Cisco RV340 New Firmware

[coxhaus]

I tried the Cisco RV340 new Firmware 1.0.03.15 and it does not work for me. There is a problem with static routes. I have reported it to Cisco.

My SG300-28 layer 3 switch does not support RIP routing protocols so I was not able to test it. IF anybody knows this is a solution and will work then I might try using my SG500X-24 layer 3 switch which supports RIP protocols. I don't use the switch because it is noisy with the fans running.

 

[Trip]

How about just falling back to a firmware version where static routes work as intended? If that even exists?

As an aside, I can understand using SG switches, which are decent, but I'm wondering why one would stick with RV's for gateways when there are way more robust platforms to be had in the segment. I'm honestly curious.

 

[coxhaus]

I did fall back otherwise my layer3 switch would not work. There is no reason to change my RV340 router out as my layer 3 switch does all the work. I don't need a faster CPU in the router as it will not help me. Maybe if I get GIG internet but I don't have it yet. I am still not positive it will help. My router mainly sits idle just opening and closing the internet door based on what my layer 3 switch sends it.

I can't see why everybody doesn't run a layer 3 switch. What great way to run a network.

Switches are faster than routers.

 

[Trip]

Interesting. Not sure if this is relevant to your use-case, but I would assume that topology may very well alleviate much would-be bufferbloat on gateways like the RV's, which lack more advanced queuing disciplines. Yet another benefit from running an L3 switch.

In terms of why everyone doesn't, I would the additional box, cost and operational know-how are the basic barriers to entry.

 

[coxhaus]

My Cisco SG300-28 layer 3 switch was built to support phones so the QOS is good. The Cisco SG500x-24 layer 3 switch is even better. I have seen higher through put using a L3 switch over just a router. This includes using several routers.

What are your issues with the RV340 router. The QOS seems like there is a lot there. What would you be comparing it to? Hardware is not the only difference in routers. Software plays a big part. It is not like comparing one PC to another when they are both running the same OS. Routers are different as the software is not the same so it needs to come into play.

Cisco PRO gear is the quickest I have seen. The latency is very low. My problem now is cable is very slow. The latency is high.

 

[Trip]

Not a big beef with them, just certain things are lacking, chiefly that they tend to come out of the gate way more bug-laden than I think they should be, and patching tends to take the better part of several months or more, as you can see by the release histories. That said, to Cisco's credit, they do actually document and publish most of the issues, and eventually get to fixing a lot of them. It just feels to me like they treat the product too matter-of-fact-ly, compared to their other stuff. I guess I can't blame them when it comes to selling a $200 box, versus a $20,000 ISR, but still, I think they could do better there.

Additionally is the absence of some form of AQM for QoS, using modern qdiscs such as fq_codel or cake. You can dismiss bufferbloat at the edge as a bunch of woo woo considering other limitations at large, even somewhat avoidable via proper application of more legacy QoS protocols (many of which are included on the RV's), but, still, I've seen good AQM make a massive impact on a many SMB networks, even those that had their switching fabric pretty well geared-up and configured, along the lines of what you've mentioned, and in some cases even beefier.

Much of the UX and workflow is quite clunky (ex. multi-WAN interface weighting options require duplication of the precedence numbers for any interfaces to which you want to apply precedence... yes it works, but certainly not intuitive by any means). I get that pedantic UI/UX interpretations are really secondary to functionality, but management, when it has to be done, is made all that much more of a pain, especially when compared to the updated UI's and CLI feature-parity of many of the other competing security products such as Fortigate, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX (all of which can get pricier per box, I understand), hell even Mikrotik and Ubiquiti are often more of a joy to use in that regard, and that's saying something...

A last disappointment is perennial to Cisco and that's their licensing. Not a fault of the the RV34_ specifically, but the included AVC web filtering and AnyConnect SSL have both been subject to it, although Cisco just removed AnyConnect from the smart licensing umbrella as of the last firmware update to a default 50 users, after I would guess hearing from enough complaints. To their credit, again, at least they did something about it.

Overall, again, not a bad product, especially for <$300, it has its use-cases, and I'm probably being a bit harsh in places when compared to the alternatives, but it's certainly no silver bullet and is soundly beaten in several areas by others. Just have to know when it's best integrated.

 

[coxhaus]

Cisco is being Cisco. I used the PRO line for years. The way Cisco works is they introduce a product. It has bugs but there are ways to use the product. You kind of stay with the older reliable products until the new products get enough bug fixes so it becomes a reliable product. Then it is on to the new product. It is a cycle repeated over and over. However Cisco does log and fix the problems. They are great at it. And their hardware is fast.
Cisco is a moving target with hackers working on their products all the time. Changes happen all the time and Cisco does a good job of tracking all this and staying ahead of the game.

I think the RV340 router is a good product which competes well.

Cake is something we needed years ago when internet speeds were slow. Now days you just buy faster internet. I ran cake on pfsense and it really did not help me so I turned it off. My internet connection does not stay saturated.

 

[Trip]

Indeed on Cisco being Cisco; again, I can't really fault them beyond some annoyances. Most of their products are still well done and at least partially competitive, if not more so.

As for a cake or other modern AQM's applicability there days, beyond my own conjecture, I'd be interested in roping in Dave Taht (@dtaht) to get a more informed assessment at some point.

 

[dtaht]

Indeed on Cisco being Cisco; again, I can't really fault them beyond some annoyances. Most of their products are still well done and at least partially competitive, if not more so.

As for a cake or other modern AQM's applicability there days, beyond my own conjecture, I'd be interested in roping in Dave Taht (@dtaht) to get a more informed assessment at some point.

My take is that fq + aqm is useful on any link making a fast to slow transition. As we scale into the 100s of mbits problems get harder to hit in simple scenarios, but still exist in more complex ones. Certainly given the thousands of devices that run fq_codel and cake now I wouldn't give this product any room in my rack.

 

[Trip]

My take is that fq + aqm is useful on any link making a fast to slow transition. As we scale into the 100s of mbits problems get harder to hit in simple scenarios, but still exist in more complex ones. Certainly given the thousands of devices that run fq_codel and cake now I wouldn't give this product any room in my rack.

And there we have it. Thanks for popping in Dave!

 

[coxhaus]

I think it is much easier to buy a faster internet pipe than try to squeeze more data through a smaller pipe. In the old days all the internet pipes were saturated so we needed something to deal with it. I see nothing wrong with cake and it is quite an achievement to have it. Now days you have other options.

You guys need to remember I am feeding the internet from my SG300-28 layer 3 switch. My router just passes the packets based on how my L3 switch orders them.

 

[Trip]

A very good point. And probably less of an issue as WAN link speeds improve. Plus it's nice to have more L3 switching fabric being cheaper than ever, as well.