Read the PPT file : P

That is good news,if they know about mikrotik to the extend of producing a propaganda document to discredit it then mikrotik is competing very well with moto.l like mikrotik and wish they listen to they clients for feedback and develop products the suite their clients needs.

The next product which moto should be worried about is ubnt.they also do tdd polling and easy to installed products.
That is my 2 cents

That looks out-dated and shows how much Moto do not understand their competitors.

Targeted at a person with limited knowledge of the two products that document could be convincing in Canopy's favor, but a large number of the "facts" are incorrect.

I agree with you nz.

That is good news,if they know about mikrotik to the extend of producing a propaganda document to discredit it then mikrotik is competing very well with moto.l like mikrotik and wish they listen to they clients for feedback and develop products the suite their clients needs.

The next product which moto should be worried about is ubnt.they also do tdd polling and easy to installed products.
That is my 2 cents

I would like that MT would respect Regulations as much as Moto does.
Still no legal usable 5,8GHz from MT in Europe (Of course usable but powered
down to an unusable level).
And I would like that MT Radios are Engineered and tested as Moto
I only know the PTP/Orthogons and there is a big difference in quality
and performance.

But I like MT Pricing ). And I need routers not only bridges.

I dont see much improvements in MT-Radios for a while. They've to
do some work there to keep up. If another year passes by, I've a deeper
look into Moto Gears.

I dont see much improvements in MT-Radios for a while. They've to
do some work there to keep up. If another year passes by, I've a deeper
look into Moto Gears.

I agree that the MikroTik is losing focus (or maybe refocusing). Over the past couple of years their focus has been on routing (MPLS, QOS, IPv6, Multicast) while the wireless has stood still, MikroTik is only just starting to get into 11n, while UBNT and other, less popular brands have had working 11n gear out for a long while.

While it may not be a bad thing that MT is polishing the routing features, UBNT has caught up -and exceeded in some respects- with MT. UBNTs devices are dead simple to install, are more polished making them better presentable to end customers, radios are more stable, cheaper, and more manageable . UBNT's weak point is routing, which MT excels at.... If MT and UBNT were to collaborate more, it would send some serious shivers down Moto's, Alvarion's and Orthogon's spine.

I agree that the MikroTik is losing focus (or maybe refocusing). Over the past couple of years their focus has been on routing (MPLS, QOS, IPv6, Multicast) while the wireless has stood still, MikroTik is only just starting to get into 11n, while UBNT and other, less popular brands have had working 11n gear out for a long while.

I view this as a GOOD thing. Mikrotik's software, after all, is called "RouterOS" and not "WirelessOS". <- Sorry...old joke

Mikrotik's wireless is good and has been very good for a long time. It is sufficient for the 802.11a/b/g work that most people are using these days. With the cost of Ubiquiti products being what they are, combined with a VERY good product, it makes it difficult to use Mikrotik for certain wireless applications. Having said that, Ubiquiti's routing functionality leaves a LOT to be desired and this is where MT shines. My last network build for a customer was done with Mikrotik RouterOS boxes at each tower location and Ubiquiti radios on the tower (some Canopy, too). This type of design is a match made in heaven. You get the BEST of both worlds.

If MT and UBNT were to collaborate more, it would send some serious shivers down Moto's, Alvarion's and Orthogon's spine.

I suspect it would cause more shivering that you expect. People in hell would be shivering due to the sudden cold day they were experiencing.

That is NOT a Motorola Document. Nice try.

Where is then?

I have had a good play with the Ubiquiti products, they are "too simple" in my opinion. For a basic bridged network, or as a backhaul bridge they are good. But once you need out-of-band management, selectively bridged vlan's on the CPE, traffic shaping or routing they come unstuck.

While these are all achievable on Ubiquiti units you need to modify the underlying OS running on them, adding extra binaries, startup scripts and so on. On Mikrotik, all of this is possible easily and without having to write custom scripts.

I believe that the ideal network you let the wireless do the wireless and the routers do the routing. Combining a router and wireless into the same box seems like a good idea on the surface but the robustness and stability isn't there of a two part system.

My last network build for a customer was done with Mikrotik RouterOS boxes at each tower location and Ubiquiti radios on the tower (some Canopy, too). This type of design is a match made in heaven. You get the BEST of both worlds.

If MT and UBNT were to collaborate more, it would send some serious shivers down Moto's, Alvarion's and Orthogon's spine.
I suspect it would cause more shivering that you expect. People in hell would be shivering due to the sudden cold day they were experiencing.

You're right Butch. Me too have MK, MOTO and UBNT in my towers.

BUT it is better in my opinion to mantain separate MT from UBNT. In this way each one may still focusing on her best art, in her core knowledge, and customers. As you said, the best scenario for customers like us is to take the best of all and build our networks in complete freedom, with lower prices due the market. In our market, when a enterprise becomes too big the product line gradually is reduced, trying to mantain lower cost production at a major scale, but the disadvantage of this is that being left in the way many useful features for anyone. In any case an elephant will always be larger but also more awkward than two tigers.

MK is the best to manage the core/main traffic, at the same time UBNT is the better solution at cost-benefit in CPE and transparent backhauling.

I was a strong customer of MOTO earlier, but her limited, restrictive and expensive licensing system drives me running out to MK and UBNT. MOTO was a very far from the markets (customers) it serves. They do not hear much criticism from their own customers and their behavior is typical of a giant company like an elephant. In any case they have an impressive research and development structure.

Their products are always strong, and have very low failure rate, but it is wrong to pay high prices for products designed for eternity in a few years when they can be overcome in performance and price by other products. Thus, your original investment in MOTO is reduced to nothing because you're forced to upgrade your equipment to support higher bandwidth.

BUT the worst is: MOTO is your partner all the time: they take all profits. The ownership cost is VERY HIGH.

BUT I use it when other solutions becomes too weak.