Wiki cleanup for Mikrotik RB2011

I'm working on porting RB2011 to ath79. While it's blocked at the moment due to uncertainties related to NAND bad block management, I wanted to cleanup the mess related to this device on the wiki.

Pinging @tmomas because you also had some fixme notes on those devices.

Basically, the info on RB2011 on the wiki was confusing and was split between two ToH pages and three HW infos:,,,,

To add to the confusion, wiki talked about Mikrotik's internally named r2 version with PoE support (which in itself is confusing in OEM sources), and referred to "version 1" as UiAS model without PoE, which can't exist because the letter "i" indicates PoE support, which is present only in r2.

Next, "RB2011" HW info talked about unsupported serial and gigabit ports which is ancient info. RB2011UiAS page contains info related fixing that which should have been removed eons ago.

It took me a good part of the day to hunt down all available and discontinued versions of RB2011, add relevant device pages with correct info and merge RB2011 and RB2011UiAS and fix all tables.

What's left to do to complete the cleanup (which I can't do, I can't find the delete button):
Remove and or redirect them appropriately: rb2011uias-2hnd-in to rb2011uas-2hnd, rb2011uias-2hnd-in_r2 to rb2011uias-2hnd.
Remove or redirect to

Ideally, we should remove them because the tables are generated from HW info pages, so we have three extra entries.


Hey Danijel,

I really appreciate the time you have invested into researching the different RB2011 models! I know that it can be a PITA to find information in the jungle of model names, contradicting OEM information, outdated wiki pages and forum postings... :frowning:

Summary of your requests:

  1. Remove, or redirect to
  2. Remove or redirect to
  3. Remove or redirect to

Regarding 1 +2

  • I'm missing the git commits and "supported since" for both devices
  • If a feature is not present (e.g. modem), please use '-' instead of leaving the datafield blank (judging by a quick look, modem, WLAN 5GHz, detachable antennas, bluetooth, miniPCI ports, SATA ports, OpenVPN + Wireguard performance are affected)

Can you please review your newly created dataentries in this regard?
After that is done, I can delete the old dataentries.

Regarding 3

The general rule for devicepages is: One model - one devicepage.
This is meant to make it easier for users to find information relevant to their device, and only their device, and not half a dozen or more other devices which they do not have. It's confusing enough for new users to dive into the OpenWrt ecosystem, therefore let's try not to overwhelm and confuse them by information that they do not need.

This means that the current should be modified to introduce the series (commonalities and differences), and separate devicepages for the individual models should be created (to which the series page shall link, and which shall link back to the series page)

Since all RB2011 devices seem to share the same installation instructions (the common mikrotik instructions), it shouldn't be too hard to create those separate devicepages by creating a "leading" devicepage, and copy&paste + modify the following pages (adjust the datatable filters + tags).

Would you be up for the task of creating such devicepages?

Yes, the summary is correct. Regarding 1, I can try to hunt down the particular commits, but it could be difficult because the support was added in multiple fragments over the years for various features and models, but I'll try.

Regarding 2, I can fix that easily, I wanted to avoid cluttering the page with unsupported features, but I get the point of having -.

Regarding 3, my reasoning was that it's basically the same device with a bit different feature set, but I can create separate pages, sure.

Also regarding 2 and 3, I actually merged some variants - there are two versions of (almost) every variant, "IN" with indoor case and "RM" with rack mount case, and some can also come without the case. Do we want separate HW infos and devicepages for every single variant (which would roughy double the number of pages)? They really are identical feature-wise, just in a different case.

The case doesn't influence the OpenWrt support, therefore no need to double the dataentries.