.

The chip itself supports VLANs.
So the limitations of this switch chip implementation in RB1100 are at some point artificial, or at least not dependant on switch chip only.

The VLANs that the chip support are likely used internally by RouterOS so you can use the ports independently for links and separate networks.
When you configure "ether4" without it being in a bridge, I think RouterOS creates a VLAN of which ether4 is an untagged member and the link to the CPU a tagged member, then in the kernel a VLAN interface is used to talk to ether4. You never get to see this, in your config it is simply ether4 without VLAN.
To be able to support VLANs on ether4, the chip would have to support nested VLANs and the RTL8367 apparently doesn't.
The switch chips used in the older models support this, although sometimes limited. E.g. the Atheros8227 has limited support, it can support tagged VLANs on external ports in wirespeed switching mode but it cannot support "hybrid" ports on which some VLANs are tagged and one is untagged.
The Atheros8327 fully supports it and it can have such hybrid ports and still do wirespeed switching between ports in all the (visible) VLANs.

I'm personally quite disappointed with lack of LCD and USB.

LCD is mostly a gimmick for me, e.g. my home RB2011 has a switch and a VDSL modem stacked on top and I cannot see the display. I have disabled it.
However, USB is quite useful. At work I have 2 locations where a 4G stick is plugged in the USB port to serve as a backup link in case the main (VDSL) fails.
It is not working well in all router models, though. The power consumption of these sticks is near the limit and sometimes they crash when the coverage is not very good (hence high transmit power required) and a lot of data is transferred.
I would have liked a USB port with guaranteed 1A output current. But now there is no USB port at all, so nothing to worry about

I was planning to upgrade my 2011s and 3011s, but the lack of USB and LCD is a deal breaker for me.
I didn't get the 1100, and it looks I will pass on the 4011 too. Will stick with the 2011 and 3011 untill I can.

edit: fixed model numbers

I was planning to upgrade my 2100s and 3100s, but the lack of USB and LCD is a deal breaker for me.
I didn't get the 1100, and it looks I will pass on the 4100 too. Will stick with the 2100 and 3100 untill I can.

??
none of them actually exist..

Looks good, never used the USB (this unit does have 512mb on board) and the while the LCD is cool, never really used it accept for show. Might use this for a new 1GB fiber service coming into the area.

??
none of them actually exist..

Well, not true, I got the 1100 right
Fixed them.

I'm personally quite disappointed with lack of LCD and USB.

At work I have 2 locations where a 4G stick is plugged in the USB port to serve as a backup link in case the main (VDSL) fails.
It is not working well in all router models, though. The power consumption of these sticks is near the limit and sometimes they crash when the coverage is not very good (hence high transmit power required) and a lot of data is transferred.

A possible workaround is a mAP-2n serving as an LTE USB bridge or one of the dedicated LTE devices powered by port 10 on the RB4011. Still, given they put a serial port on the RB1100x4 and RB4011 not putting a USB port on is baffling! Is there a header inside one can attach a USB cable to?

Is there a header inside one can attach a USB cable to?

I didn't notice any. If you google 4011 there's some Russian article with photos of PCB

I'm personally quite disappointed with lack of LCD and USB.

At work I have 2 locations where a 4G stick is plugged in the USB port to serve as a backup link in case the main (VDSL) fails.
It is not working well in all router models, though. The power consumption of these sticks is near the limit and sometimes they crash when the coverage is not very good (hence high transmit power required) and a lot of data is transferred.

A possible workaround is a mAP-2n serving as an LTE USB bridge or one of the dedicated LTE devices powered by port 10 on the RB4011.

Well, we now use this config for small outposts using hEXr3 or hAP AC. RB4011 is not really useful there anyway, we could use it as a replacement for our headoffice CCR1009 when that would fail, and 4G is not required there (it has 2 independent fiber connections). So my remark is more theoretical in case others face a similar situation.

Looks promising! I'd like to replace my ageing RB1100Hx2 and at the same time get sfp+ and ipsec hw acceleration. That's what I'm looking for and right now the only MT replacement is CCR1009 which is a bit pricey for home usage. But what about the VLAN thing, will there be problems running a few VLANs via the sfp+ port and get full throughput?

But what about the VLAN thing, will there be problems running a few VLANs via the sfp+ port and get full throughput?

It should not be a problem when routing, it only could be an issue when switching and expecting wirespeed performance without CPU loading.
The CPU in these routers is quite powerful (like the CCR) so it can do a LOT of CPU handling without overloading it.
Of course it still would not hurt to buy a separate switch when you have high requirements (probably not even a MikroTik).

I'm especially interested in RB4011 vs CCR1009 on single 10G point to point connection. CCR seems to struggle with that.

i think
with rb4011rm ccr1009 is dead

That's brave statement Still CCR1009 has number of features that RB4011 doesn't. It still has significantly higher routing performance, probably better cooling for continuos load, usb, screen, USR led, SD card slot, more ram and one more SFP cage. I think RB4011 will be great router for smaller companies which won't need to support thousands of concurrent connections but with half of CCR1009 performance for 512b frames, worse IPSec performance and (probably) 2 Gbps aggregate gigabit ports bandwidth to CPU I don't think it's gonna completely replace CCR1009, even for half of price.

I think RB4011 is exactly what's been missing here - CONSUMER-like 10G router. I feel like a lot of people (including me and my friend) bought CCR1009 as home router just because it was THE ONLY passively cooled 10G router out there. So if you wanted to have 10G router at home it was the only viable option. Now i think CCR1009 will go back to places for which it was designed for - core networks. For everyone who just needs bandwidth with some firewall and nothing else - RB4011 will be way to go.

I'm especially interested in RB4011 vs CCR1009 on single 10G point to point connection. CCR seems to struggle with that.

i think
with rb4011rm ccr1009 is dead

That's brave statement Still CCR1009 has number of features that RB4011 doesn't. It still has significantly higher routing performance, probably better cooling for continuos load, usb, screen, USR led, SD card slot, more ram and one more SFP cage. I think RB4011 will be great router for smaller companies which won't need to support thousands of concurrent connections but with half of CCR1009 performance for 512b frames, worse IPSec performance and (probably) 2 Gbps aggregate gigabit ports bandwidth to CPU I don't think it's gonna completely replace CCR1009, even for half of price.

I think RB4011 is exactly what's been missing here - CONSUMER-like 10G router. I feel like a lot of people (including me and my friend) bought CCR1009 as home router just because it was THE ONLY passively cooled 10G router out there. So if you wanted to have 10G router at home it was the only viable option. Now i think CCR1009 will go back to places for which it was designed for - core networks. For everyone who just needs bandwidth with some firewall and nothing else - RB4011 will be way to go.

Being a CCR1009 owner I can confirm - it is way overkill for home use. I ended with it only because I found one used for nearly the price of 3011.
Otherwise it makes no sense, especially now, when you can get 4011 + CRS326 for the price of 1009.

Being a CCR1009 owner I can confirm - it is way overkill for home use. I ended with it only because I found one used for nearly the price of 3011.
Otherwise it makes no sense, especially now, when you can get 4011 + CRS326 for the price of 1009.

Though even home user can kill CCR1009 if you use too much stuff on it I still don't see fasttrack as "normal" scenario. More like workaround to get more bandwidth from too weak hardware. CCR1009 can at least route full gigabit in full software with full firewall, QoS and all those features that don't work with fasttrack enabled. I recently performed some benchmarking and came to disappointing conclusions: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138626&p=683407#p683407 But as I stated I don't find it misconfiguration. In this particular case I could use fasttrack but actually for all other networks I use bridging with ip-firewall enabled so in more cases than I can, I can't use fasttrack.

Being a CCR1009 owner I can confirm - it is way overkill for home use. I ended with it only because I found one used for nearly the price of 3011.
Otherwise it makes no sense, especially now, when you can get 4011 + CRS326 for the price of 1009.

Though even home user can kill CCR1009 if you use too much stuff on it I still don't see fasttrack as "normal" scenario. More like workaround to get more bandwidth from too weak hardware. CCR1009 can at least route full gigabit in full software with full firewall, QoS and all those features that don't work with fasttrack enabled. I recently performed some benchmarking and came to disappointing conclusions: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138626&p=683407#p683407 But as I stated I don't find it misconfiguration. In this particular case I could use fasttrack but actually for all other networks I use bridging with ip-firewall enabled so in more cases than I can, I can't use fasttrack.

Routing at >1Gbit?!
In home enviroment?!
Not just for testing but in real life?!
Seriously?
Ok. Then there is you, and there is the rest of the world for whom new 4011 will do just fine

The move toward ARM had really boosted up performance per $: hAP ac2, now RB4011.
The next logical move is to extend this further to CCR line: the new ones in 400-500$ range can turn out real beasts if this trend will persist

i think a CPU like Broadcom stingray (8 core arm cortex a 72 at 3.0ghz) can beat a a tilera 72 core CPU at 1.0 ghz (like ccr1072) because of the much better single core performance

That's true for many use cases but please take into account that routers like those are in most cases used in backbone or core - they're supposed to route thousands of connections or at least significantly more than 72 lol. In use cases for which routers like CCR1072 was made it seems to make a lot of sense. Look at AMD and Epyc CPUs - 64 cores per socket, 124 threads. So up to 256 cores, 512 threads for quad socket motherboard. For virtualization host it scales perfectly well. For playing games - not at all. But CCR1072 is not meant to interconnect 2 servers at 40 Gbps rate. It's meant to interconnect 400 servers at 200mbps rate. I don't think device like CCR1072 needs single core performance as much as device like RB4011 does. Like I said it's distinction between small scale and big scale use cases. few strong cores make sense in small scale use cases. When someone looks for home router or smaller comapny with 5 servers he doesn't want performance to connect 400 computers at 200mbps but to connect those 5 machines at 10G.

So I think that CCR1009 and RB4011 both have their place - big scale, scalable loads and small scale, less scalable loads.

Routing at >1Gbit?!
In home enviroment?!
Not just for testing but in real life?!
Seriously?
Ok. Then there is you, and there is the rest of the world for whom new 4011 will do just fine

Correction: 10 Gbps. Or more precisely: 12 Gbps because I use SFP+ link only for VMs networks on home hypervisor plus NAS. Other networks eg. for my laptop and phone go through dedicated LACP bonding 2G to CCR so I have total 12G pipe between CRS317+CRS326 and CCR1009. Also all other ports in CCR are occupied by some more demanding devices but they rarely saturate 1G as they don't connect to NAS. Plus backup 3G usb dongle for zero downtime

Correction: 10 Gbps. Or more precisely: 12 Gbps because I use SFP+ link only for VMs networks on home hypervisor plus NAS. Other networks eg. for my laptop and phone go through dedicated LACP bonding 2G to CCR so I have total 12G pipe between CRS317+CRS326 and CCR1009. Also all other ports in CCR are occupied by some more demanding devices but they rarely saturate 1G as they don't connect to NAS. Plus backup 3G usb dongle for zero downtime

Doesn't look like a typical home setup

One question: why you need to push all that through the router?
Why not to switch the most part?

One question: why you need to push all that through the router?
Why not to switch the most part?

Long story short - MikroTik switches don't support VEPA and I use VEPA. And datacenter switches that support VEPA cost more than MikroTik router that can handle 10G lol. And I want to have stateful firewall. Afaik there are no switches with stateful ACLs. Or at least they're beyond my reach.

for example the BGP routing process in the router, it benefits from a powerful core because is single threaded

That's design flaw of BGP processing implementation in routers xD Single thread is dead. Moore's law is dead. We need to start scaling everything because we won't go much futher in terms of single core then we already are. We won't hit 8 Ghz anytime soon, at least with current approach of CPU design. I hope CPUs like Threadripper 2990WX or Epycs and whole new AMD line (which will soon introduce 16 core / 32 thread to mainstream CPUs) will force all programmers to finally start thinking multithread from the very beginning. Not just in places where they need more performance.

We're entering age of megascaling - GPUs have thousands of cores. CPUs will soon have hundreds of cores. Even phones nowadays have 8 cores. Everything that won't scale will lag behind. Whole IT is shifting direction towards horizontal scaling. It's just matter of time and reimplementation of functionality. Hypervisors also have bottlenecks - especially memory access that is basically shared (sure there are multiple channels but still it's bottleneck). But look at how far AMD went with horizontal scaling. They basically glued together separate CPUs into single big CPU that is recognized by OS as single computing resource. It's essence of clustering and horizontal scaling.

Screen you just posted is not really reliable load depiction. I faced similar issue many times. What Linux refers to as CPU load doesn't take into account memory bandwidth utilization, cache utilization, i/o utilization and many other aspects. In that thread where I discussed issues with single TCP tunnel performance - none of cores reached more than 30% of load, yet still bottlenecking occured. /system resource cpu is not reliable source of information about system resource utilization. In fact such source doesn't exist without enabling full performance counters monitoring that would kill performance even more. Not all utilization of resources is monitored in OS at all.

It's cool to have strong single core but we had already hit the wall. It's time to take turn instead of bashing this wall.

for example the BGP routing process in the router, it benefits from a powerful core because is single threaded

That's design flaw of BGP processing implementation in routers xD Single thread is dead. Moore's law is dead. We need to start scaling everything because we won't go much futher in terms of single core then we already are.

The problem is that many of those protocols have been specified in pseudocode, often even as state machines, in the official standards.
Implementations usually closely follow that specification, with only small changes to implement some manufacturer-specific new option,
and even those changes cause interoperability issues.
When you want a multithread implementation it may be required to completely redesign the algorithm. And while it could be possible
to do that and have complete interoperability with the standard, there is quite some risk that when different companies each do this
independently there might be issues between those versions.
So, such a change has to be carefully coordinated and maybe fed back to the standards governing bodies (to write a new specification)
before everyone jumps on the task of re-writing.

.... will force all programmers to finally start thinking multithread from the very beginning....

Most people are single threaded

One question: why you need to push all that through the router?
Why not to switch the most part?

Long story short - MikroTik switches don't support VEPA and I use VEPA. And datacenter switches that support VEPA cost more than MikroTik router that can handle 10G lol. And I want to have stateful firewall. Afaik there are no switches with stateful ACLs. Or at least they're beyond my reach.

I already got that from your reply in CCR1009 thread.
Well, you understand that this is outside of the needs for 99,99% of home users, right?

But what about the VLAN thing, will there be problems running a few VLANs via the sfp+ port and get full throughput?

It should not be a problem when routing, it only could be an issue when switching and expecting wirespeed performance without CPU loading.
The CPU in these routers is quite powerful (like the CCR) so it can do a LOT of CPU handling without overloading it.
Of course it still would not hurt to buy a separate switch when you have high requirements (probably not even a MikroTik).

My intended usage are just for routing, I'm looking at getting a bunch of different VLANs to the router to be able to route them so it sounds like RB4011 could be the replacement I'm looking for. Hardware offload for ipsec is a bonus, I'm only running one gre+ipsec tunnel and even if it's handled by cpu in the RB1100Hx2 I get around 120 Mbps which perfectly fine for me but ofc faster is better. I assume the router will be passive cooled? I would rather not have to change noisy fans as I had on the RB1100Hx2....

If you google the wireless model you get the fcc report, it has internal pictures: No Fans

Case looks Matt like the AC^2, and plastic?

The main problem for me... is I want a new router now and it’s not on sale yet!

If you google the wireless model you get the fcc report, it has internal pictures: No Fans

Case looks Matt like the AC^2, and plastic?

The main problem for me... is I want a new router now and it’s not on sale yet!

There's article on one site. Case is full metal. Only bottom is plastic. Case is basically integrated with hetsink so it's cooled kind of like CCR1009.

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.

This unit is obviously intended to use in "habitable" places, such as offices and/or living rooms (the wireless model), both by its form factor and by its look. Possibility to mount it in 19" rack is a plan-B (which is also indicated by form factor - i.e. unit's height which is much less than 1U). So it's not intended for extreme places such as non-cooled racks or sun-lit closed enclosures on top of masts.

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.

Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).

Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).

I think lower cooling capacity is another segmentation factor separating it from CCR and RB1100AHx4. I don't think this router is meant to run at continuous 100% load. It's probably a bit "overprovisioned" cooling wise so that it performs well if load is not continuous or cooling is adequate but it doesn't look like workhorse.

Also server rooms typically have external cooling solutions like AC.

Anybody else wondering why RB4011 CPU-throughput appears to be capped to 10Gbit/s?
Assuming both Realtek GbE switchgroups are connected at 2.5Gbit/s each to the CPU (like RB1100AHx4), this leaves only 5Gbit/s possible thoughput for the 10GbE SFP+ port!?

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.

Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).

By ambient, I'm referring to "Temperature" on the models that distinguish between "Temperature" and "CPU Temperature". Obviously CPU temperature is the highest, but I assume that temperature measures the internal non-CPU temperature (internal ambient). For CCR and other series with active fans, this is close to the actual ambient room temperature, but for passively cooled devices, the internal ambient temperature is often much higher than room temperature as the heat is not being actively removed.

The spec sheet is unclear as to which of these the maximum operating temperature refers to. If it's anything other than room temperature I would be concerned.

Example CCR1009 (active cooling):


Example RB850 (passive cooling):

The spec sheet lists the max operating temp as +45 C, which is much lower than most other models. I've seen ambient (internal) temps of 60c on my routers that are inside telecom closets etc so unless this has some active cooling, I'm worried it won't be able to operate in the same environments as current models.

Likely nothing has changed in the actual capability but such specifications are made because of complaints about high internal temperature and/or short lifetimes of the caps.
Internal temperature of the router is not the same as ambient temperature! It usually is 10-20 degrees higher (depending on the cooling that model has).

By ambient, I'm referring to "Temperature" on the models that distinguish between "Temperature" and "CPU Temperature". Obviously CPU temperature is the highest, but I assume that temperature measures the internal non-CPU temperature (internal ambient). For CCR and other series with active fans, this is close to the actual ambient room temperature, but for passively cooled devices, the internal ambient temperature is often much higher than room temperature as the heat is not being actively removed.

The spec sheet is unclear as to which of these the maximum operating temperature refers to. If it's anything other than room temperature I would be concerned.

Example CCR1009 (active cooling):


Example RB850 (passive cooling):

The spec sheet always refers to environment temperature the unit can work, not the ambient temperature measured inside the unit.

Anybody else wondering why RB4011 CPU-throughput appears to be capped to 10Gbit/s?
Assuming both Realtek GbE switchgroups are connected at 2.5Gbit/s each to the CPU (like RB1100AHx4), this leaves only 5Gbit/s possible thoughput for the 10GbE SFP+ port!?

I wondered if maybe all ports are connected into giant switch like eg. in CRS switches and there's 10G interconnect from switching complex to CPU

Finally:

Finally:

RB4011iGSplusRM-180905135303.png

Looks like expected and will work fine for my intended use! Any info about when the router will be available for order?

Finally:

RB4011iGSplusRM-180905135303.png

That looks like beef, not gonna lie I wonder where this 10G limit in charts comes from because it doesn't really look like "natural" limit.

Regarding the lack of USB, as there are a miniPCI-slot for wifi. Russian site with pictures of the inside: https://weblance.com.ua/389-mikrotik-go ... o-4x4.html
If Mikrotik could make a version of the R11e-LTE with integrated sim slot we could maybe use this as 4g backup.

Regarding the lack of USB, as there are a miniPCI-slot for wifi. Russian site with pictures of the inside: https://weblance.com.ua/389-mikrotik-go ... o-4x4.html
If Mikrotik could make a version of the R11e-LTE with integrated sim slot we could maybe use this as 4g backup.

https://cdn.tindiemedia.com/images/resi ... b-norm.jpg

welp. Works for me xD

That looks like beef, not gonna lie I wonder where this 10G limit in charts comes from because it doesn't really look like "natural" limit.

Connect all wires and run max traffic - logical direction is from SFP to all ethernets and from all ethernets back - in each direction you can get 5gbps s0 10Gbps in total. That would be most typical use.

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.

Why not? That 15Gbps is exactly the number I'd expected to see as achievable benchmark limit for this block diagram.

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.

Why not? That 15Gbps is exactly the number I'd expected to see as achievable benchmark limit for this block diagram.

Could it be the cpu limiting the maximum throughput?

One can argue about "router on a stick" SFP+ setup to lift possible limit to 15Gbps total, but i think those will not be numbers anyone is looking for.

Why not? That 15Gbps is exactly the number I'd expected to see as achievable benchmark limit for this block diagram.

OK, just give me a real life application - combination of fastpath and "router on a stick". As in real life average packet size will be closer to 512 than 1500, fastpath is only way to achieve 10Gbps+ speeds, but that requires no config, "router on a stick" requires at least some configuration, so the only thing i can imagine is to use this device as switch with trunk port, and for that CRS3xx will be much more better solution.

Could it be the cpu limiting the maximum throughput?

No, i don't think so, looks like bench-marking setup limitation.

OK, just give me a real life application - combination of fastpath and "router on a stick". As in real life average packet size will be closer to 512 than 1500, fastpath is only way to achieve 10Gbps+ speeds, but that requires no config, "router on a stick" requires at least some configuration, so the only thing i can imagine is to use this device as switch with trunk port, and for that CRS3xx will be much more better solution.

I'm using real world setup with router on the stick with fasttrack, full firewall and jumbo 9k on CCR1009 as inter-vlan router connected to CRS317 for servers and 2G LACP for users to CRS326. Though yes I'd argue if router on the stick is usable together with normal ports BUT you can easily imagine using 10G to some CRS317 and second 4G LACP "stick" to other switch eg. CRS326 for total 14G. It doesn't really sound THAT abstract - lets say servers traffic over SFP+ and users over 4G LACP as single user won't utilize above 1G anyways and then users traffic won't disrupt servers communication.

Also nowadays fastrack has significantly less restrictions.

Routers on the stick are less common nowadays due to L3 switches that can do simple routing at wire-speed but mikrotik switches can't do that and suck at routing in general so if we want to use CRS then router on the stick + directly attached gateway (so technically already 11G) will be probably one of more common scenarios. With more switches and more sticks - I believe 14-15G would be perfectly achievable. Please note that you need QoS and other stuff incompatible with fasttrack mostly for internet traffic which most likely won't exceed 1G, otherwise if you can afford 1G symmetric ISP, you can afford better router. All internal traffic (between servers and users) can be fasttracked.

Just looked up good old CCR1009:
https://mikrotik.com/product/CCR1009-7G ... estresults

Same way of testing, same type of results, at least they are consistent, and these results also for previous model was around for years, nobody had any issues and that was arguable more server room device than this. and i still think it might be down to testing method restriction

Yes, like the above poster points out, consistency is required to be able to compare devices. The test must be done in the same way, so you will know which product is better than others. Absolute numbers don't even matter that much. It is the difference that matters.

Regarding comparison between RB1100AHx4 and RB4011. If I don't need redundant power supply and I'm fine with 10 LAN ports, is there a reason to go for more expensive RB1100AHx4 ?

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?

Nope. It's crap

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:S ... p_Features

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?

Nope. It's crap

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:S ... p_Features

I think the chip has several possibilities implemented in hardware but are not yet implemented in RouterOS:

http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/prod ... ProdID=299

does Realtek RTL8367 manageable switch and support acl?

Nope. It's crap

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:S ... p_Features

I think the chip has several possibilities implemented in hardware but are not yet implemented in RouterOS:

http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/prod ... ProdID=299

Someone here said that in order to get hardware switch chip vlans it'd have to support Q-in-Q because one layer of vlans goes for router itself to separate ports of switch (which are not directly attached like in CCR for example) into non-switched and switched ports. Idk if it's true but it sounds reasonably. I always wondered how mtk separates ports in switch so that they're not switched at all, only seen as separate ports but using separate vlan for each port sounds like quite possible implementation

I'll need to void my warranty and check if it's true

looking at the block diagram, does it missing speaker? i hope not.

https://i.mt.lv/cdn/rb_files/RB4011iGSp ... 142219.png

There is no speaker

There is no speaker

So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

Things removed comparing to RB2011:

• no USB
• no screen
• no beeper
• no USR led
• no meaningful switch chip (it actually has less functional switch chip than RB951)

Things that has not been added but were not present in RB2011 either:

• SD card

Added features comparing to RB2011:

• SFP+ (instead of SFP)

And costs twice as much.


Great job guys! xD



It's well... just a router. Quite basic one. Especially version without wifi is bare af. It's probably one of the most bare routers MTK ever made I don't really count CPU and RAM as upgrade because it's just performance upgrade related to general progress in CPUs so it's just natural thing that we don't see 600mhz MIPS in 2018 as something even half decent.

RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN was the most full-featured device you had in offer. It had basically everything that other routers had, creme de la creme. RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN is exact opposite of that. imho it doesn't live up to its predecessor.

There is no speaker

So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

Things removed comparing to RB2011:

• no USB
• no screen
• no beeper
• no USR led
• no meaningful switch chip (it actually has less functional switch chip than RB951)

Things that has not been added but were not present in RB2011 either:

• SD card

Added features comparing to RB2011:

• SFP+

And costs twice as much.


Great job guys! xD

It's well... just a router. Quite basic one. Especially version without wifi is bare af. It's probably one of the most bare routers MTK ever made I don't really count CPU and RAM as upgrade because it's just performance upgrade related to general progress in CPUs so it's just natural thing that we don't see 600mhz MIPS in 2018 as something even half decent.

RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN was the most full-featured you had in offer. It had basically everything. RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN is exact opposite of that.

You make some good points. No Mode or WPS buttons either.

There is no speaker

So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

...

Exactly what I'm looking for! Will not miss any of the other features you mention. I could even manage with less ethernet ports, that's what one have switches for.

There is no speaker

So... at the end of the day... It's kind of one trick pony. It's basically really simple and basic router that can route buttload of traffic due to SFP+ port and hardware AES. The end.

...

Exactly what I'm looking for! Will not miss any of the other features you mention. I could even manage with less ethernet ports, that's what one have switches for.

For me it's an issue of perception. They gave the device an X011 part number, implying that it was an updated but comparable replacement for the 2011's and 3011. But it isn't; it's a completely different animal. Yes it's a device many people will find useful but why not give it a different series of part numbers and avoid raising the expectations of so many people who very reasonably assumed that it would include the features of the 2011's/3011?

For me it's an issue of perception ... many people who, very reasonably assumed, that it would include the features of the 2011's/3011?

Exactly. I'm not angry, upset, or disenfranchised with MikroTik, but I was hoping for a full Switch/Router combo. A do-it-all device. So, a little disappointed.

For me it's an issue of perception. They gave the device an X011 part number, implying that it was an updated but comparable replacement for the 2011's and 3011. But it isn't; it's a completely different animal.

It hits especially badly if you take into account that many people (including me) asked for RB2011 refresh with some arm or quad core MMIPS (like hEX) and it seemed that MTK is finally going to do that. But instead presented device where the only things that it has in common with RB2011 is shape, number of ports and name.

Everyone's use case is different, but I'm actually happy they stripped some things out.

I look at this a different way - now you have a router capable of routing 10 Gbps peak throughput which is very close to CCR1009 number for half the cost.

All of the bells and whistles are nice, I agree, but i'll take raw throughput and a 10 gig port any day of the week to build low cost aggregation routers, small MPLS PE routers and aggregation of specialized services like PPPoE, VPN, etc. Especially since the higher clock speed compared to CCR1036 will likely improve the performance slightly of computationally heavy services like PPPoE.

I look at this a different way - now you have a router capable of routing 10 Gbps peak throughput which is very close to CCR1009 number for half the cost.

I totally agree that it is needed device. Cheap 10G router to make 10G more popular. It's cool. I just don't find it successor of RB2011. Look at it this way:


This is really nice laptop. I'm not saying it's bad. Of course it's not. It's quite powerful, good quality, good performance, probably decent battery life, whatever. But it's ThinkPad only from name.

This is ThinkPad:


Putting "ThinkPad" label on generic, blant mobile workstation without any special features won't make it any more "ThinkPad" than any other HP, Dell or whatever.

This:


Is not the same thing as this:


And putting 4011 label on it doesn't make it any more x011 series than any other random 10 port router

Very unbalanced router
https://i.mt.lv/cdn/rb_files/RB4011iGSp ... 135303.png

Each switch have 5*1G port, but only 2.5G link to CPU.

What for this router have 10G sfp+ port? All switches summary have only 5G throughput.

What for this router have 10G sfp+ port? All switches summary have only 5G throughput.

Router on the stick. Inter VLAN routing basically. It's common use case actually if you don't have proper L3 switch.

Weird question

Some of you might laugh , but from time to time we use CCR's sometimes to do burn in or test stability of a product by just running a mtk bandwidth test script between devices in a offline lab.It's not perfect as btest is single core limited , but you can with a fairly small form factor and investment you can push a couple of tb's worth of traffic through a device and see if it copes in a unattended way.


Anyone venture a guess if btest will work better on these things than the CCR1016's we use for extended stress testing as I recall a CCR tops out at around the 2.5gbit udp mark ?

Anyone venture a guess if btest will work better on these things than the CCR1016's we use for extended stress testing as I recall a CCR tops out at around the 2.5gbit udp mark ?

If btest really is single core then I believe it should perform better than CCRs. It should in general perform better than CCR in single core tasks.

And putting 4011 label on it doesn't make it any more x011 series than any other random 10 port router

`
Oh come now. You can't be serious. The 3011 and 4011 have more in common with each other than an IBM-era ThinkPad and a modern Lenovo-era ThinkPad...sheesh.

I think the most strange omission is the USB port. And I'll agree that the switch chip might be problematic as well, but let's be honest: none of the switch chips used in non-CRS RouterBoards have been particularly stellar...each one seems to fall short in one way or another.

The USR LED, LCD screen, and honestly even the speaker I couldn't care less about. Maybe a read-only LCD screen can be nice at times, but I never found the "touch input" aspect of it particularly useful (especially since it isn't capacitive!), and in previous models reports were that it seemed to cause weird CPU load issues so it was best turned off anyway.

Besides the fact that it is a >1GHz quad-core ARM, though, in the list of "added features" compared to 2011 you also left out the following:

Quad-core (like I said)
1GiB of RAM (same as 3011, 8x as much as 2011U, 16x as much as 2011L)
0.5GiB of NAND storage (4x as much as 2011 and 3011)

So compared to older models it has quite a bit more oomph when it comes to the actual internals. It is just a shame that there is either no SD card or USB like you said, and also that the switch chips might potentially be duds (though maybe MikroTik can manage to pull out a software miracle there, so I'll take a wait-and-see approach to that one).

-- Nathan

Besides the fact that it is a >1GHz quad-core ARM, though, in the list of "added features" compared to 2011 you also left out the following:

Quad-core (like I said)
1GiB of RAM (same as 3011, 8x as much as 2011U, 16x as much as 2011L)
0.5GiB of NAND storage (4x as much as 2011 and 3011)

I said that I omitted it purposely. Performance upgrade is not "feature". It's natural thing that you don't sell in MIPS 600 mhz in 2018 in device for 200$. Fact that new "ThinkPads" have better CPUs and more RAM is not "feature" it's just obvious that device 7 years newer will have better CPU, more ram and better storage, nobody even points that out. If it wouldn't be better then something would be terribly wrong.

One could argue that RB4011 is "segment" upgrade because it's no longer low-end device but I'd like to remind that in 2011 when RB2011 came out it also wasn't low end. Iirc it was before CCR era? So the only stronger device was RB1100? I may be wrong though because it was so many years ago I don't even remember. Basically it was quite decent for that time. And wifi variant was top end SOHO solution from mtk including all possible bells and whistles. Now taking into account hAP ac² performance and fact that it's just some mid range 5 port SOHO, RB4011 specs are not all that much surprising. I'd probably expect quad core 800 mhz and 512mb ram (though as you said 3011 has 1gb as well and it's old device now. It also has dual core 1.4ghz and again it's an old device so it's normal that 4011 has better specs than currently old device. It's not rocket science), but still.

Also internal storage is not blessing. In the age of RB2011 all better devices had 128 NAND and it was 7 years ago. It's just now that mikrotik decided to skimp on NAND and give us some hilarious 16mb. Especially without sd card, considering that now 8gb sd is smallest crap you can get in every supermarket for pennies (like 2$ or whatever).

So all in all - no, CPU, RAM and NAND are not really that much of an upgrade if you compare to RB2011 specs upscaled by 7 years. In 2011 32gb of RAM was buttload of memory. Now TR CPUs support up to 128gb. There's nothing surprising here. Do you remember 16TB SSDs in 2011? Me neither.

Basically 4011 should be better in absolutely every aspect than 3011 because it's "normal" and it kind of fails even at that.

I really hope it's equivalent of 2011L and there will be better variants which will actually bring back stuff that we had in higher 2011's

Also because some people may get impression that removed things are insignificant "details" and nobody uses them I'd like to note that it's not entirely true and those are not just useless gimmicks:

• no USB - usage of 3G/LTE modems doesn't need any itroduction. Some people use 3G as backup WAN, sometimes it's even used as primary link. But also in case of devices without SD card slot it was an option to connect more durable storage to store logs for example.
• no screen - yeah while it wasn't all that useful, interface statistics are nice-to-have. Especially on this price point.
• no beeper - this one may come as one of the most underrated features if someone doesn't use scripts. For people using scripts, USR led and beeper are one of more common signalization methods to indicate what's going on. Whether you monitor machines connectivity on mikrotik using ping and play alert using beeper if something is wrong or use it for indication of any other anomaly - it's audible alert. Really hard to miss if something really bad is going on. Yeah you could use email, unless condition you want to indicate is problem with internet connectivity. Or you could send SMS with 3G dongle. Oh wait, you can't because there's no USB.
• no USR led - can be used to indicate various device status info. For example to indicate radio interface status (whether it's running aka there's someone connected to it, or not). It may come as surprise but longer ethernet cables produce electromagnetic field that heavily interferes with radio signal (I mean normal radio. Like music and stuff) and distorts audio. Putting down gateway interface in AP significantly decreases this problem so it does make sense to put down uplink interface in APs if there's nobody connected to it (via script). At the same time it's "nice" to know whether uplink interface is down or not just by looking at device.
• no meaningful switch chip - while one could argue that this device has enough performance to run VLANs in software - bridging in mikrotik is far from perfect and there are various anomalies with connection tracking that kick in when you use bridge just for "switching" ports or VLANs. For example NAT may not be performed correctly if the same traffic goes through router twice (to get filtered in-line by lets say some other security appliance for example)

I personally use literally all of those cases (except storage). And yeah sure - you can set up Nagios or other monitoring tool - but who's gonna monitor connectivity issues with Nagios server itself?

And if you're so fancy that you can afford two Nagios servers in HA connected to router using two completely separate paths, redundant non-3G dual WAN, rsyslog servers in HA and bunch of separate switches to perform in-line packet processing using them, then you probably can afford some fancy Cisco or something "better" than RB4011 because it's pennies comparing to cost of such setup... Functionality of router as "guard" of network has been decreased significantly. End of story. Now if anything fails it can't do much about it.

I’ll take the horsepower over the features though for my needs.

Can anyone from MikroTik confirm the antenna are removable on SMA or something?

My router lives in a rack so I need to use tails to take antenna outside if using a combined router, given spec of the WiFi model would go for that as long as I can move antenna outside the wall cab (WiFi in faraday cage never a big performer)

Looks like stock coming next month on a few stores.

Can anyone from MikroTik confirm the antenna are removable on SMA or something?

2.4 uses standard R11e card like this one: https://mikrotik.com/product/R11e-2HnD so it has the same connectors for antennas as R11e. 5ghz idk but I believe they'll be removable as well. Probably with the same connectors. Maybe you can find something here: https://weblance.com.ua/389-mikrotik-go ... o-4x4.html I don't know russian so I can't tell. Photos look like there are 4 connectors on PCB to integrated 5ghz radio I guess.

You can buy SMA pigtails for those connectors.

That said I honestly wonder if mini-pcie USB cards would work in this device. Maybe it'd allow for some frankenstein-style USB support. I also hope that at least some of LEDs will be programmable (for example SFP+ led could be reprogrammed to USR, that would already solve issue to me). Swtich chip in theory could be fixed by soft/firmware. Some things look like they're fixable at greater effort. Some not.

I thing 4x U.FL
http://certid.org/document/3948605

I thing 4x U.FL
http://certid.org/document/3948605

I saw they are U.FL internally, but what worries me is that if you look at the outside pics:
http://certid.org/document/3948604

It looks like the RG316 (or whatever the cable is) passes through the hinge and the antenna is fixed, I understand why they do this as they pass certification with certain antenna and if you then shove some high gain alternatives on its not the same product that was certified to not create interference - but - no use to me wanting to run pigtails outside a rack. Not sure why they have this problem, as other vendors include SMA on the router, but you can see as a company they are very much against it (look at threads on adding external to HAP/Lite etc).

If you look at the non-WiFi version:


You can see 4 large circles, I am sure you could drill the case out for SMA U.FL pigtails but suspect the default aerials will not come off without a fight... and warranty?

... will not come off without a fight... and warranty?

MikroTik has warranty? xD just rip off those antennas and call it a day. It shouldn't break , at least not before end of warranty.

For us, main disappointment of 4011 is USB removal. As rackmount it can be a good router - nothing superhero-powered, but relatively good for it price, like UBNT ER series.

But why missed USB in desktop SoHo version? Hap ac lite have this for it's price, but the flagship missed it.

Summary: as desktop router for us 4011 is useless - no USB - no way to cheap 4g backup or primary channel.

This is big irony, normis.
As you say: "yes, you will love it!"
Well... it look like there alien on board of X011 series. Stripped alien.

I liked the 4011. The only bad thing is the lack of USB: it can be quite handy sometimes... At its price point is a very good router.

Oh yeah, let's create a decent 10 port router and then let's put Realtek switch chips into it, so you could never use these to do proper switching in SOHO deployments.

Mikrotik marketing and device design needs some more consistency:
First, they release WOOBM and say it's a best thing to manage your routers, just perfect solution everyone should buy and use...
...then they release new router with great specs, but with no USB port to plug WOOBM into.

And it's not just WOOBM... when the CPU does have USB, why not have it accessible?
How much would that cost, $2/unit? Even internal header would be fine... just don't leave these available peripherals unconnected.
Use full power of the CPU and what it offers. Same for the UART - internal header is OK, but please have it.
Why cripple this otherwise great router like this? It's same as lack of buzzer.
That is again what... one transistor on GPIO pin and buzzer? $1 or probably even less?

Lack of display is understandable, but lack of USB and buzzer is just plain stupid decision that should have not been made.

Hey everyone! Let's have a poll

Let's tell MikroTik what we expect from RB4011 viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138969&p=684987#p684987

Maybe specs are meant to increase sales on RB3011...

From my perspective it is the better option as I don't see any decent performance upgrade with multicore. hap ac2 is doing only slightly faster than rb2011 in my environment (far away from wire-speed).

I wonder if mini-pcie toUSB adapter will work in this router? In such a way we could have had USB at the expense of 2ghz radio.

I wonder if mini-pcie toUSB adapter will work in this router? In such a way we could have had USB at the expense of 2ghz radio.

why don't use any minipcie 2ghz capable wireless card?

I wonder if mini-pcie toUSB adapter will work in this router? In such a way we could have had USB at the expense of 2ghz radio.

why don't use any minipcie 2ghz capable wireless card?

RB4011 has included 2.4 ghz card. Question was if we can get USB instead of 2.4 ghz. For example to get 3G/LTE USB modem or USB storage etc. There are plenty of mpcie -> usb cards but we don't know if they're gonna work with RB4011.

Like this one:

RB4011 has included 2.4 ghz card. Question was if we can get USB instead of 2.4 ghz. For example to get 3G/LTE USB modem or USB storage etc. There are plenty of mpcie -> usb cards but we don't know if they're gonna work with RB4011.

Of course those cards work without problem, but what is more interesting: is there any support for the USB device you are
going to connect in a firmware for a device that natively doesn't have USB. You will have to find that yourself.
(I presume it will not be a problem as the same firmware is used on other devices that have USB)

I have one question about WiFi version RB4011(RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN). Currently I use hAP ac(RB962UiGS-5HacT2HnT) for my home network. Im remove ISP modem and put optical transciver into mikrotik and setup firewall rules, pppoe, vlan's, capsman, vpn's... For Internet I use pppoe on sfp1 interface. For video I use vlan and bridge on SFP and ports which are STB's connected. For phone(VOIP) I use another vlan and bridge on sfp1 and port on which is VIOP phone.
Main problem to change hap ac with new RB4011 and use SFP+ is if my ISP transciver will work in it...
I have only this data about transciver: RB4011 is not cheap(cca. 220€) to buy and then find that I can't use it... Thanks for any info...

I have one question about WiFi version RB4011(RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN). Currently I use hAP ac(RB962UiGS-5HacT2HnT) for my home network. Im remove ISP modem and put optical transciver into mikrotik and setup firewall rules, pppoe, vlan's, capsman, vpn's... For Internet I use pppoe on sfp1 interface. For video I use vlan and bridge on SFP and ports which are STB's connected. For phone(VOIP) I use another vlan and bridge on sfp1 and port on which is VIOP phone.
Main problem to change hap ac with new RB4011 and use SFP+ is if my ISP transciver will work in it...
I have only this data about transciver:
sfp_1.JPG
sfp_2.JPG
sfp_3.JPG

RB4011 is not cheap(cca. 220€) to buy and then find that I can't use it... Thanks for any info...

I think MikroTik didn't say that RB4011 doesn't support 1G or anything like that. Though ROS is a bit nasty with 1G modules in 10G ports. It requires disabling autonegotiation and not all devices go along with it well. For example I couldn't get to work S+RJ10 at 1G rate with my laptop because its NIC doesn't allow to disable autonegotiation.

If other side will use SFP port and require autonegotiation you may be out of luck. For me link did work with "autonegotiation" enabled (that resulted in laptop detecting 1G and S+RJ10 detecting "10G") but there was a lot of retransmissions.

This is all i found about RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN: http://km.mk/Test-Setup-Photos-3948607.pdf

Does anyone have board images and block diagrams?

If so, please share so i can bitch and complain on how MikroTik puts electrolytic caps in everything.
I know they're perhaps unavoidable when you want to mass produce cheap, small, highly integrated = non modular, PoE enabled thing with various multi purposes - ("wtf am i doing, this is SOHO on steroids..."), but i guess that's consumer demand ("plz i need a cheap box that does everything and looks cool, has aerodynamic antennas and i want a cookie") and built in obsolescence ("middle finger to you user, gimme ur moniez and here's your stupid cookie").

The thing is, i'd like to see MikroTik with more stable and durable hardware. Not more powerful.

What about this link:
https://mikrotik.com/product/rb4011igs_ ... -downloads

And block diagram:

At least you can see the antennas are fixed, as they seem to be using u.fl to SMA to N to do the test.

Still plan to buy the rackmount one to replace hap ac2 routing, shame about the switch chips but doing my switching in crs328.

I'll probably buy this too, as I only need two "dumb" 4 port switches in addition to 1GB/s capable router.
Still it is a pity that we don't have proper switching available, you will never know when you would actually need it.

Still it is a pity that we don't have proper switching available, you will never know when you would actually need it.

I'm using RB2011 as small "ports extension" switch + AP for CCR1009. Because CCR1009 has significantly higher routing performance it made sense to use RB2011 switch just as switch for CCR1009 instead of using RB2011 for routing. When I was buing RB2011 many years ago as primary router I had no idea I'll ever have CCR1009. Nor that I'll need switch chip features of RB2011. So it's totally true.

I'm still fairly new to MT. I'm enjoying the RB450Gx4 and have the RB4011iGS+RM on pre-order with a US authorized distributor.

Question(s) on how RouterOS handles the two switch chips and impact to performance:

1. How does QuickSet typically handle two switch chips? Does it define two separate subnets with the ports 2-5 bridged (port 1 reserved for WAN), and ports 6-10 bridged)? Or does it bridge the two switch groups together?

2. What is the performance impact bridging the two switch groups together? Does it disable hw acceleration (IPv4 forwarding, IPv6 forwarding, fast path, etc.)?

Or does it bridge the two switch groups together?

^ This

2. What is the performance impact bridging the two switch groups together? Does it disable hw acceleration (IPv4 forwarding, IPv6 forwarding, fast path, etc.)?

Depends on CPU. In RB2011 performance hit was quite significant but second switch in RB2011 was 10/100 so still ports were bottleneck. Bridge performance is illustrated in performance table. You can assume it's performance of traffic between switch chips if they're bridged.

It won't disable HW offload inside single switch but there won't be HW acceleration of bridging between switch chips (bridging between ports belonging to 2 differenct switch chips will be full software) but fasttrack will work. Considering performance of 4011 performance of bridge should be like 10G so it doesn't sound like bottleneck. Maybe latency increase but throughput - not really affected. But you need to keep in mind that traffic between 2 switch chips will be limited to 2.5 Gbps due to device architecture, as this is throughput of link between switch chip and CPU. So if you have gigabit traffic between 3 ports from one switch chip and 3 ports from the other one, it'll be capped at 2.5 Gbps, not 3.

Thank you for the explanation. I know I'm getting ahead of myself on the config before the device is even shipping. But based on the 2.5Gb/s limitation for each switch chip, it would be best to place devices with a majority of internet traffic on the same switch chip as the port being used for WAN? I ask because I would be connecting to a gigabit internet connection.

Thank you for the explanation. I know I'm getting ahead of myself on the config before the device is even shipping. But based on the 2.5Gb/s limitation for each switch chip, it would be best to place devices with a majority of internet traffic on the same switch chip as the port being used for WAN? I ask because I would be connecting to a gigabit internet connection.

This concern is only valid if you have internet faster than 1.25 gbps and actually no, it'd be best to put in different switch - imagine case where you have hypothetically 2.5 gbps symmetric internet connected to ether1 (switch1). If full duplex traffic goes from ether2 (the same switch chip) your packet goes from ether2 to cpu (via switch1 cpu port) and then from cpu to ether1 (via the same switch-to-cpu connection) so you'd be capped at 1.25gbps if doing full duplex because each packet, as well as response will go through switch1 to cpu connection twice (for 1 packet sent and 1 received packets go though link twice in each direction).

If traffic goes via ether6 (switch2) then each packet goes once through switch2 to cpu connection and once through cpu to switch1 connection so you'll have full duplex 2.5 gbps

So technically ROUTING will perform better between switches but SWITCHING will perform better inside single switch. You typically don't perform switching/bridging to gateway, but routing with serious firewall xD

Please note that I explicitly mentioned full duplex because if you only download packets then path from ether1 to cpu will use 2.5gbps "downlink" and from cpu to ether2 will use 2.5 gbps "uplink" so it won't cap but will use full 2.5 up/2.5 down connection between cpu and switch even though you only download so you technically get unidirectional communication.

Alternative option would be using SFP+ for uplink but that can be tricky due to ROS sloppy 1G sfp modules support in 10G sfp+ cages (autonegotiation issues).

By looking at the diagram, the best option would be to utilize SFP for uplink, not the switches

Alternative option would be using SFP+ for uplink but that can be tricky due to ROS sloppy 1G sfp modules support in 10G sfp+ cages (autonegotiation issues).

You should probably use SFP+ module, not SFP one to avoid sloppyness.
For example: https://mikrotik.com/product/s_rj10
It should support all link rates, including 10Mbps one

You should probably use SFP+ module, not SFP one to avoid sloppyness.
For example: https://mikrotik.com/product/s_rj10
It should support all link rates, including 10Mbps one

Yes it should. Too bad it doesn't. I have this particular module. It negotiates to 10G when connected laptop. When I disable autonegotiation I can set it to fixed 1G but my network card in laptop doesn't allow to disable autonegotiation and doesn't work then.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138082&p=680211&hil ... 10#p680211

S+RJ10 is known to be crap. The only reason why it makes sense is price which is fundamentally lower than other 10G copper modules. Other than that it's crap. Doesn't work with jumbo frames, flaps and sucks.

OK, nice to know...

Is there a recommended SFP+ 10G Copper module that is proven to negotiate to 1G reliably?

I have one question about WiFi version RB4011(RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN). Currently I use hAP ac(RB962UiGS-5HacT2HnT) for my home network. Im remove ISP modem and put optical transciver into mikrotik and setup firewall rules, pppoe, vlan's, capsman, vpn's... For Internet I use pppoe on sfp1 interface. For video I use vlan and bridge on SFP and ports which are STB's connected. For phone(VOIP) I use another vlan and bridge on sfp1 and port on which is VIOP phone.
Main problem to change hap ac with new RB4011 and use SFP+ is if my ISP transciver will work in it...
I have only this data about transciver:
sfp_1.JPG
sfp_2.JPG
sfp_3.JPG

RB4011 is not cheap(cca. 220€) to buy and then find that I can't use it... Thanks for any info...

Today Im copy configuration from HAP AC to CRS326-24G-2S+RM(RouterOS mode) and configure sfp+ as WAN insted of SFP(on hap ac) and pppoe, multicats, voip, iptv work normaly as in hap ac... Does this mean that it will also work on RB4011 or can different CPU/Switch chip produce some problems? Im check SFP module and it is 6COM 6C-eWDM-0220AS 155M-1.25G Tx1310 20KM SC

Today Im copy configuration from HAP AC to CRS326-24G-2S+RM(RouterOS mode) and configure sfp+ as WAN insted of SFP(on hap ac) and pppoe, multicats, voip, iptv work normaly as in hap ac... Does this mean that it will also work on RB4011 or can different CPU/Switch chip produce some problems? Im check SFP module and it is 6COM 6C-eWDM-0220AS 155M-1.25G Tx1310 20KM SC

It should. CPU is similar (the same arch) in hAP ac, CRS-326 and RB4011. RB has inferior switch chip to both hAP ac and CRS but providing that you migrated config just like that I assume you didn't use switch chip features of hAP ac (/interface ethernet switch) so it should work.

Is there a recommended SFP+ 10G Copper module that is proven to negotiate to 1G reliably?

I believe it's ROS/routerboard issue. Not SFP modules issue.

It should. CPU is similar (the same arch) in hAP ac, CRS-326 and RB4011.

hAP AC is MIPSPBE, CRS-326 and RB4011 are ARM.

It should. CPU is similar (the same arch) in hAP ac, CRS-326 and RB4011.

hAP AC is MIPSPBE, CRS-326 and RB4011 are ARM.

Ah srr, I was thinking about ac² as it's quad core ARM just like 4011. My bad.

Is there a recommended SFP+ 10G Copper module that is proven to negotiate to 1G reliably?

I believe it's ROS/routerboard issue. Not SFP modules issue.

I wonder if S-RJ01 would work on SFP+ cage to take that SFP port into use...?
I would really hate to use Switched ports for Uplink due to lack of their configurability and I only have 1Gbit ISP link anyway.

In case you wonder, ISP provides GPON fiber, but disallows third party vendor ONT devices, including ONU SFP's and their ONT has 1G ethernet port.

Agreed. I would definitely like to use the SFP port for uplink. I have a bunch of 10Gtek 1G copper modules laying around that I could test. That would prevent the negotiation problem to 1G as they are fixed modules. I'll give the 10Gtek 10G copper module a try too. I'm in a similar situation where I only have a 1G internet connection through DOCSIS 3.1 modem. (My only 10G device is a UniFi UAP-XG. No need to have that bandwidth on the UAP-XG link since the WAN connection is the limitation. Doubtful, I would have a scenario where the LAN services and WAN from several device would saturate a gigabit link as there are other APs in the environment.)

Is there a recommended SFP+ 10G Copper module that is proven to negotiate to 1G reliably?

I believe it's ROS/routerboard issue. Not SFP modules issue.

I wonder if S-RJ01 would work on SFP+ cage to take that SFP port into use...?
I would really hate to use Switched ports for Uplink due to lack of their configurability and I only have 1Gbit ISP link anyway.

In case you wonder, ISP provides GPON fiber, but disallows third party vendor ONT devices, including ONU SFP's and their ONT has 1G ethernet port.

Look at bottom of https://mikrotik.com/product/rb4011igs_rm, S-RJ01 is not listed, S+RJ10 is, 1G and 10G regular optical modules are listed.

Why not use the compatibility table?
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_ ... lity_table

S-RJ01 not supported. S+RJ10 is supported, no mention of any restrictions under the S+RJ10 section.

Footnote 4 says you can only use a SFP+ DAC at 10Gb

Why not use the compatibility table?
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_ ... lity_table

S-RJ01 not supported. S+RJ10 is supported, no mention of any restrictions under the S+RJ10 section.

Footnote 4 says you can only use a SFP+ DAC at 10Gb

I could swear that 4011 was not listed there yesterday, when I posted this question here...

Footnote 4 says you can only use a SFP+ DAC at 10Gb

Doesn't it rather say that you cannot use passive SFP+ DAC at all? RB4011 seems to be the only Mikrotik SFP+ device which is incompatible with Mikrotik's own direct attach cables.

Footnote 4 says you can only use a SFP+ DAC at 10Gb

Doesn't it rather say that you cannot use passive SFP+ DAC at all? RB4011 seems to be the only Mikrotik SFP+ device which is incompatible with Mikrotik's own direct attach cables.

Wait what. Dafaq. No DAC support? How is it even a thing?... It's ridiculous. Low cost 10G that doesn't allow to use low cost 10G interconnect. Getting two S+85DLC03D and optical patchcord instead of one S+D0001 makes this device already almost as expensive as CCR1009.

Well, this product starts to look even more wierd...

The device support active DAC cables.

The device support active DAC cables.

Oh wonderful, so for example one like this for only 100 eur

https://www.redcorp.com/en/product/fibr ... 1/m852cq82

I can hardly find any 1m active DACs or anything below/equal 3m

I'm starting to think that the only reason for RB4011 to have that SFP+ is that MT can claim it offers "1733 Mbps data rate" (see top most banner on all forum pages).
One could hardly claim that if all wired ports were 1Gbps.

I'm starting to think that the only reason for RB4011 to have that SFP+ is that MT can claim it offers "1733 Mbps data rate" (see top most banner on all forum pages).
One could hardly claim that if all wired ports were 1Gbps.

That is related to wifi performance as it has 4 chains for 5GHz radio.
From official description:

RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN (WiFi model) is dual band, four chain unit with a supported data rate of up to 1733 Mbps in 5GHz. For legacy devices, the unit also has a dual chain 2GHz wireless card installed in miniPCI-e slot.

I'm starting to think that the only reason for RB4011 to have that SFP+ is that MT can claim it offers "1733 Mbps data rate" (see top most banner on all forum pages).
One could hardly claim that if all wired ports were 1Gbps.

2x1Gbps would be enough for that.

I could swear that 4011 was not listed there yesterday, when I posted this question here...

Code: Select all

This page was last edited on 21 September 2018, at 09:38.

Just looked, looks like info was added this morning I had the page bookmarked so checked it and posted the link earlier.

In fact the footnote on DAC has also been edited since this morning! Now reads:

4. RB4011 -- Only active Direct Attach Cables are supported. MikroTik S+DA0001/S+DA0003 passive DAC are not supported.

Generic active DAC does not seem extortionate, even if it’s 4* cost passive one?
https://www.fs.com/products/48884.html

Actually leaning away from RB4011 towards RB3011 as for what I need it’s fast enough, it now has IPSec hw acceleration and I can do vlan switching with the switch chip unlike RB4011.

Also the perfectionist in me wonders what it looks like rackmounted as the rack kit is not full height? (Presumably for the passive cooling?).

On paper I should just buy a HEX S it seems as it’s faster than my link...

Footnote 4 says you can only use a SFP+ DAC at 10Gb

Doesn't it rather say that you cannot use passive SFP+ DAC at all? RB4011 seems to be the only Mikrotik SFP+ device which is incompatible with Mikrotik's own direct attach cables.

It does in the latest edit, it didn’t this morning when I posted...

I'm starting to think that the only reason for RB4011 to have that SFP+ is that MT can claim it offers "1733 Mbps data rate" (see top most banner on all forum pages).
One could hardly claim that if all wired ports were 1Gbps.

That is related to wifi performance as it has 4 chains for 5GHz radio.

Indeed. There are firm believers (even members of this forum) in concept that "what comes out, must come in". So if radio is capable of transmitting at rate of 1.7Gbps, that data has to come from somewhere (I kind of doubt that random generator in RB4011 is capable of generating data at this rate). This device is quite obviously not targeting the most demanding user base, so MT can not expect everybody to use 2x1Gbps in a bond (as per @xvo's suggestion).

I'm forgetting about realistically achievable over-the-air data rates on purpose. Probably MT's own argument about gigabit wired interface not being necessary on 60GHz Lite unit can kick on here as well.

Too wait for proper upgrade from RB2011, but RB4011 is not my choise anymore, especially when removed USB port. Will switich to UBNT.

Too wait for proper upgrade from RB2011, but RB4011 is not my choise anymore, especially when removed USB port. Will switich to UBNT.

I don't think UBNT has USB either tho xD
They should just make RB3011 in desktop case. It'd be bilion times better idea than this joke.

Although technically a lot of complaints in this topic have a basis somewhere I don't really understand the complaints about the RB4011 series.

For anyone who has a 500Mbit or a 1Gbit Internet connection coming into their home/business and who wants to do routing between internal subnets above 1Gbps and have some CAPSman AP's connected, the 4011 series seems like a great device! I'm running a CCR1009 personally, but if I wasn't I would buy a RB4011 in a heartbeat. In some tasks it will actually outperform the CCR1009 because of the higher single threaded performance.

So performance wise it should be steller for a great price. Passive cooling is good and although the switch doesn't seem to support VLANs with the amount of power this thing has, doing a few Gigabit through the CPU shouldn't really be an issue? Better then getting a similarly priced UBNT device where if you enable certain features you're speed drops through the floor.

It doesn't have an USB port. Could have been nice, be in all honesty the amount of times I've used one is rare, very rare. If we now have to buy a cheap Routerboard LTE device for that, that's ok.

And the LCD. I have lots of Mikrotik's with LCD's, you use them never. Do you want to pay a 10$ (or whatever the cost is) premium for that? Generally the answer would be no for most people.

Then speaking of the wireless version, it's the first Mikrotik 4 chain device and has external antennas again so I'm really curious how it will perform.

Complaints like "the wireless can go up to 1733Mbit so you need more 10Gbit" I just don't get. If you know anything about wireless you know you can't compare stated wireless speed with cable speeds. And even if you could, 90% of devices out there only have 2 chains. Certain Macbooks are exceptions and have 3 chains, but that's a rarity. So that theoretical speed, you're never going to achieve that. Wireless still isn't as fast as a cable, no matter what it says on the box. Maybe in an ideal situation using both the 5Ghz radio and 2.4Ghz radio you could come close to 1Gbps of real throughput, maybe.... Not until 60Ghz wireless becomes a common thing do you need to worry about the speed of your wired ports.

Then what use is 4 antennas? Beamforming and other features can make great use of it, especially in situations where multiple (2 chain) clients are connected, overall speed will remain higher, which is good.

So maybe I'm missing some big points here but to me this RB4011 looks great for small business use or in a more demanding home situations. Plenty of power and passively cooled, great! I also really like that it can do hardware AES so you can tunnel all your traffic through a VPN tunnel in a work related situation or at home through PIA or something like that!

This is my opinion, and I'm sure there are use cases where this device doesn't suit the need, but I just wanted to show some positive excited thoughts about it instead of the bad reception it's been getting.

p.s. I just read that it might not support passive DAC cables in the SFP+ slot? If that turns out to be true that would be a big missing feature in my opinion.

That's exactly my use case, I have 1Gbit Internet, run a few vlans in my network on a mix of CSS326 (10 Gbit between these) and HP switches, have four MT AP and would like to have them routed faster than I can with my now ageing RB1100Hx2. My other choice would be the CCR1009 which I find a bit to expensive for home usage. Ofc all the options others point out are missing would have been nice to have but I can make do without them. I'm looking forward to buy the RB4011!

So maybe I'm missing some big points here but to me this RB4011 looks great for small business use or in a more demanding home situations. Plenty of power and passively cooled, great! I also really like that it can do hardware AES so you can tunnel all your traffic through a VPN tunnel in a work related situation or at home through PIA or something like that!

There's only 1 issue with RB4011. It shouldn't be named RB4011. It's not device that is direct successor of RB2011 and RB3011. It's different class of device and shouldn't share its name, shouldn't give hope that it's RB3011 refresh because it lacks half of RB3011 features. That's it. There's nothing wrong with this device itself. It's just that it's not what it claims to be.

If MikroTik would make now RB2100AHx4 or whatever could be name for RB1100 successor without bypass ports it'd result in similar butthurt because it just wouldn't be the same device. Or RB951 successor without switch chip. It's something defining this platform. MikroTik dropped half of features defining what RB2011 and RB3011 are and called it RB4011 just because. The only thing that RB4011 has in common with 3011 and 2011 is number and type of ports. THE END. It doesn't have any other feature that 2011 and 3011 used to have. NOTHING, zero nada, null. No, wait it has console port. So it has 1 feature that others used to have. Bravo, truly spectacular. If MikroTik can't think of name for new series of devices then I can give pro tip: https://www.random.org/strings/

THIS. is the problem. In fact the only problem.

I think it will be a good seller, especially in parts of the world with 1gbit Fibre at home is available, I think most people in the thread so far have a specific use in mind and so for them the feature set may not match their use case, but that's the same with most of the mikrotik range right? You only have to look at the table to switch chips and products to realise how much each range or device differs from each other, not to mention all the different CPU architectures - part of their sucess and weakness you could argue.

It will be interesting to see what people think once they start shipping, especially the wifi performance with the 4 chain radio - but still no wave2 I think - based on my experience with the hAP AC² (first mikrotik device I bought) you might see some issues with the initial firmware and performance...

You only have to look at the table to switch chips and products to realise how much each range or device differs from each other, not to mention all the different CPU architectures - part of their sucess and weakness you could argue.

And that's wrong. Naming schemes indicate something. If you saw iPhone 9 and it turned out to be Android phone, would you really look into spec sheet to figure that out? No, you'd just assume it's "better" than iPhone 8 and it probably doesn't have half of features missing. Nobody would ever think it has Android. Names suggest something. It's not just random label put on product because someone in sales department is bored and had bad weekend. When I heard for the first time about RB4011 I was shocked that it doesn't have civilized switch chip or USB. If I didn't find such info (because I'm passionate and I do like reading routers reviews I found it. But I might have bought it without much of research just as well. Just like I bough CRS317 totally YOLO and realized it doesn't have usb and can't mirror span to 2 independent ports the day it arrived) I'd probably just assume it's better RB2011 and buy it. And then boom, freaking zonk because I actually do actively use switch chip in RB2011 so I couldn't simply replace it with RB4011 like I would assume I should be able to.

In my scenario RB4011 is not drop-in replacement for RB2011 or RB3011 even that name suggests it's just refresh of RB3011 - it's simply not. The difference is huge.

Yes it's good device. Great device for even greater money. I also want to buy it actually. But I still want proper RB2011 spiritual successor that would live up to "RB4011" name. Current RB4011 in my opinion should be named differently. It has probably more in common with RB1100AHx4 than RB3011 tbh. It's great device with wrong and misleading name that suggests it's something that in reality isn't.

In my scenario RB4011 is not drop-in replacement for RB2011 or RB3011 even that name suggests it's just refresh of RB3011 - it's simply not. The difference is huge.

Too bad, they don't sell 3011 in desktop case...as Rack mounted device just won't physically fit everywhere...

Anyway, I will still buy 4011, as soonas it becomes available, as I can live without vlan's on LAN side and I only need two dummy 5 port switches for that deployment...
As far as diagram goes, this should be doable, different vlan/bridge/subnet per switch chip.

some users want a device what fit perfectly for their needs, that just dont happen every time

If some user ask for the succesor of 2011/3011 - not ccr1009, 951, or other MT models, it can be right to hope that some main series features, at least, can be unchanged. If we need more powerful routing - we simply ask for successor of CCR's or buy equpment from other manufacturer.
For this device, users wants a balanced amount of 1Gbit copper ports, average routing capablility (level near hAP ac2 or RB450GX2 can be... adequate for most of us) and last but not least - peripheral abilities (USB) for use as AIO device on relatively small installations.
Today, if we need a pure superpowered routing - we just can buy RM-desktop version of 4011.

But why we need a wireless version for it's price and infamous castrated MT AC onboard?

What mean that it do not support VLAN? So I can't create VLAN interface on SFP+ and ETH3 like Im on HAP AC(RB962UiGS-5HacT2HnT) and then put this VLAN interfaces in bridge together with ETH1&ETH2(Normal eth interfaces without vlan interface) ? Or it only doesn't support VLAN under switch settings(I don't use this feature)?
Bridge: Interfaces:

I think that you can do vlan's on SFP interface, as it is directly connected to CPU, not really sure about GE ports, but according to Realtek switch chip documentation in MikroTik wiki, it does not support vlans.

I believe the configuration you have above will work just fine. All traffic will go through the CPU, which is the same as it is doing right judging from your screenshots.

They are referring to having the switching chip handle VLAN translations, that it is not capable of right now. So if you heavily rely on this (like you would on a switch), it might not be the best choice. Otherwise, with the CPU it has, the RB4011 can probably handle a few Gigabit of traffic while doing VLAN tagging in CPU without an issue.

Thanks for answers. Now I understand if I make vlan's on interfaces it will be handled in CPU(like now) and switch chip VLAN support not effect it. Because I need "transfer" VLAN's from sfpplus port to some ethernet ports switch chip VLAN support do not help me a lot ... I use VLAN's for VOIP and IPTV and there is not a lot traffic(Usual SD iptv stream use 3Mbps and HD around 7Mbps all depend of channel... At same time there is not more than 2-5 streams so max 35Mbps, soon we get 4K streams so it will still be max under 100Mbps ...

In my previous post I made mistake. Screenshots are not from RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN but are from HAP AC(RB962UiGS-5HacT2HnT).

Thanks for answers. Now I understand if I make vlan's on interfaces it will be handled in CPU(like now) and switch chip VLAN support not effect it. Because I need "transfer" VLAN's from sfpplus port to some ethernet ports switch chip VLAN support do not help me a lot ... I use VLAN's for VOIP and IPTV and there is not a lot traffic(Usual SD iptv stream use 3Mbps and HD around 7Mbps all depend of channel... At same time there is not more than 2-5 streams so max 35Mbps, soon we get 4K streams so it will still be max under 100Mbps ...

In my previous post I made mistake. Screenshots are not from RB2011UiAS-2HnD-IN but are from HAP AC(RB962UiGS-5HacT2HnT).

It does help you. You can use bridge. Maybe even with vlan filtering. This device has enough of horsepower to handle software bridging at rate way beyond gigabit. The only difference between switch chip vlans and software vlans+bridging is performance plus some more advanced features (like protocol vlans, mac vlans, vlan translation etc which is not available in software) and some more sophisticated traffic looping (pushing the same traffic through router more than once eg for in-line processing by security appliances, with software bridging NAT decision is performed only the first time packet reaches router so eg. masquerade won't be applied on final egress).

Long story short: With decent switch chip you have 3 options to implement vlans:

• hardware switch chip vlan filtering + vlan interfaces attached to bridge (/interface ethernet switch vlan)
• software bridge with vlan filtering and also vlan interfaces attached to bridge (/interface bridge vlan)
• vlan interface on each physical port and then simple bridge (without filtering) with appropriate vlan interfaces as bridge ports (separate bridge for each vlan, bridging together vlan interfaces from all physical ports representing the same vlan)

With retarded switch chip first option is not possible. Third variant is the most universal one (allows eg. for inter-vlan bridging with firewall applied) but has lowest performance. It's also the only way that was possible on devices without switch chip at all (like CCR) before new bridge implementation.

There's one big difference between doing VLAN switching in switch chip and doing VLAN "switching" on bridge: misery of datapath between switch chip and CPU. If switching is done within switch chip, it can be up to 5Gbps (sum of all ports' throughput) ... while if it's done by CPU, interconnect limits this to 2.5Gbps. Btw, interconnect in 4011 is a relatively good one, most of small RBs has interconnect (or perhaps two) with speed same as wired ports, hence is the use of HW offload even more important.

So yes, RB4011 is good for VLAN "switching" between SFP+ and copper ports (throughput more or less evenly distributed between them). No, it's not good as switch between copper ports. And no, it can't really push all those 10Gbps of SFP+ through copper ports. The only way of using SFP+ port to its full capacity is to use RB4011 as (mostly) "router on a stick" between different VLANs. Where lack of decent switch chip isn't an issue anymore.

When you want to do switching, buy a switch.
That is why I don't think routers with so many ports are that useful.
In a small setup it usually is enough to have about 5 ports, and when you need more or want features like VLAN, add a switch.

When you want to do switching, buy a switch.
That is why I don't think routers with so many ports are that useful.
In a small setup it usually is enough to have about 5 ports, and when you need more or want features like VLAN, add a switch.

Well, they are extremely useful on confined spaces, where router + switch do not fit into wall enclosure, etc...

For example, I have a problem, where there are 4 rooms, 2 cables per room which makes 8 cables + uplink.
Space to accomodate all the gear is very limited, pretty much as big as an 1,5 sheets of A4 paper, approx 5cm in depth, where all the cabling meets up.
Pretty common design for the new appartement buildings around here.

There is pretty much no way to fit 8-port switch + decent router in there, as half of the space is occupied by the ODF, ISP ONT + 2 power sockets.

But that is an environment where you do not need (or want) a switch...
I am addressing those that want a high-performance switch and feel limited by the architecture of MikroTik routers with one or more 5-port switch chips.
My opinion is that you should not try to do advanced switching (groups of more than 5 ports and/or VLAN etc, with wirespeed between ports) on those routers.
They are not suited for it. Get a switch. IMHO not from MikroTik, their switches lack a lot of commonly available features or they are in first development.
When you want to connect 8 subscribers to an internet (and of course they should not "see eachother") this problem does not arise.

But that is an environment where you do not need (or want) a switch...

Well sometimes you just want AIO box as cheap as possible. Eg. such RB4011 with wifi. It'd obviously make sense to give it decent switch chip, because come on - if someone buys 10G router with 10 gigabit ports and wifi he obviously wants all-in-one box for everything ever. The only excuse I see is that like I said this router should be able to handle software bridging quite well.

In my case, I don't even need Wireless, as AP's are separate (hAP ac2), catch is I would like to feed trunk ports to these, to have dedicated vlan and port for STB's.

Reason behind it, is that MikroTik lacks RTSP helper and udpxy so feeding STB's over NAT is very tricky (IGMP proxy works, but some content comes over RTSP streams), much easier would be just to feed ISP Multicast vlan directly as Layer2.

But that is a bit offtopic here, unfortunately I cannot go for RB3011 due to space restrictions and RB2011 CPU just does not cut it (1Gbit/s connection + ipv4 & ipv6 Firewall).
Well, no worries...if there is a will, there is a way, if I get my hands on RB4011, I will probably figure something out

unfortunately I cannot go for RB3011 due to space restrictions

Well technically I guess you could take RB3011 out of chassis if network cabinet is closed anyways... I guess...

Well technically I guess you could take RB3011 out of chassis if network cabinet is closed anyways... I guess...

There is no network cabinet as such (click for bigger picture) but this could be an option indeed:



Anyway, let's switch back to the RB4011 discussion now

...

There was time when RB2011 was sold as barebone (without case) just like some current routerboards. Not sure why they abandoned it. Probably didn't sell well.

Imho the lack of switch chip features could be neglected if you had the possibility to connect a "real" switch to the 10G port via a cheap cable. However, the lack of passive DAC support forces you to spend 100+€ for this connection instead of ~25€. Combining both these weaknesses into an otherwise quite attractive device is very unfortunate.

Imho the lack of switch chip features could be neglected if you had the possibility to connect a "real" switch to the 10G port via a cheap cable. However, the lack of passive DAC support forces you to spend 100+€ for this connection instead of ~25€. Combining both these weaknesses into an otherwise quite attractive device is very unfortunate.

Agree its going to catch a few people out, but if you look at the link in my post 152 (viewtopic.php?p=688286#p687944) they are only €35 new, and used Cisco cables are even cheaper on eBay - is it that big of a deal?

Agree its going to catch a few people out, but if you look at the link in my post 152 (viewtopic.php?p=688286#p687944) they are only €35 new,

Are you using any of their products? They are offering 10GbE Multimode optics for 15€ while the competition is selling them for 50. There's got to be a catch.

and used Cisco cables are even cheaper on eBay - is it that big of a deal?

Could you provide a link? The cheapest eBay product I came up with was $50, shipped directly from China.

I don't decline that there may be cheap options for active 10G connectivity, but passive DAC would have been available everywhere for a reasonable price.

They are offering 10GbE Multimode optics for 15€ while the competition is selling them for 50. There's got to be a catch.

I'm using 10Gtek DACs which were even cheaper than MikroTik ones and work perfectly fine so I wouldn't judge by price. It's just generic chinese module that can be reprogrammed to present itself as Cisco, Mellanox, Intel, whatever. You can buy SFP programmater for like 300$ and reprogram any generic module to whatever brand you want to bypass brand checking. That's basically how "compatible" modules are made.

I've had no issues with fs.com 10G DACs between Mikrotik, Netgear and Linksys gear. The stuff is all from China but they seem to have their logistics nailed down pretty well which is how they can offer such good pricing. I know a lot of other people in the industry also use FS so it's not like they're a noname company.

It's a bit disappointing that the 4011 requires an active cable, but the price really isn't that bad. I hope there aren't too many other "gotchas" with this product as it looks very promising.

Has anyone been able to order one of these yet? Seems like the expected stock arrival dates keep getting pushed back.