Even comparing Mikrotik (volume) vs low-volume purchases in China, there are few much cheaper products offering at least the same Mikrotik functions/performance.

A few years ago, I was thinking that the cost of the “replacement” of the CPE was too high for most of the operators.  Not because the CPE itself, but the logistics or actually replacing it.

But since a few years, when you put the cost of CGN + IPv4 addresses (or actually just buying “more” IPv4 addresses and offering dual-stack without CGN – because the CGN will require you to swap the IPv4 pools just because Sony PSN is continuously blacklisting you) versus the lower number of IPv4 addresses needed for 464XLAT and lower number of NAT64 boxes, in  most cases, it compensates for the cost of replacing the CPEs, and you have additional marketing advantages that you can sell  and even charge for them, such as “Now we give you a box with Gigabit ports, greener for the planet -  lower power consumption, better WiFi, better security, ready for the future with IPv6,  IPv6 is faster with your social networks, youtube and many websites, etc., etc.)

 

 

--- I’ve managed to get better support from vendors which are different than Mikrotik. Some years ago, I even offered Mikrotik *free* help to correctly do transition … and I’m still waiting for a single response. I guess they have other priorities than IPv6 at all.

 

--- I can buy 10-15 USD CPEs directly from China, with OpenWRT already installed, which have exactly the same design as the Mikrotik (same SoC, same number of LAN/WAN ports, etc.).

You're probably right. But if Mikrotik are having great success at meeting the budget of most providers and customers, perhaps a different approach is worth considering. Not that you haven't done you utmost best, as I know you to always do, Jordi.

I wish I didn't have to deal with Mikrotik either, but reality is far more different. Heck, I even own and use one myself, for my home FTTH connection :-).

Mark.