MikroTik

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:55 am**

http://www.irouteros.com/?p=1808
Will there be a +WiFi Version of this?

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:08 am**

This one is a prime candidate for 4+ anennae WiFi version. Ugly as a sin, but it seems that's the way gameboys like it.

On the serious note: if it had wireless, then the argumentation about particular form factor is not valid anymore. So if it came as wireless version, it would likely come in larger enclosure.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:58 am**

Shut up and take my money!

It looks like the switch chip supports L3 switching/routing:)

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:49 am**

They are moving in the right direction.
Although I would prefer ethernet ports in 2x4 block and an enclosure similar to CRS112/CSS610.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:29 pm**

I guess that enclosure as it is is to offer enough cooling surface ... for device being passively cooled and intended to be mounted in a dense pack (two one above another, two side-by-side) it needs some smartly designed enclosure.

But if there was a RB5018UG+S+RM ... I'd be in the line for one already ;-)

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:22 pm**

I guess that enclosure as it is is to offer enough cooling surface ...

Sure, but there can be other cooling solutions - for example like on CCR1009 PC version.

But if there was a RB5018UG+S+RM ... I'd be in the line for one already ;-)

Yes, please! :)

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:01 pm**

But if there was a RB5018UG+S+RM ... I'd be in the line for one already ;-)

Actually, google for CCR2004-16G-2S+

;)

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:02 pm**

But if there was a RB5018UG+S+RM ... I'd be in the line for one already ;-)

A passively cooled CCR2004 with 16x 1Gbit and 2x SFP+ is coming.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:26 pm**

But if there was a RB5018UG+S+RM ... I'd be in the line for one already ;-)

A passively cooled CCR2004 with 16x 1Gbit and 2x SFP+ is coming.

Not really the same. Specifications of RB5009 include a very fine switch chip (Marvell 88E6393), while CCR doesn't have one (PIPE is not switch chip, it's a dumb port extender, CPU does all the data shoveling). So it's rather RB4011 on steroids.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:27 pm**

But if there was a RB5018UG+S+RM ... I'd be in the line for one already ;-)

A passively cooled CCR2004 with 16x 1Gbit and 2x SFP+ is coming.
Not really the same. Specifications of RB5009 include a very fine switch chip (Marvell 88E6393), while CCR doesn't have one (PIPE is not switch chip, it's a dumb port extender, CPU does all the data shoveling). So it's rather RB4011 on steroids.

The new CCR2004 with 1G ports has two of the same series switch chip that is in the RB5009 ;)

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:50 pm**

Yes, I was surprised that the following video from the Mikrotik channel popped up on my feed, without me having heard about it here first!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5kBvwGqGws

R

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:13 pm**

I'm super excited to see more of the Marvell family of chips.

This could be a great tower or last mile router for a compact enclosure or to build HA in a small footprint. I'm very excited about this one. :)

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:21 pm**

And a DC terminal block! Wow! Very wise to go ahead with Marvell swtich-chips instead.

No.. no wireless in the same box please. Use suitable access-points instead if wireless is needed.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:23 pm**

I just hope that there is a version with 2 * SFP+ ports in the "series" (three would be even better)... the underlying chipset supports it...

https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/mar ... 019-01.pdf

It would seem to be a waste of all that routing power if it were just on a stick....

R

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:26 pm**

Looks like the Marvell CPU used in the RB5009 is a Cortex A72, but now I need to compare this to the one in the CCR2004. Does anyone know what processor the 2004 uses?

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:08 pm**

RB5009UG+S+IN https://mt.lv/RB5009UG_S_IN
CCR2004-16GB-2S+ https://mt.lv/CCR2004_16GB_2S

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:29 pm**

CCR2004-16GB-2S+ https://mt.lv/CCR2004_16GB_2S

The video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmt33XMLTqI) says that it'll be the cheapest CCR, and that the passive cooling version is coming soon and it'll be 15% slower and have external power supplies.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:07 pm**

I hope the wireless version will be compatible with wifiwave2 as this is a perfect candidate for home deployments.

Well, till then...

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:18 pm**

Well, till then...

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:44 pm**

Does anyone know what processor the 2004 uses?

Annapurna Labs AL32400: 4x1.7Ghz Cortex A57.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:49 pm**

Annapurna Labs AL32400: 4x1.7Ghz Cortex A57.

Looks like the A72 is actually faster than the A57, so that's bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Corte ... prov=sfla1 What's also sad is that it's also used in the Raspberry Pi, so that's also poor value because the Pi can be had for $35.

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:12 am**

Looks like the A72 is actually faster than the A57, so that's bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Corte ... prov=sfla1

A72 in RB5009 is clocked at 1.4Ghz, while A57 in CCR2004 runs at 1.7Ghz.
And I don't know how, but according to PDFs CCR is still far more powerful.

What's also sad is that it's also used in the Raspberry Pi, so that's also poor value because the Pi can be had for $35.

When you add enclosure, PSU, storage, RPi won't be 35$.
And there still will be too much missing for it to be a decent router.

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:47 am**

Also the cpu on a Pi doesn't have 10/25g interfaces or the insanely fast crypto engine.

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:12 am**

And the Pi as only one network interface. It can't even compete with a hEX.

CCR2004-16G-2S+ looks awesome as well.

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:54 pm**

Will there be a +WiFi Version of this?

I guess that looks like an answer to the initial question:

RB5009.jpg

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:38 pm**

Or a footprint for a LTE/5G module possible. The four packages to the left looks like something related to PoE-model maybe.

I agree that two SFP slots would be more useful for some scenarios, instead of the 2.5GbE.

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:50 pm**

That mystery pad could also be the NAND as they pointed it out in the video and it was on the other side.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:06 am**

I agree that two SFP slots would be more useful for some scenarios, instead of the 2.5GbE.

They can easily add an additional SFP+ with the Marvell 88F8125.

This would obviously cost a bit more and require a larger footprint.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:14 am**

They can easily add an additional SFP+ with the Marvell 88F8125.

This would obviously cost a bit more and require a larger footprint.

Adding a second 10G interface will cannibalise the sales of CCR2004, so I believe "single 10G port for non-CCR routers" policy is intentional.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:21 am**

Will there be a +WiFi Version of this?
I guess that looks like an answer to the initial question:

RB5009.jpg

I hope this time they learned to not release WiFi product with a half-baked wifi :D Nothing against 4011 but at the beginning the radio situation was ridiculous and we had to pull many of them from the field. RB5009 with WiFi sounds like a perfect pro-summer product for gig connections.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:50 am**

Probably having a second 10G SFP+ interface would make the unit too wide in order to be able to put two side by side in a rack, like it is designed. They would have to remove one of the copper ports, which means you would be using only 7 ports on an 8 port switch chip. It is understandable in this situation that they decided upon only 1 SFP+ interface. Alternatively, they could remove the USB port to make room for another interface, but I don't think that would be a good solution either.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:54 pm**

Oh and btw have you seen the PDF?
https://mt.lv/RB5009UG_S_IN

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:41 pm**

The routing performance increase compared to RB4011, as indicated in RB5009 propaganda, is not true. E.g. number under "Routing -> 25 ip filter rules -> 512 byte packets" shown in RB5009 propaganda is 624.3 kpps / 2557.1 Mbps. Official RB4011iGS+RM test results have in same "table cell" teh following numbers: 625.2 kpps / 2560.8 Mbps. Calculation shows, that RB5009 is 0.14% slower than RB4011 while RB5009 propaganda states 69% performance increase.

Switching is faster on RB5009 than on RB4011 (that shouldn't surprise anyone knowing the cheap RTL8367 used in RB4011), but not exactly 63% stated by RB5009 propaganda.

Is it comparing apples to water mellons, but MT failed to state this fact? Or is it that basic calculus in Latvia is different than in my part of Universe?

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:53 pm**

The routing performance increase compared to RB4011, as indicated in RB5009 propaganda, is not true.

That is just marketing, nothing personal :)
But probably it's old 4011 numbers that were always untrue, not the new 5009 ones.
Which still is... unethical at the very least.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:57 pm**

Perhaps they just made a mistake in preparing the document. Remember: It's still pretty early stage. Mistakes happen - in the more northern parts of Europe as much as in the more southern ones. ;)

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:54 pm**

This looks great.If it had 2x SFP+'s I'd be all over it as we backhaul via OSPF to redundant distro or core layers in general.

And please Mikrotik please please please more 1/2 width 1U rackable devices.It saves us big dollars and space in our racks.
Hope to see the 1/2 width stuff become standard for devices than can be shrunk.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:56 pm**

As an aside for a tower router/bridge.Hopefully the SFP+ port doesn't need to be hard set to 1Gbps mode when dealing with slower handoffs.
Too many bad dealings with non technical remote hands.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:49 pm**

It looks good, but that single 2.5G port is a bit weird.... would exchange it for 2nd SFP+ any time... even if it meant reducing number of wired ports even further.
Some space for additional port on the panel could be found by reducing reset button to just pinhole and making USB port vertical. I think that would be just enough space to fit another port.

Posted: **Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:24 am**

The 2.5G port works well for me. Recently, the ISP here in the states, Comcast, upgraded the bandwidth to about 1500Mbps and the modem from Comcast also comes with 2.5G port. With 5009, I can use this 2.5G port to connect to the modem and the sfp+ to my CRS switch. It is perfect !

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2021 7:01 am**

But probably it's old 4011 numbers that were always untrue, not the new 5009 ones.

I suspect that the 5009 results could actually be underestimated. Assuming those switch chips are capable of not only bridge VLAN filtering, but layer 3 hardware offloading like CRS3xx model switches, it could be possible to leverage that hardware offloading for routing on the 5009, resulting in significantly improved performance over the 4011. And, if you do go above the connection limit, the 5009 has a much faster CPU than the CRS3xx line does.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:13 am**

I suspect that the 5009 results could actually be underestimated.

That is not really a question here - the question is why 4011 "test results" in the video are not anywhere near what the official 4011 product page/brochure always stated.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:32 pm**

It's a good question, I've planned to replace my home RB450Gx4 with 4011, now I will wait for 5009. Anyway, for home/test router both 4011 and 5009 propably will be enough.

Also, test results for RB4011 in video has diffrent values compared to test on their page.

And in video RB5009 is compared to RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN, not to RB4011iGS+RM.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2021 3:36 pm**

And in video RB5009 is compared to RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN, not to RB4011iGS+RM.

Test results, as published on respective product pages, are almost the same for both variants of RB4011. Which shouldn't be a surprise as they differ only that wireless version has two radios added, the rest of hardware is the same.

When I initially wrote post about the discrepancy, I was actually looking at RB5009 propaganda document, link was provided by @honza nad @neogoth. That document only refers to RB4011 routing performance via the relative numbers (indicating how much faster RB5009 would be). But then I visited official product page of RB4011 and compared those (raw) numbers to ones from propaganda leaflet. But then I guess the big "speed up" numbers are only preparing ground for a "ground-breaking price" ... because from raw performance numbers there isn't much of a difference between RB4011 and RB5009 ... and including single 2.5Gbps RJ45 port probably doesn't warrant a notable price increase. I just hope marketing people in MT won't skew the reality too much ;-)

IMO RB5009 is quite better choice for a home router because it can act as a decent switch between wired ports (unlike RB4011) ... as long as one doesn't need more than 8 LAN ports (assuming SFP+ port is used for WAN).

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:03 pm**

If you just compare the RB4011 and RB5009 based on CPU alone, the A72 is light-years ahead of the A15, so it's strange this isn't reflected in the performance data.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:58 am**

To clear up any confusion about different performance data I would like to point that RB5009 is RouterOS v7 only board.
With that in mind it was in our best interest to give both devices a fair comparison, therefore both units were tested with the same RouterOS v7 version (in this case RouterOS v7.1beta6 (build Apr 01, 2021)), same configurations, test settings and workload.
Due to the fact that RouterOS v7 is still in development and changes happen often, performance comparing to RouterOS v6 can differ.
Here are both performance tables used for RB5009 marketing materials:

performance_data.png

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:51 am**

That is not really a question here - the question is why 4011 "test results" in the video are not anywhere near what the official 4011 product page/brochure always stated.

I guess the product page results were obtained with RouterOS 6 while the results from the video reflect RouterOS 7 performance.

Edit: Should have reloaded my browser tab before posting...

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:16 pm**

Ок, it is more clear now.
Except why is 4011 performs so badly in ROS7 compared to ROS6.
But at least that gives us some hope that in the release version of ROS7 both boards will perform actually better than these numbers.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:23 pm**

Ок, it is more clear now.
Except why is 4011 performs so badly in ROS7 compared to ROS6.
But at least that gives us some hope that in the release version of ROS7 both boards will perform actually better than these numbers.

I am just guessing, but I would say it is due to FastPath modules not being optimized in RouterOS v7 yet.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:16 pm**

I am just guessing, but I would say it is due to FastPath modules not being optimized in RouterOS v7 yet.

That's interesting, as ROS v7 is currently more optimized then v6 for routing processes like SPF and BGP downloading.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:03 pm**

I am just guessing, but I would say it is due to FastPath modules not being optimized in RouterOS v7 yet.
That's interesting, as ROS v7 is currently more optimized then v6 for routing processes like SPF and BGP downloading.

Routing is NOT Forwarding.

The routing engine process(s) communicate routing information with external routers, they do not perform any packet forwarding. The packet forwarding is done by the Kernel, by Hardware (on CRS3xx) or via userspace forwarding accelerators (FastPath).

FastPath requires specific hooks in the NIC drivers as well as a number of other optimizations. Previous technique may not work with a more modern kernel, or their may be newer more efficient ways to perform FastPath on the 5.x kernel that Mikrotik are not fully utilizing yet.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:36 pm**

FastPath requires specific hooks in the NIC drivers as well as a number of other optimizations. Previous technique may not work with a more modern kernel, or their may be newer more efficient ways to perform FastPath on the 5.x kernel that Mikrotik are not fully utilizing yet.

Assuming they don't improve it further, would that mean it's a false economy to get the RB5009 if the RB4011 is just as fast if you use v6?

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:59 pm**

Assuming they don't improve it further, would that mean it's a false economy to get the RB5009 if the RB4011 is just as fast if you use v6?

If you watched the video introduction, there they said RB5009 will NOT be compatible with v6.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:02 pm**

If you watched the video introduction, there they said RB5009 will NOT be compatible with v6.

I already knew this. If we have a RB4011 with v6 and a RB5009 with v7, then both have about the same routing speed. What would be nice is if we could get the RB5009 with v6, but we can't. Assuming this setup, it would be a false economy to get the RB5009 for routing speed if we use the RB4011 with v6. Why would I even do this? That's because right now, the "development" version of v7 is scary unstable on the RB4011.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:10 pm**

I am running 7.1beta6 on my 4011. The only issues that I have are that I cannot reboot (it kernel panics on reboot and I have to pull the power), I have to disable and re-enable IPv6 every boot-up, and there is a slow memory leak that causes it to crash every 5 weeks or so. Other than those three things, it is reliable for me.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:37 pm**

I also noticed in the YT video that they're saying there's going to be others in the RB5000 series. That means there could be a 10 port version to properly replace the RB4011, because mine is just about filled up and I would have to rearrange my network if I upgrade to the RB5009.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:13 am**

That means there could be a 10 port version to properly replace the RB4011.

If I'm not mistaken, there is only one 1G port left unused on the switch-chip, so theoretically it could be RB5010 if not the width limitations, but still not RB5011.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:25 am**

I am running 7.1beta6 on my 4011. The only issues that I have are that I cannot reboot (it kernel panics on reboot and I have to pull the power), I have to disable and re-enable IPv6 every boot-up, and there is a slow memory leak that causes it to crash every 5 weeks or so. Other than those three things, it is reliable for me.

I have a specific RB4011 that also panics on reboot. running 6.48.1.
Has been that way since it arrived. No crashes other than the need to cold-boot "bug".
"
model: RB4011iGS+
revision: r2
serial-number: D4480C185648
firmware-type: al2
factory-firmware: 6.45.8
current-firmware: 6.48.1
upgrade-firmware: 6.48.1
"

It may be a hardware bug, instead of a ROS7 bug.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:48 am**

No, in my case it is a RouterOS 7.1 beta6 bug. I do not have this issue with any version other than RouterOS 7.1 beta6, and MikroTik has said they have found the problem and reproduced it and it will be fixed in beta 7.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:26 am**

If I'm not mistaken, there is only one 1G port left unused on the switch-chip, so theoretically it could be RB5010 if not the width limitations, but still not RB5011.

As I mentioned above "They can easily add an additional SFP+ with the Marvell 88F8125."

This is a "sister" chip to the Armada 7040 (CN9130) that connects over the MoChi bus and acts as an extension of the "southbridge". Each 88F8125 adds 1x 10Gigabit port and 3x 1Gigabit ports, and they are able to add up to 2 x 88F8215 to an Armada 7040.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:14 am**

That would break the concept of all ports being processed by a single switch chip.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:55 pm**

Indeed. We all know shortcomings of such design: RB2011, RB3011, RB4011 ... let's just hope it doesn't continue to RB501x ...

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:08 pm**

BTW, pages on the website for both RB5009 and CCR2004 are now available.
With official pricing etc.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:31 pm**

That would break the concept of all ports being processed by a single switch chip.

Why do they need to be ?

This is a router after all.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:47 pm**

This is a router after all.

Then why do it need to have more than 9 ports at all?

There were a lot of cases when people wanted to use RBx011 as router+switch in one device.
And this nonsense with two switch chips was always a limitation.
So RB5009 is clearly a step in the right direction having this use case in mind.

For pure routing I would prefer the same CPU (may be with one 88F8125 port-extender, you mentioned earlier) in a smaller box having 4-6 ports (1-2x10G + 2-4x2,5G+0-2x1G, probably some of them being combo) and no switch chip at all.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:55 pm**

From the Quick Guide of that beast:

This device needs to be upgraded to the v7.0.2 or the latest software version to ensure compliance with local authority regulations!

Looks like MikroTik is preparing something powerful to announce... 👀

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 4:20 pm**

ROS v7.0.2 is same version that's used on Chateau, as explained in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175201
v7.1 is what's everyone waiting for, v7.0 is basically same as v6.x with new kernel so it can run on newer hardware.

Also I hope more RB500x series will follow... WIFI version is probably in the works as seen by the PCB footprint, but "more optical" version with just more SFP ports would be nice too.
Just please no port flapping... I have high hopes for this new hardware.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:24 pm**

There must be a misprint in the rb5009 brochure. The speed tests actually look slightly slower than the tests on the rb4011 page. e.g. rb4011 = 4,286Mbps (512byte) (Routing 25 simple queues) while rb5009= 4,041Mbps.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:01 pm**

From the Quick Guide of that beast:
This device needs to be upgraded to the v7.0.2 or the latest software version to ensure compliance with local authority regulations!
Looks like MikroTik is preparing something powerful to announce... 👀

This is silly ... the warning continues with second paragraph:

It is the end users' responsibility to follow local country regulations, including operation within legal frequency channels, output power, cabling requirements, and Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) requirements. All MikroTik devices must be professionally installed.

RB5009UG+S+IN doesn't have any wireless. The rest, mentioned in the paragraph quoted (cabling requirements, professional installation), are not really influenced by ROS version, are they?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:05 pm**

It seems like that text about DFS and "local authorities" is just boilerplate filler copied and pasted into every manual.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:05 pm**

From my perspective the MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN could be a real winner especially for the home market

I checked ISP Supplies Canada and they do not have stock .... I will be getting this as soon as it becomes available to test out.

I am now speculating that RoS 7 will be in production mode sooner vs later based on the release of this product because the Quick Guide states that the latest firmware for this model can be gotten on the normal download site as follows:

Update RouterOS software to the latest version, make sure that the device has an internet connection.
If the device does not have an internet connection update software by downloading the latest version from our webpage https://mikrotik.com/download

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:37 pm**

I checked ISP Supplies Canada and they do not have stock ....

A Polish distributor states 2021-09-03 as date of availability. Let's wait and see. Could be a nice present on the eve of N-th wave of COVID-19.

Another thing - a question for MT staff I guess: MT is selling rack-mount kit for this router. Pictures show how to mount 2 or 4 units. But is it possible to use this rack-mount kit for mounting single unit? Or 3 units? How stable is the whole thing if there aren't two units stacked vertically?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:49 pm**

But is it possible to use this rack-mount kit for mounting single unit? Or 3 units? How stable is the whole thing if there aren't two units stacked vertically?

They want you to buy four, that way they get four times the sales.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:01 am**

Yeah. For the money they'd like to get for 4 units, I could get the new CCR2004-16G-2S+ (which would look much nicer and more professional in my home networking rack). If I'd be missing ether ports, I could throw in a CRS326-24G-2S+RM (OK, now we're talking about 2U already, but hey, I'd have 40 GigE ports and 4 SFP+ ports compared to 28 GigE ports, 4 GigE+ ports and 4 SFP+ ports. And would look like a real professional stack of real networking gear instead of the 4 devices looking like a part of winter tyre.

And I'd still have some money to spend on a few beers.

It seems like they wouldn't settle for two units sold to one customer ... those perforations on the "long ears" (where one is supposed to tear part apart if "short ears" are needed) don't look very sturdy to me.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:49 am**

But is it possible to use this rack-mount kit for mounting single unit? Or 3 units? How stable is the whole thing if there aren't two units stacked vertically?
They want you to buy four, that way they get four times the sales.

About racking options, it would be better if you make an additional board, with same form factor,
To work for as gigabit port extension, for ex. 8GE+1/2SFP port only a cheap switch version.
Perfect was if on the 5009 board you make some stackable cable connection to connect the extension switch/switches easily.
(like for the old RB532 was an extension RB502/508 maybe if I remember)

Because maybe you will not buy 2 routers or 4 routers to put in the same rack, much more cases you need additional ports as (poe)switch.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:09 am**

Website updated, but currently no available block diagrams

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:22 am**

There are still some places to fix. E.g. user manual says "The device supports RouterOS software version 7.0.04.". In downloads section of product page the "Download" button of "RouterOS current release" points to routeros-arm64-6.48.3.npk ...

SFP compatibility list doesn't even mention RB5009.

I'm sure there are more of such "gems".

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:05 pm**

Website updated, but currently no available block diagrams

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:57 pm**

Any information about the capabilities of the switch chip ?
Can it hardware offload while using Bridge VLAN filtering ?
Or using the old switch chip configuration ?

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:54 pm**

That RB5009 block diagram makes me think it was oriented around router-on-a-stick because the SFP+ is switched with all the other ports and that's what you'd have a lot of in a ROAS setup. Also, in the document for the switch chip, it claims "L3 routing features" which might be nice to have :)

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:30 pm**

That RB5009 block diagram makes me think it was oriented around router-on-a-stick because the SFP+ is switched with all the other ports

How would it matter in ROAS scenario, as SFP+ will be the only populated port then?

But the ability to do some of inter-vlan routing on switch-chip would be good addition to overall performance indeed (no matter ROAS or not-ROAS).

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:39 pm**

From my perspective the MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN could be a real winner especially for the home market

Well, it looks like it is mainly intended for installations with multiple units in a rack. I am not familiar with such installs, but maybe it can be useful in some
situations. Previously (I have seen this as well, but it is mentioned in their video) people remarked that MikroTik models were just a little too wide to be
mounted 2-aside in a rack. So, they reduced the number of ports and made it as low as possible, so now you can mount 4 of them in 1U 19".
But how many users in the home market are interested in that? They want WiFi (5009 doesn't have it). And if for a large home, they probably want PoE out
on at least 4 of the ports. Personally, I would like a little more ports. Someone else remarked, a 5018 (full width or double height), that would be the best.
There now is the 16-port model of the CCR2004, that also looks interesting for me. I will look at the passive-cooled model when that is released.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:43 pm**

I agree that two SFP slots would be more useful for some scenarios, instead of the 2.5GbE.

I think the reason for not doing that is that a 2.5GbE module in an SFP+ slot in a passively-cooled router will be thermally unstable.
They want to offer 2.5GbE and have the option of having an OPTICAL module in SFP+ slot (they do not run as hot as a TP-ethernet module).

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:03 pm**

How would it matter in ROAS scenario, as SFP+ will be the only populated port then?

I use ROAS where the gigabit ports are used for gigabit devices and the SFP+ is connected to a 10G switch for only 10G devices.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:30 pm**

I use ROAS where the gigabit ports are used for gigabit devices and the SFP+ is connected to a 10G switch for only 10G devices.

Then it is not a ROAS :)

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:49 pm**

I use ROAS where the gigabit ports are used for gigabit devices and the SFP+ is connected to a 10G switch for only 10G devices.
Then it is not a ROAS :)

Technically it is, because the WAN is located in the 10G switch and uses a VLAN to separate it from LAN.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:10 pm**

I feel like the RB5009 for me would actually bet a positive gain in performance, as my RB4011 is doing inter-VLAN routing in the CPU for CCTV and RSTP, both of which aren't supported by the wimpy TTL switch chips but likely are by the RB5009's.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:49 pm**

Technically it is

Well, no, it's not: ROAS concept implies that router has only single physical connection to the rest of the network.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:51 pm**

ROAS concept implies that router has only single physical connection to the rest of the network.

Maybe it's a half-ROAS, because to the 10G devices it only has one connection, but to the gigabit it has many.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:11 pm**

You can say about any network device that “it has one connection for some subset of devices, and some connections to the rest”. :)))

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:33 am**

I suspect that the 5009 results could actually be underestimated.
That is not really a question here - the question is why 4011 "test results" in the video are not anywhere near what the official 4011 product page/brochure always stated.

I think they made mistake and have yet to publish the actual performance :). I think MikroTik was excited to show us this new hardware. Lets give few days and wait for official performance document along with a block diagram. [missing from site]. Also their RouterOS download link for the RB5009 points to 6.48.3 stable; when it should instead be v7.1
Update: I noticed now they have put block diagram. Yesterday It was not there.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:50 am**

What happened to the console port ?? Lab equipment should have that !!

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:56 am**

What happened to the console port ??

This is something that I really want before I can buy one.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:17 am**

It has a USB connector, so likely you can make a console port by plugging in a USB-RS232 cable.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:20 am**

..getting to start being interested in the RB5009 (although I'd rather wait until 2x10G/SFP+ ...and more 2.5G will be added/converted...who knows what will be coming).

Question: Do you consider it a good move to combine PoE-in with the only 2.5G port? ...looks like a deadlock situation to me.
There are not many 2.5G Injectors available, let alone 802.3bt....Oh, TP-Link has them (oups, wrong brand).

Until this situation changes, it will/can hold back potential buyers, like me.
...as I love to power all my equipment from a multi-port PoE Injector, in order to increase efficiency as a whole and also get the ability to "remotely" power on/off, should need be.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:28 am**

It has a USB connector, so likely you can make a console port by plugging in a USB-RS232 cable.

Or better yet a woobm.

OTOH, for me having both RJ45 and SFP+ served by single switch chip is a benefit for SOHO installations. This way unit can really be used as combination of router/switch and traffic between ether ports and SFP+ would not hit the CPU. And I guess typical SOHO user doesn't have more than 2.5Gbps WAN speed, hence SFP+ port would be used either for connection towards another switch or towards some NAS device.

As to the form factor: there are uses even in corporate environments where one needs multiple independent routers with a few ports and in such case, the possibility to mount devices in 1U space is a benefit. I don't think these units will be used for more traditional tasks in corporate environments, those would better be served by some CCR device. For home users, form factor typically doesn't matter that much, not many homes are equipped with 19" rack ... and even those can be fitted with a shelf or two for non-rackmount devices.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:31 am**

..getting to start being interested in the RB5009 (although I'd rather wait until 2x10G/SFP+

I wouldn't hold my breath for that if I were you. I expect such a beast would cannibalize the CCR2004-16G-2S+ too much. More 2.5G ports would be nice, though.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:58 pm**

There are not many 2.5G Injectors available, let alone 802.3bt....Oh, TP-Link has them (oups, wrong brand).

You don't need 802.3bt to power the RB5009 (it only supports 802.3af/at), and 2.5G works fine over regular ethernet cables.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:05 pm**

I am not talking about the cables, I am talking about the injector ports.

As the only 2.5G port on the RB5009 is the same for PoE-IN, I'd need a 2.5G capable Injector, hence....independent of PoE standard
I do not suppose a "standard" injector with advertised 1G ports will deliver a 2.5 link, or will it?

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:16 pm**

Shut up and take my money!

It looks like the switch chip supports L3 switching/routing:)

But does it support IPv6 hardware offloading as well?

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:47 pm**

I do not suppose a "standard" injector with advertised 1G ports will deliver a 2.5 link, or will it?

2.5G uses the same wires as 1G and it was designed to be used with the same cables, so the injector effectively can't tell the difference. Actually, it might be able to do 10G as well as the connector and wires still stay the same. The difference only mattered with 100M vs. 1G where half the wires could be missing.

But does it support IPv6 hardware offloading as well?

We don't even have IPv6 Past Path yet, so it could be a while before it's supported.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:57 pm**

It looks like the switch chip supports L3 switching/routing:)
But does it support IPv6 hardware offloading as well?

One thing is switch chip support for L3 switching and for sure IPv6 is different than IPv4 in this regard.

Another question is if ROS can configure switch chip to do it. And for now the answer is NO, IPv6 HW offload is not here even on CRS3xx where IPv4 is already offloaded (and MT staff hinted that HW supports IPv6 offload). And I guess it's a long way to get there. I'm assuming that L3 HW offload is somehow tied to fast-track (if software can't cut the corners, how can it pass cutting the corner to HW?) which is not implemented for IPv6 on any device on any ROS version.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:59 pm**

@Cablenut9 ...true, what you said regarding the pair of wires ...I will try and put this to a test...time to shop for a switch with 2.5G & 10G-T ports (Edit: ...and PoE-In)

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:03 pm**

The difference only mattered with 100M vs. 1G where half the wires could be missing.

Or better: a 100M injector can just connect 4 of the 8 wires directly to power, while a 1G injector has to respect that those 4 wires are used for datatransfer as well so it has to use inductors to couple the power to the wires.
That is why a 1G link with a 100M injector falls back to 100M: those 4 wires are not usable for datatransfer anymore and the link falls back to 100M mode which uses only the other 4 wires.

There is no such difference between 1G and 2.5G so I too expect that it will just work with a 1G injector, unless there would be some spec issue with the inductors.

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:50 am**

Is there any news about the new switch chip's L3 features?

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:34 am**

There is no such difference between 1G and 2.5G so I too expect that it will just work with a 1G injector, unless there would be some spec issue with the inductors.

Well, to send more traffic we have 3 possibilities:
1) Increase the transmission frequency.
2) Increase the signaling efficiency - usually at the cost of a more complex and prone to interference schema.
3) Increase the parallelism - use more pairs.

We know it uses the same CAT5e cable, so number 3 is out.

I don't know which one of the 1) or 2) options it uses - but any of them could (it COULD, I don't know if WILL) be affected by a perfectly fine gigabit injector. So although I agree that is highly likely that it will work, I would do some tests before basing a project on them. You know, Murphy and all.

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:18 am**

Yes, that would be the "spec issue with the inductors" I mentioned. If the frequencies are higher, a perfect inductor would not have problems with that, but in reality we do not have perfect inductors, they have parasitic capacitance, and that could ruin your day at higher frequencies.
So it would be a specific issue with certain types of injectors, not something you can test once and then forget about.

However, I don't think the frequency is higher. It looks like they use a more advanced modulation at the same frequency.
That should not really affect the injector.

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:26 pm**

I don't know. A more advanced modulation could be using an algorithm that needs more sensitivity, and it means smaller voltage steps between levels. I would really test some model, and "certificate" it for my use. That is, if I would be buying lots of them. If he only needs 5 or 6...

Posted: **Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:49 pm**

Any idea about IPSEC performance ?

Posted: **Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:18 pm**

About switch chip-cpu discussion, I'm not really sure if is a problem, if you have all port on sw chip with 2.5g link between CPU and SWchip and 10g to CPU is not a big benefit as well (aka 4011)
From other side from 10G port you can get full 2.5G to 2.5port (I guess ?!), and still 7.5G for all other 1G ports for CPU, in case with 4011 you get 10g and all other ports recv max 5G 2*2.5 which again is not big benefit to have 10G port (except "router on stick" I guess ) - An we talk about theoretical speeds (yes most for L2)
I'm sorry if my calculations are wrong, my point is .. really depend on the use case (note: also if L3 hw offload is supported for this sw chip with ros7

)

Regards,

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:43 pm**

Does anyone know if this bad boy supports IPSec HW acceleration? In the Test Results page (Link: https://mikrotik.com/product/rb5009ug_s ... estresults ) doesn't show any IPSec performance.

If no IPSec HW acceleration is supported is DoA for me.

Thanks!

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2021 7:16 pm**

Marvell Armada 7040 have Security Engine (hardware crypto engine) with multiple algorithm capabilities
https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/mar ... 017-12.pdf
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptogr ... duct=11260

but Mikrotik sells a device with a beta version of ROS without hardware acceleration support...

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2021 7:25 pm**

Mark your Calendar ... August 23, 2021 .... this is the date to watch RoS v7.x

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:40 pm**

Marvell Armada 7040 have Security Engine (hardware crypto engine) with multiple algorithm capabilities
https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/mar ... 017-12.pdf
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptogr ... duct=11260

but Mikrotik sells a device with a beta version of ROS without hardware acceleration support...

Thanks I guess we have to wait and see if they decide to take advantage of the HW capabilities!. It will be very stupid if not, but you know the world is full of stupidity these days

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:07 pm**

Mark your Calendar ... August 23, 2021 .... this is the date to watch RoS v7.x

So it seems that many MikroTik sellers in the USA and Canada have been informed that the RB5009 is NOW backordered into November 2021 .... if that is true then my teaser above is going to miss the MARK

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:45 pm**

But this is an interesting info all the same. Is the 5009 supposed to use 7.1 final from the start? Or will it use some 7.1beta?

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:03 pm**

But this is an interesting info all the same. Is the 5009 supposed to use 7.1 final from the start? Or will it use some 7.1beta?

There's a special v7 that is stable but just for a couple devices, and that's probably what the RB5009 will come with. However, you can also use v7.1 beta instead.

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:11 pm**

I'm more interested in using the new devices as a tool to estimate when they expect V7 final.

This one will see heavy usage with BGP, OSPF and so on. I doubt (hope, at least) that it doesn't get sold with a 7beta without complete routing possibilities. It would be a shame.

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2021 10:06 am**

To clear up any confusion about different performance data I would like to point that RB5009 is RouterOS v7 only board.
With that in mind it was in our best interest to give both devices a fair comparison, therefore both units were tested with the same RouterOS v7 version (in this case RouterOS v7.1beta6 (build Apr 01, 2021)), same configurations, test settings and workload.
Due to the fact that RouterOS v7 is still in development and changes happen often, performance comparing to RouterOS v6 can differ.
Here are both performance tables used for RB5009 marketing materials:
performance_data.png

How about IPSec @ RB5009UG+S+IN?

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2021 10:58 am**

I'm more interested in using the new devices as a tool to estimate when they expect V7 final.

This one will see heavy usage with BGP, OSPF and so on. I doubt (hope, at least) that it doesn't get sold with a 7beta without complete routing possibilities. It would be a shame.

Well, there are of course always different usage scenarios. I would not want it without BGP, but there are probably plenty of potential customers who just
have a 1Gbit or more fiber internet and want to use it as a home NAT router with some extra capabilities (VPN etc).

Myself, I would like to see IPv6 features to be on-par with IPv4. There are still lots of features in the firewall and static routing that are not available for IPv6, and they really should be.

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:29 pm**

So it seems that many MikroTik sellers in the USA and Canada have been informed that the RB5009 is NOW backordered into November 2021 .... if that is true then my teaser above is going to miss the MARK

EURO DK claim [EXPECTED 60 PCS ~ 03.09.2021] they will have inventory of the RB5009 by September 3, 2021 ... so if that is True and MikroTik documentation states that RoS v7.x will be available on the normal download site maybe my earlier tease is actually closer to the mark.

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2021 2:01 pm**

Myself, I would like to see IPv6 features to be on-par with IPv4. There are still lots of features in the firewall and static routing that are not available for IPv6, and they really should be.

That would be good too. Mikrotik really should give IPv6 some love.

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:37 pm**

Is it possible to fit / mount into 10" rack?

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:47 pm**

Is it possible to fit / mount into 10" rack?

Maybe this, it looks odd enough:

A read about ears for 10" rack.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176757&p=866885&hil ... ck#p866885

Posted: **Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:38 am**

It looks bad from a thermal perspective to mount passive devices on top of each other. Is that really well tought?

Posted: **Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:45 am**

These units dissipate only 14-20W. So it will not be that bad.
It is likely assumed that in a rack where you want 2 or 4 of these routers, you already have some air circulation and cooling.
(maybe not in a small rack in a consumer's home, but will they use more than 1 router?)

Posted: **Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:05 am**

Great hardware but we need a 5/8 ports poe version for the rack at base of the tower, I hope to see it soon

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:19 pm**

It looks bad from a thermal perspective to mount passive devices on top of each other. Is that really well tought?

Agree but probably if top and bottom are reversed will be ok

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:06 pm**

The bottom is used as a heatsink and it tranfers the heat to the back where the cooling ribs sit.

Heat is transfered also between multiple devices and spread this way.

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:40 pm**

It is likely assumed that in a rack where you want 2 or 4 of these routers, you already have some air circulation and cooling.

Some air cooling would certainly help...

Posted: **Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:05 am**

I don't think cooling will be a problem considering that the Raspberry Pi 4 uses the same model of Cortex CPU and is a tiny circuit board, yet it stays cool just fine.

Posted: **Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:32 am**

We can expect a 5009 version with some poe ports? It's perfect hardware to swap the old but this usefull hex poe

Posted: **Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:19 am**

It is likely assumed that in a rack where you want 2 or 4 of these routers, you already have some air circulation and cooling.
Some air cooling would certainly help...

And for stand alone or wall mounting you can attach a small fan like I did on the 4011. In the summer it keeps the 4011 cool.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138613&p=799879&hilit=fan#p799879

Posted: **Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:14 pm**

Will there be a Marvell Armada 8040 Mikrotik?

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:43 am**

Will there be a Marvell Armada 8040 Mikrotik?

CN9131 or CN9132 is much more likely

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2021 12:25 pm**

Do anyone knows if the RB5009 will be getting support for L3hw?

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:45 pm**

Do anyone knows if the RB5009 will be getting support for L3hw?

Speculation is that yes it will come.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:01 am**

I don't have gigabit internet at home but I think this unit can handle CAKE queues at full gigabit speeds because of its Cortex A72 processor.

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:22 pm**

+ for a PoE version
We are desperate for something rather compact with good routing performance and PoE capability and a few more ports to replace those hEX PoE.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:09 pm**

Did anyone test Wireguard performance on the RB5009 and can compare it with the RB4011?
I'm wondering if both can achieve gigabit speeds with Wireguard.

Thanks.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:55 pm**

hi all
i need to buy one but i don’t know wher trust website with reasonable price

Posted: **Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:00 am**

Did anyone test Wireguard performance with the RB4011?

I am not disapointed with WireGuard performance and it comparable to to IKEv2 for which the 4011 has hardware support.
The 5009 on this, is still standing out.

Posted: **Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:24 pm**

My unit comes shipped with RouterOS 7.0.5 (?): should I upgrade to dev branch?
7.0.5 says "stable" but I cant find it anywhere (nor have heared about it yet)

Posted: **Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:56 pm**

I received this router today. The first thing I noticed were the LED lights on the ports. When I turn on the router only the first 3 turn on. Is this OK? Can anyone else who took this router tell me if it has the same problem or I got a bad sample?
I tried all the ports, when I plug in the cable the green light works on all ports, but the orange one doesn't work at all. Not on any port.

https://ibb.co/3md48yZ
https://ibb.co/rMZ73Cd

Posted: **Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:13 pm**

This the first time I read a router to be refered to as "phallic". I don't judge you, on get where your kicks.

Warning: adult content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus

Posted: **Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:31 pm**

You didn't help me. If you can't help or give advice, then at least don't post here.

Posted: **Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:24 am**

OK, I won't here anymore.

TWO.

Posted: **Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:03 pm**

Mine is all green when turned on.

But I have another issue. if you go /system resource , it is from day1 a " 0.1% bad blocks". No clue it is because of the bug or there is really some bad blocks.

[brg3466@RB5009] > /system resource/print
                   uptime: 5d20h6m1s
                  version: 7.1rc4 (testing)
               build-time: Sep/20/2021 10:18:44
         factory-software: 7.0.4
              free-memory: 748.4MiB
             total-memory: 1024.0MiB
                cpu-count: 4
            cpu-frequency: 1400MHz
                 cpu-load: 0%
           free-hdd-space: 983.0MiB
          total-hdd-space: 1025.0MiB
  write-sect-since-reboot: 88561
         write-sect-total: 88561
               bad-blocks: 0.1%
        architecture-name: arm64
               board-name: RB5009UG+S+
                 platform: MikroTik

Posted: **Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:52 pm**

What do you think, is it hardware or software issue? I mean on both problems.

Posted: **Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:35 pm**

I can confirm that the RB5009 can be powered using the Ubiquiti 802.3af Injectors while still maintaining a 2.5GBase-T link.

I can also confirm that the SFP+ does not support 2500Base-X (relevant for people that use certain GPON SFP ONTs that allow syncing at that rate).

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:01 pm**

Is it possible to fit / mount into 10" rack?
Maybe this, it looks odd enough:

A read about ears for 10" rack.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176757&p=866885&hil ... ck#p866885

I like this, would definetely get this

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:57 am**

Mine is all green when turned on.

But I have another issue. if you go /system resource , it is from day1 a " 0.1% bad blocks". No clue it is because of the bug or there is really some bad blocks.

[brg3466@RB5009] > /system resource/print
                   uptime: 5d20h6m1s
                  version: 7.1rc4 (testing)
               build-time: Sep/20/2021 10:18:44
         factory-software: 7.0.4
              free-memory: 748.4MiB
             total-memory: 1024.0MiB
                cpu-count: 4
            cpu-frequency: 1400MHz
                 cpu-load: 0%
           free-hdd-space: 983.0MiB
          total-hdd-space: 1025.0MiB
  write-sect-since-reboot: 88561
         write-sect-total: 88561
               bad-blocks: 0.1%
        architecture-name: arm64
               board-name: RB5009UG+S+
                 platform: MikroTik

I had bad blocks before, that solved by installing the same rOS version again, I don't know if this still works, but, it worth a shot.

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:23 pm**

I received this router today. The first thing I noticed were the LED lights on the ports. When I turn on the router only the first 3 turn on. Is this OK? Can anyone else who took this router tell me if it has the same problem or I got a bad sample?
I tried all the ports, when I plug in the cable the green light works on all ports, but the orange one doesn't work at all. Not on any port.

https://ibb.co/3md48yZ
https://ibb.co/rMZ73Cd

The orange LED lights only in PoE In port. I use PoE In on first start, and also receive light on other ports. Now on boot lights only first port. I think that is some "initial boot indication". After boot this lights must disappears.

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:36 pm**

I bought one more router and the behavior of the LEDs are the same. So this is normal behavior. When I unpacked the router, there was a greasy part on one side of the router. Can you tell me what that means and is it normal? By the way, I saw this on the first router also, but it was much smaller.

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:16 pm**

Mmmh this looks like oil.

strange.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:11 am**

Mmmh this looks like oil.

strange.

I noticed that also on first one, but it was much much smaller. Does that mean it's not a coincidence there?
Routers are working fine. I cleaned this once and that's it. I hope this is normal.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:43 pm**

Any ETA for the POE version? The old Hex Poe has reached routing limits for us and it's not more usable due to traffic growth

Posted: **Sun Oct 31, 2021 8:47 am**

When I connect internet, the orange led blink for microseconds, or if you plug just a littlebit, it shines oranges..When it plug all, it shines green.
Anothers ports are ok...Do you have also this problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnX3nGzgAsA

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:04 am**

I bought one more router and the behavior of the LEDs are the same. So this is normal behavior. When I unpacked the router, there was a greasy part on one side of the router. Can you tell me what that means and is it normal? By the way, I saw this on the first router also, but it was much smaller.

yesterday i received my device and i find exactly seam condition there was a greasy part on one side of the router

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:55 pm**

Just got mine today and have the same issue with bad blocks. Upgraded to 7.1RC5. Haven't done a netinstall and don't think I'll have the opportunity for a while either.

                   uptime: 45m39s
                  version: 7.1rc5 (testing)
               build-time: Oct/25/2021 17:15:25
         factory-software: 7.0.5
              free-memory: 833.9MiB
             total-memory: 1024.0MiB
                cpu-count: 4
            cpu-frequency: 1400MHz
                 cpu-load: 0%
           free-hdd-space: 992.2MiB
          total-hdd-space: 1025.0MiB
  write-sect-since-reboot: 223
         write-sect-total: 448
               bad-blocks: 0.1%
        architecture-name: arm64
               board-name: RB5009UG+S+
                 platform: MikroTik

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:16 pm**

The quality of MikroTik is not that great as I thought...

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:20 pm**

If every 5009 have this then it could be a default value to be increased.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:35 pm**

1. not every 5009 has 0.1% bad block
2. Tried netibstall, no change. Still 0.1%

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:42 pm**

When I started in computing, after formatting a floppy disk or hard disk it often happened that there were a couple of bad blocks.
But in those days we were not paying attention to that. Maybe on the floppy, when the bad blocks caused a loss of capacity that meant another floppy could not be copied to it...
Harddisks even came with a sticker that had the numbers of the bad blocks, and you could type it in your format program to skip them even when no obvious errors were detected.
Maybe your RB5009 also has such a sticker? Or it let loose because of the oily patch?

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:20 am**

1. not every 5009 has 0.1% bad block
2. Tried netibstall, no change. Still 0.1%

AFAIK some of those types on memory chips already ships form chip manufactuer with some small amount of acceptable amount of bad blocks. Some vendors just choose to hide that number. Main thing is that you need to look aftair is that number doesn't increase rapidly (some percentage points per few months are normal)

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:51 am**

POE version is on the way? We really need it...

Posted: **Sun Nov 07, 2021 4:55 pm**

I bought one more router and the behavior of the LEDs are the same. So this is normal behavior. When I unpacked the router, there was a greasy part on one side of the router. Can you tell me what that means and is it normal? By the way, I saw this on the first router also, but it was much smaller.

yesterday i received my device and i find exactly seam condition there was a greasy part on one side of the router

I contacted Mikrotik support about this and got response that this is caused in production process. And it can't affect the device itself, it just cleans up and that's it.
About bad blocks, I don't have them on 2 devices.

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:45 am**

I just purchased an RB5009 to replace my RB4011. Initially skeptical about the rack mount kit but it is ingenious.

You either use it as-is (for centre mount in a 19" rack), or snap the ears off and punch out the centre plates for mounting up to four units in 1RU, leaving the shorter rack ears. I don't know if the shorter ears fit neatly into a 10" rack though, so I apologise for not being able to validate that.

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:10 am**

four units in 1RU, leaving the shorter rack ears. I don't know if the shorter ears fit neatly into a 10" rack though, so I apologise for not being able to validate that.

It's pretty slick that.I wish they would put release a range of routers with 3-4 SFP/SFP+ ports with these style attachments as we use RB2011's/RB4011's/CCR1016's to terminate incoming fiber ISP or AirFiber connections.We'd save a ton of rackspace using this style of design.

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:22 pm**

It's pretty slick that.I wish they would put release a range of routers with 3-4 SFP/SFP+ ports with these style attachments as we use RB2011's/RB4011's/CCR1016's to terminate incoming fiber ISP or AirFiber connections.We'd save a ton of rackspace using this style of design.

I would say this. One "5004", with 2 SFP+ and two 2,5Gb ethernet, would be great.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:09 pm**

You either use it as-is (for centre mount in a 19" rack), or snap the ears off and punch out the centre plates for mounting up to four units in 1RU, leaving the shorter rack ears. I don't know if the shorter ears fit neatly into a 10" rack though, so I apologise for not being able to validate that.

If you have a minute, could you please measure the hole-to-hole spacing of the short ears, and maybe the width of the body including mounted ears (just the body, not ear end-to-end)? It should be possible to judge from those measurements if it'll fit between and mount correctly to a 10" rack. The correct hole spacing would be 240 mm, if I'm not mistaken.

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:30 pm**

Hello,
I want to plan buy some optic SFP+ module for my RB5009. Do you have some tips, for normal user please?
Did other brand SFP works on MikroTik? Like Ubiquity single mode module? Is there any different speeds between single and multi mode (max.1Gbit)
And distance..If I buy some module with 550m or 20km, is any difference? At the age of that laser, when its older, the distance decrease by time?
Distance at max 20m on max.20km laser is a problem?
Thank you so much.

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:52 pm**

ROS in general is pretty picky about SFP modules ... so be sure you get a module which is guaranteed to work with RB5009 (not all MT devices work with same modules).

Multimode and single mode work with different fibre cables (difference is in core diameter, multimode uses thicker cores)) and different wavelength (multimode uses 850nm, single mode around 1310nm). Multimode usually work on fibre lengths up to around 500m, single mode can work on much longer fibres - depends on particular SFP module). So selection of type of SFP module heavily depends on use case.

Posted: **Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:50 pm**

I just purchased an RB5009 to replace my RB4011. Initially skeptical about the rack mount kit but it is ingenious.

I agree, the mount kit looks great...

Posted: **Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:35 pm**

I just purchased an RB5009 to replace my RB4011. Initially skeptical about the rack mount kit but it is ingenious.
I agree, the mount kit looks great...

How sturdy is rack kit when only single device is mounted? From the looks of it, it should be pretty good when even number of devices are mounted.

Posted: **Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:34 am**

I’d say the rack mount kit is adequate for a single RB5009. It does flex forward and backward somewhat when installing and removing cables, but undisturbed it is fine. I will say that the opening left for a second RB5009 is kind of an eyesore if you care about a tidy looking rack.

Posted: **Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:05 am**

Of course it is an invitation to buy another RB5009!

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:17 am**

Of course it is an invitation to buy another RB5009!

It would be nice to see MikroTik provide a couple of switches in the same form factor as the RB5009. Perhaps 10 to 12 ports, managed and unmanaged versions. That would work better for SOHO locations where usually only one router is required. Then I could fill in that hole with a lovely switch. (And also free up another 1U space in my rack I’m currently using for an ugly switch)

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:12 pm**

Of course it is an invitation to buy another RB5009!

It would be nice to see MikroTik provide a couple of switches in the same form factor as the RB5009. Perhaps 10 to 12 ports, managed and unmanaged versions. That would work better for SOHO locations where usually only one router is required. Then I could fill in that hole with a lovely switch. (And also free up another 1U space in my rack I’m currently using for an ugly switch)

+1

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:48 pm**

I plan to buy some fiber optic SFP+ modules for my RB5009. Do you have any tips, for normal user please?

I've been working with fiber a great deal lately and have some experience and advice. I have an opinion that I think is applicable to what even a home user should consider. Cost is a consideration, naturally. One way to decide is on length.

Length Short:
If your runs are around 100m or so and from switch to switch, or router to switch, go with MMF duplex fiber patch cables (OS2 might work). Match that to the cheaper duplex 10G SFP+ modules. This is currently the cheapest method.

Length Long:
If the run is going to be long, and that is a relative statement, as in, what is long to you? If the run will be long, you might benefit from a simplex cable (single fiber strand). Less bulk, less cost, easier getting through conduit, through walls, etc. The catch is the more expensive BiDi SFP+ Module. If simplex sounds good for your project, then you pick from the OS2 fiber options based on the outer protective jacket: Indoor, Armored, or Direct Burial. Then you get a matching set of 10G SFP+ BiDI modules (TX & RX one of each).

Simplify:
Lots of brands and options in the marketplace of course. This has been my experience with RB4011, CRS326, CRS328, CRS317, and NetMetal product lines with FS products. We standardized on OS2 for all runs so we have one cable type in use. For short runs we used this OS2 duplex compatible SFP+ module. It was more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:03 pm**

Of course it is an invitation to buy another RB5009!
It would be nice to see MikroTik provide a couple of switches in the same form factor as the RB5009.

The RB5009 already is a switch. It has a powerful switch chip (that can do L3 routing) and a management processor that can do generic routing.
The price may be a bit high for a simple switch, but MikroTik is not in unmanagable cheap switches anyway.

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:06 pm**

The RB5009 already is a switch. It has a powerful switch chip (that can do L3 routing) and a management processor that can do generic routing.
The price may be a bit high for a simple switch, but MikroTik is not in unmanagable cheap switches anyway.

If one needs around 15 to 20 gigabit ports and a router, then a 12-port gigabit switch added to RB5009 does the trick. Using RB5009 certainly is an option, but paying 200$+ for 9 gigabit ports (OK, one is 10Gbps and one 2.5Gbps) is a bit high. CSS326-24G-2S+RM for example offers more than twice the port count for 2/3 price, something similar having half the number of ports should come with even lower price tag.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:26 am**

Hi,

I would like to use this router to do dual wan failover. is it possible ?

thanks

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:48 am**

mkx, pcunite:
Thank you so much for reply.
We have only TP-Link, MaxLink, Ubiquity and Mikrotik FSP in our country...
But Mikrotik have 2 pairs, but I want only one and that's Ubiquity..But I don't know, if it will be functional in Mikrotik device.
Optical fibre I search a Ubiquiti Fiber Cable 100 + media convertor also Ubiquity or TP-Link.
But how long the laser works? If the laser is older, is there a problem with max. lenght? Older-less powerfull laser-small distance?
Thank you

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:27 am**

The RB5009 already is a switch. It has a powerful switch chip (that can do L3 routing) and a management processor that can do generic routing.
The price may be a bit high for a simple switch, but MikroTik is not in unmanagable cheap switches anyway.
If one needs around 15 to 20 gigabit ports and a router, then a 12-port gigabit switch added to RB5009 does the trick.

12 ports would not fit in the 5009 form factor... they reduced the 10 ethernet ports to 8 to fit into the case.

Using RB5009 certainly is an option, but paying 200$+ for 9 gigabit ports (OK, one is 10Gbps and one 2.5Gbps) is a bit high. CSS326-24G-2S+RM for example offers more than twice the port count for 2/3 price, something similar having half the number of ports should come with even lower price tag.

Well yes when looking only at "price tag"... but realistically you should compare it with CRS326-24S+2Q+ once L3 offloading is supported on the RB5009.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:00 pm**

POE version when? We need something to replace the old hex poe

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:13 pm**

But how long the laser works? If the laser is older, is there a problem with max. lenght? Older-less powerfull laser-small distance?

Well, the longevity of SFP modules largely depend on their quality and on actual operating temperature (to lesser extent). So if you intend to operate your link at extreme dustances (ether at very short distances, e.g a few metres or at long distances, close to module specifications), go for high quality modules. If you're going to operate link at medium distances, then module ageing should not affect the link.

Normal modules should be able to run links for years.

Posted: **Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:10 am**

The RB5009 already is a switch. It has a powerful switch chip (that can do L3 routing) and a management processor that can do generic routing.
The price may be a bit high for a simple switch, but MikroTik is not in unmanagable cheap switches anyway.
If one needs around 15 to 20 gigabit ports and a router, then a 12-port gigabit switch added to RB5009 does the trick. Using RB5009 certainly is an option, but paying 200$+ for 9 gigabit ports (OK, one is 10Gbps and one 2.5Gbps) is a bit high. CSS326-24G-2S+RM for example offers more than twice the port count for 2/3 price, something similar having half the number of ports should come with even lower price tag.

Looks like someone beat me to the idea. MikroTik could really do well with this. They could market it as a "Build-your-own-1U" concept.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mikrotik/comme ... _concepts/

Posted: **Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:24 am**

I bought one more router and the behavior of the LEDs are the same. So this is normal behavior. When I unpacked the router, there was a greasy part on one side of the router. Can you tell me what that means and is it normal? By the way, I saw this on the first router also, but it was much smaller.

This is oil leaking from silicone thermal pad between SFP+ cage and the metal heatsink bottom plate. It is harmless and very common with GPUs. Cheap thermal pads are known to leak oil.

Posted: **Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:02 am**

I made a 3d printable rack mount ears for RB5009. Maybe someone will find it useful

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5222176

Posted: **Sun Feb 06, 2022 12:13 am**

I'm wondering how the power on the RB5009 works.

When fed with 48V POE and 24V DC the unit stays powered on when either POE or DC is disconnected, assuming POE is connected first.

However, when fed with 24V DC and POE is provided afterwards, POE doesn't seem to negotiate PD (softly blinking LED) and thus when the DC jack is removed, the unit only then negotiates POE and starts up again.

When fed with DC through the jack and 2-pin terminal at the same time the unit stays on regardless if one of them loses power, so that would provide redundancy.

Now, if the unit was fed with 48V DC + 48V POE, would it still reboot when power is lost? Or is it still not recommended to feed the unit with the same voltage through multiple inputs (and is this also true for the DC inputs)? Or does the design allow to use the same voltage?

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:09 pm**

guys hello
i bought 1 RB5009UG+S+IN

the problem that i have is i have 1gbs internet and put it on Wan mikrotik lan My laptop and the speed goes down to 280-300 mbps
i reset the router to default disable all the firewall rules but nothing still the same.

is there a problem with something?????

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:19 am**

guys hello
i bought 1 RB5009UG+S+IN

the problem that i have is i have 1gbs internet and put it on Wan mikrotik lan My laptop and the speed goes down to 280-300 mbps
i reset the router to default disable all the firewall rules but nothing still the same.

is there a problem with something?????

If you use 2.5G port as your wan port, upgrade your RouterOS to the latest version. There is a fix for this problem
*) switch - improved packet forwarding with enabled "cpu-flow-control" setting between different rate interfaces for 88E6393X (RB5009) and 88E6191X (CCR2004-16G-2S+) switch chips

Or, move your wan to other 1G port, see any difference.

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:29 am**

Well, it is improvement, as stated in changelog, rather then fix as I see that it's still not fully 1GB connection: ~800Mbps-930Mbs comparing to 1GB interfaces with stable 940Mbps

guys hello
i bought 1 RB5009UG+S+IN

the problem that i have is i have 1gbs internet and put it on Wan mikrotik lan My laptop and the speed goes down to 280-300 mbps
i reset the router to default disable all the firewall rules but nothing still the same.

is there a problem with something?????
If you use 2.5G port as your wan port, upgrade your RouterOS to the latest version. There is a fix for this problem
*) switch - improved packet forwarding with enabled "cpu-flow-control" setting between different rate interfaces for 88E6393X (RB5009) and 88E6191X (CCR2004-16G-2S+) switch chips

Or, move your wan to other 1G port, see any difference.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:57 pm**

Hello,
How can I manage graphs throw firewall? When it's default config/script it don't show any graphs, but when I reject script it work..
So is there any firewall setup, how can I enable graphs on ports 2-8?
I want disable only port 1 on graphs. Because it is WAN/internet.
Thanks for help.

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2022 1:01 pm**

I had my my MikroTik RB5009UG+S+in for about 6 months and was flawless, but today all of the sudden it started rebooting every few minutes, 6 times so far in the a row. I think I traced it to out of memory issue.
I tried searching but I calendar 2023 can't find how to check what's taking all the disk and RAM space. Any suggestions?

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2022 5:21 pm**

You can use Tools->graphing to graph the memory and disk usage over time, and see if there is a pattern.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:49 pm**

http://www.irouteros.com/?p=1808
Will there be a +WiFi Version of this?

Still waiting for +WiFi version of RB5009, any news?

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:00 pm**

Why ?
AX2 or AX3 are not sufficient ?

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:42 pm**

Why ?

RB5009 looks particularly hot ... and with 4 antennae would look even hotter. Probably would score a very high value of WAF

Personally I'd rather see Audience AX ... the original Audience is really great device and looks nice as well (passes my better half's approval process).

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:55 pm**

Maybe a RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD would be something for you? Scores high on the "number of characters in the model name", has 4 antennas, nice case.
Unfortunately no USB or other storage expandability, and receives little love w.r.t. wave2 support.

MikroTik

MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN

Re: MikroTik RB5009UG+S+IN