Forgo high-end router totally and just go with APs?

[reddevil0728]

You've asked and have been answered a few times on the same points. Please re-read this thread from the beginning again completely and slowly.


Yes, LAN to WAN is upload speed from your local / internal network to anywhere on the internet.

WAN to LAN is from anywhere on the internet to your local network device.

In the benchmarks, your assumptions are basically correct but in the Total Simultaneous anything above around 30,000 points is essentially equal as it is running into the limits of the testing procedure, so don't base your purchase decisions on anything above that number.

apologies for repeatedly asking the same questions, but didn't quite get the more technical parts of the replies hence didn't really see the straight forward answer, but will try to read it again.

Again! LAN-to-WAN and WAN-to-LAN use the router's NAT and other routing functions. The speed of the router's CPU matters, and the size of the buffer memory. But any decent brand router newer than about 5 years can keep up with WAN speeds from the ISP DSL/Cable modem.

LAN-to-LAN is merely the switch. Does not rely on the router's CPU.

And they lived happily ever-after.

Yes, LAN to WAN is upload.

WAN to LAN is download.

You should look at both numbers and higher is better. Your ISP will let you know what your upload and download should be and these should match your numbers in testing.

Think it's better to include a drawing to illustrate the point, as I may not have made myself clear and at the same time, might not understand the more technical speak from the replies hence keep asking the same questions.

So would appreciate a more straight preferably "yes or no" answers. THANKS!

Please refer to the image below.

So as stated in the image...

Will the throughput each RJ45 received is the same regardless whether it is a 802.11ac or 802.11n router?

If it isn't then the buying decision of a router should be based on the benchmark number of "WAN to LAN Throughput" and "LAN to WAN Throughput" and "Total Simultaneous Throughput"?

 

[L&LD]

Will the throughput each RJ45 received is the same regardless whether it is a 802.11ac or 802.11n router?[/B]

If it isn't then the buying decision of a router should be based on the benchmark number of "WAN to LAN Throughput" and "LAN to WAN Throughput" and "Total Simultaneous Throughput"?

This question has been answered already numerous times.

It depends on where you are measuring from.

Between ports, packets will be switched at GB speeds.

Between any device on the internal LAN network and the external WAN, it will depend on the capabilities of the router's routing specifications and the options you have enabled or disabled on that specific model and firmware combination (mostly as to whether Hardware Acceleration is enabled or not).


There is no yes or no. Take the red pill and all will be revealed.

 

[reddevil0728]

This question has been answered already numerous times.

It depends on where you are measuring from.

Between ports, packets will be switched at GB speeds.

Between any device on the internal LAN network and the external WAN, it will depend on the capabilities of the router's routing specifications and the options you have enabled or disabled on that specific model and firmware combination (mostly as to whether Hardware Acceleration is enabled or not).


There is no yes or no. Take the red pill and all will be revealed.

ok. thanks very much for your patience, a bit clearer now hopefully..

So between PC connected to the RJ45, the speed will be at gigabit speed,

but for PC to the internet, up and down will depend on the router hence have to look at the "WAN to LAN Throughput" and "LAN to WAN Throughput" and "Total Simultaneous Throughput" benchmark numbers?

 

[L&LD]

ok. thanks very much for your patience, a bit clearer now hopefully..

So between PC connected to the RJ45, the speed will be at gigabit speed,

but for PC to the internet, up and down will depend on the router hence have to look at the "WAN to LAN Throughput" and "LAN to WAN Throughput" and "Total Simultaneous Throughput" benchmark numbers?

Yes! But with a caveat; this assumes that the options you enable will leave hardware acceleration actually on and not simply enabled.

Whew!

 

[reddevil0728]

Yes! But with a caveat; this assumes that the options you enable will leave hardware acceleration actually on and not simply enabled.

Whew!

thanks very much! haha

 

[Samir]

Will the throughput each RJ45 received is the same regardless whether it is a 802.11ac or 802.11n router?

If it isn't then the buying decision of a router should be based on the benchmark number of "WAN to LAN Throughput" and "LAN to WAN Throughput" and "Total Simultaneous Throughput"?

Yes to question 1.

Yes to question 2, although depending on the rated speed of your Internet connection (as stated by your provider), you may not need the most expensive/fastest router.

So between PC connected to the RJ45, the speed will be at gigabit speed,

but for PC to the internet, up and down will depend on the router hence have to look at the "WAN to LAN Throughput" and "LAN to WAN Throughput" and "Total Simultaneous Throughput" benchmark numbers?

Yes and yes.

 

[reddevil0728]

Yes to question 1.

Yes to question 2, although depending on the rated speed of your Internet connection (as stated by your provider), you may not need the most expensive/fastest router.
Yes and yes.

ahhh thanks very much..

yea get what you mean.. if it's like a 1gbps internet, so 1024mpbs up and down, anything above those number theoretically doesn't make a diff since the bottleneck will be on the internet.

 

[Samir]

if it's like a 1gbps internet, so 1024mpbs up and down, anything above those number theoretically doesn't make a diff since the bottleneck will be on the internet.

Actually, if your internet is >1gbps, your LAN will be the bottleneck since it is only 1gbps.

But if you have the ability to get 1gbps Internet, your router choice will be critical since your Internet speed will be limited to the LAN to WAN, and WAN to LAN performance of the router.

Since you don't need wireless, I would go for a more business-class product that doesn't have wireless built-in unless you plan to have some limited wireless access.

 

[reddevil0728]

Actually, if your internet is >1gbps, your LAN will be the bottleneck since it is only 1gbps.

But if you have the ability to get 1gbps Internet, your router choice will be critical since your Internet speed will be limited to the LAN to WAN, and WAN to LAN performance of the router.

Since you don't need wireless, I would go for a more business-class product that doesn't have wireless built-in unless you plan to have some limited wireless access.

yea. the bottle neck will also be at the lan speed.

but business-class products are somehow more expensive?

 

[Samir]

yea. the bottle neck will also be at the lan speed.

but business-class products are somehow more expensive?

They can be, or they can be the same. Depends on which product. Having wireless built-in always requires a premium in business-class.

 

[reddevil0728]

They can be, or they can be the same. Depends on which product. Having wireless built-in always requires a premium in business-class.

referring to wired only. seems like they are generally more expensive as long as it's business-class

 

[Samir]

referring to wired only. seems like they are generally more expensive as long as it's business-class

Depending on what models. I was sticker shocked the first time I saw how expensive asus routers were.

 

[reddevil0728]

Depending on what models. I was sticker shocked the first time I saw how expensive asus routers were.

oh right will go check it out

 

[System Error Message]

for wired only router both mikrotik and ubiquiti are cheaper than asus. You could also use pfsense and you could either reuse or build a compact pfsense box. Business class is not always more expansive and looking at the number of complaints, avoid the cisco rv series.

It is not true that wireless will always take CPU usage. Newer AC routers have CPUs for wireless that communicate with the main chip via ethernet so that the CPU does not have to bridge wireless to wire. It really depends on the design of the wireless router. it can help to look at the design diagram and also take note of any limitations such as the asus ac-87u 5Ghz wireless and 1 LAN port both share 1Gb/s link with the main chip.

If you use one main router than you can go with basic APs. The main question really is does one AP well placed cover the entire building?

Ubiquiti edgeroute lite can do more than any consumer router at gigabit speeds even though both use hardware acceleration at $80. So while ASUS costs a premium and tp-link being cheaper both have limitations when using hardware accelerations that may cause hang or may not support the feature you want. it doesnt matter what brand you get NAT hardware acceleration can sometimes be problematic but its the only way to get performance cheaply.

 

[reddevil0728]

for wired only router both mikrotik and ubiquiti are cheaper than asus. You could also use pfsense and you could either reuse or build a compact pfsense box. Business class is not always more expansive and looking at the number of complaints, avoid the cisco rv series.

It is not true that wireless will always take CPU usage. Newer AC routers have CPUs for wireless that communicate with the main chip via ethernet so that the CPU does not have to bridge wireless to wire. It really depends on the design of the wireless router. it can help to look at the design diagram and also take note of any limitations such as the asus ac-87u 5Ghz wireless and 1 LAN port both share 1Gb/s link with the main chip.

If you use one main router than you can go with basic APs. The main question really is does one AP well placed cover the entire building?

Ubiquiti edgeroute lite can do more than any consumer router at gigabit speeds even though both use hardware acceleration at $80. So while ASUS costs a premium and tp-link being cheaper both have limitations when using hardware accelerations that may cause hang or may not support the feature you want. it doesnt matter what brand you get NAT hardware acceleration can sometimes be problematic but its the only way to get performance cheaply.

Asking about the details that's why if there's not much diff, wouldn't need to get ASUS.

The actual situation is ISP is giving a D-LINK 868L, so wondering if should just use it as a wired router for the purpose mentioned above or get a cheaper router to use as wired router if it has much better performance than the 868L and use the 868L as an ap

 

[System Error Message]

i shoulod've quoted the previous post, i was responding to the post saying that business stuff is more expansive.

 

[Samir]

Business class is not always more expansive and looking at the number of complaints, avoid the cisco rv series.

I have several of the Cisco rv series in production environments for years. While all the business-class smb products have as many bugs as consumer models, what they do they do very, very well.

Case in point. I just did some iperf testing on a 2008 model rv016 running v3 firmware (v2 hardware) against a modern Netgear FVS318N and found that the older rv016 had 2x+ throughput over an IPSec site-to-site vpn tunnel. I wasn't expecting this from a box that was selling in this configuration when the Netgear FVS series was still in its infancy. Sure, they have bugs, but man do they do the job when they work.

 

[System Error Message]

I have several of the Cisco rv series in production environments for years. While all the business-class smb products have as many bugs as consumer models, what they do they do very, very well.

Case in point. I just did some iperf testing on a 2008 model rv016 running v3 firmware (v2 hardware) against a modern Netgear FVS318N and found that the older rv016 had 2x+ throughput over an IPSec site-to-site vpn tunnel. I wasn't expecting this from a box that was selling in this configuration when the Netgear FVS series was still in its infancy. Sure, they have bugs, but man do they do the job when they work.

Thats the thing, the business class stuff always does well in one thing and poor in another. Have you seen the VPN throughputs on the cisco rv series? Its quite different from consumer where things tend to work with some usage but when you start stressing it it fails.

Out of a coincidence to many of Tim's reviews have the 30K connection limit but it is a hard limit of many hardware accelerated NATs. In some models or brands going above that can cause hangs.

The main issue i have with the cisco rv series is that its not as configurable compared to ubiquiti, mikrotik and even pfsense. I mean its cisco its supposed to be better but its not like that anymore. You cant configure firewalls and routing on cisco rv series like you can with the other brands i mentioned in the same area. People look at cisco that its supposed to be great but all i see is the same thing thats in consumer router, just another checkbox to tick. On pfsense and mikrotik you can have as many WANs as you like, as many links as you want and as much control as you like over the network. Cisco rv just doesnt give that. Even asus now has some really good traffic statistics that the cisco rv series just doesnt provide. Thats why i consider the cisco rv series to be consumer not business because it has the same reliability as consumer hardware and the same hardware locks and inflexibility you find on consumer routers.

 

[Samir]

Thats the thing, the business class stuff always does well in one thing and poor in another. Have you seen the VPN throughputs on the cisco rv series? Its quite different from consumer where things tend to work with some usage but when you start stressing it it fails.

Out of a coincidence to many of Tim's reviews have the 30K connection limit but it is a hard limit of many hardware accelerated NATs. In some models or brands going above that can cause hangs.

The main issue i have with the cisco rv series is that its not as configurable compared to ubiquiti, mikrotik and even pfsense. I mean its cisco its supposed to be better but its not like that anymore. You cant configure firewalls and routing on cisco rv series like you can with the other brands i mentioned in the same area. People look at cisco that its supposed to be great but all i see is the same thing thats in consumer router, just another checkbox to tick. On pfsense and mikrotik you can have as many WANs as you like, as many links as you want and as much control as you like over the network. Cisco rv just doesnt give that. Even asus now has some really good traffic statistics that the cisco rv series just doesnt provide. Thats why i consider the cisco rv series to be consumer not business because it has the same reliability as consumer hardware and the same hardware locks and inflexibility you find on consumer routers.

The Cisco rv-series is small business equipment. If you want real Cisco, get an ASA series and you'll have enough configuration options to actually confuse you.

The ubiquiti, mikrotik and pfsenses all also only do certain things well. I've looked heavily into all of them at one time or another. It's a matter of finding the right tool for the job--a router being no different. And since there's no such thing is an 'all in one' tool that does everything to superior levels, I hardly expect to find a router that can do it all either.

 

[System Error Message]

well not everyone has the skill to use a configurable router. Ive seen those multi terabit cisco routers that tier 1 and 2 ISP uses so when i first saw the cisco rv series i was very shocked to see cisco building a consumer router instead of using linksys only and that it had many complaints about it.