Hitron CODA-4582 vs Ubiquiti ER-4

[apollo18]

ive got a 1 gbps down and 125 mbps upload connection, with about 50 clients connected over asus access points. currently i am using the hitron coda-4582 as my modem router which connects to a switch which gives internet to all my routers.
now my question is that is this hitra coda 4582 powerful enough to do all this plus much more? or would upgrading to the er-4 give me and my clients better connectivity, speeds, qos, etc?

thank

 

[coxhaus]

You are in a wired only router forum. The Cisco RV340 can handle 50 devices fine assuming you have some APs. I have no idea what a Hitron code-4582 router is?

 

[Datalink]

At this point in time the CODA-4582 is a fairly mature modem, I've been using the same modem for almost three years now, in Bridge mode with an Asus router behind it (68U -> 86U). Personal opinion, no ISP modem will ever give you the same control over your wired and wifi networks that you will achieve with a third party router, assuming of course you choose a router that is up to the task. That isn't a negative statement of the 4582 by any means, just a general statement recognizing the fact that ISPs don't provide top of the line router capabilities at the same time that they provide the modem. In terms of traffic management, QOS, forwarding, IP blocking and/or filtering, etc, etc, third party routers offer capabilities that won't be found in the 4582, or any other ISP modem. There is also the issue of simply avoiding problems in the modem firmware when its running in Gateway mode, where you're absolutely reliant on the modem to do many but not all of the above tasks. Running the modem in Bridge mode with a follow-on router is a very simple way to avoid those issues and to achieve better performance of the tasks that the modem will accomplish (to a lesser degree compared to a router).

I don't know enough about the ER-4 to comment on its capabilities, but, just looking at the processor I see that its a quad core 1 Ghz processor. Just thinking aloud, is that fast enough to handle 1 Gb/s data rates, realistically 930/940 Mb/s plus any tasks and functions you might have running in terms of traffic management, QOS, and/or blocking and filtering? Taking a quick look, it doesn't appear that ubiquity sells anything faster, am I wrong? You might have to do some research and gather some opinions of ER-4 users to determine if gig data rates on the download side are achievable considering what you might want to do with the router.

If I was answering a similar general question on a router for gig rates, I'd say don't look at anything running a processor under 1.4 Ghz. My usual response is to run the fastest processor you can find and afford, which these days is a 1.8 Ghz processor in an all in one router. You could run a faster router if you build one and use something like PfSense, OPNSense, etc. If your intention is to run a VPN, then you should be looking hardware support for Intel's AES-NI (Advanced Encryption Standard New Instructions). Do the Ubiquiti routers support AES-NI? I didn't see anything on the spec sheet.

So, yes, third party router is a good idea, just a question of finding the right one if you intend to run gig rates with various router functions running.

Where are you located? Just wondering where you're running 125 Mb/s up?

 

[netwrks]

@apollo18 I have the coda-4582 in bridge mode, with an ER4. Correctly configured, the ER4 will have no problems with your requirements. About the ER4: it is a router, with routed ports (no switch chip). If you require multiple switch ports in the router, get the ER12. Same processors and memory as the ER4 / ER6p.

EDIT: as @Datalink asked, I am also curious:
Where are you located? Just wondering where you're running 125 Mb/s up?

 

[apollo18]

At this point in time the CODA-4582 is a fairly mature modem, I've been using the same modem for almost three years now, in Bridge mode with an Asus router behind it (68U -> 86U). Personal opinion, no ISP modem will ever give you the same control over your wired and wifi networks that you will achieve with a third party router, assuming of course you choose a router that is up to the task. That isn't a negative statement of the 4582 by any means, just a general statement recognizing the fact that ISPs don't provide top of the line router capabilities at the same time that they provide the modem. In terms of traffic management, QOS, forwarding, IP blocking and/or filtering, etc, etc, third party routers offer capabilities that won't be found in the 4582, or any other ISP modem. There is also the issue of simply avoiding problems in the modem firmware when its running in Gateway mode, where you're absolutely reliant on the modem to do many but not all of the above tasks. Running the modem in Bridge mode with a follow-on router is a very simple way to avoid those issues and to achieve better performance of the tasks that the modem will accomplish (to a lesser degree compared to a router).

I don't know enough about the ER-4 to comment on its capabilities, but, just looking at the processor I see that its a quad core 1 Ghz processor. Just thinking aloud, is that fast enough to handle 1 Gb/s data rates, realistically 930/940 Mb/s plus any tasks and functions you might have running in terms of traffic management, QOS, and/or blocking and filtering? Taking a quick look, it doesn't appear that ubiquity sells anything faster, am I wrong? You might have to do some research and gather some opinions of ER-4 users to determine if gig data rates on the download side are achievable considering what you might want to do with the router.

If I was answering a similar general question on a router for gig rates, I'd say don't look at anything running a processor under 1.4 Ghz. My usual response is to run the fastest processor you can find and afford, which these days is a 1.8 Ghz processor in an all in one router. You could run a faster router if you build one and use something like PfSense, OPNSense, etc. If your intention is to run a VPN, then you should be looking hardware support for Intel's AES-NI (Advanced Encryption Standard New Instructions). Do the Ubiquiti routers support AES-NI? I didn't see anything on the spec sheet.

So, yes, third party router is a good idea, just a question of finding the right one if you intend to run gig rates with various router functions running.

Where are you located? Just wondering where you're running 125 Mb/s up?

Thanks for the reply! So I spoke to ubiquiti and they said they don’t have any router that can qos 1gbps and basically I only upgrade routers if I need More clients connected. So I asked them “do I really need qos” and they said it’s your preference but er-4 can handle 1gbps no problem with qos off. So I’ll probably run it without qos.

I personally don’t do anything extra on my router. Just set them up plug and play no VPN and nothing else to slow it down.

I’m actually in Canada where shaw gives us 1gbps down and 125mbps up.

My plan of attack is to probably bridge the coda 4582 and then run an er-4 which will connect to my switch that has all the access points attached to it

 

[apollo18]

@apollo18 I have the coda-4582 in bridge mode, with an ER4. Correctly configured, the ER4 will have no problems with your requirements. About the ER4: it is a router, with routed ports (no switch chip). If you require multiple switch ports in the router, get the ER12. Same processors and memory as the ER4 / ER6p.

EDIT: as @Datalink asked, I am also curious:
Where are you located? Just wondering where you're running 125 Mb/s up?

Hey! I was planning to run the coda 4582 on bridge mode and then running Ethernet from coda to er-4 and then Ethernet from er-4 to the switch (that has all my access points connected to it)

That should be fine right? I don’t understand the diff between routed and switched ports. I assume it just means that I would have to connect the ER-4 to a switch to be able to connect multiple lan clients / access points to it right?

 

[Trip]

On the wired side of things, as long as the Hitron can route full duplex gigabit (2Gb/s aggregate) for NAT and as many sessions as your clients are throwing at it at any given time, then in most normal circumstances it should be good enough. That said, if you think you'll be saturating the 125mb/s upload often enough, you might notice additional benefit by running a router capable of modern SQM-based QoS on that upload (such as the ER-4), which would preserve consistently low ping and jitter-less packet flow during those moments -- ie. internet that just "feels fast", even during those moments of bandwidth contention and buffer overflow.

On the wireless side, that Hitron is 3x3 N and 4x4 MU-MIMO Wave 2 AC. As long as the single radio cluster hits the range you need and handles your client load, then you may not see much, if any, of a performance increase from a replacement, be it another all-in-one or a group of APs. However, if those 50 clients are more active than they are dormant, they could very well be commanding too much airtime for one or both of the Hitron's radios. At that point, you might want to think about a replacement in the form of a tri-band all-in-one, or two or more dual-band APs (either a wholehouse mesh product or centralized SMB wifi from the likes of Omada, UniFi or Cisco WAP).

 

[Datalink]

Under normal circumstances, when the modem is Bridged, it does nothing but act as an invisible bridge between the neighbourhood node and the ER-4. No firewall, no wifi, no routing, etc, etc is left running on the modem. However, from what I've read in the past, Shaw uses a pass-through mode which leaves the modem running in its original Gateway mode, controlling all of the ports. The device in question runs on that pass-thru port, which appears to me to be some type of DMZ. That negates, to a large degree, what users want to do with their own routers. That Pass-Thru mode can only be set up by Shaw's tech support. Has Shaw finally joined the rest of the world and let the users actually decide to run the modem in Bridge mode or are they still insisting on only letting users run a device on a tightly controlled Pass-Thru port?

 

[netwrks]

@apollo18 - Hey! I was planning to run the coda 4582 on bridge mode and then running Ethernet from coda to er-4 and then Ethernet from er-4 to the switch (that has all my access points connected to it). Yes, that will be fine.

RE: QoS - IMO, I don't see a need to run QoS with the bandwidth you have. Worst case, perhaps on your upload side.

That should be fine right? I don’t understand the diff between routed and switched ports. I assume it just means that I would have to connect the ER-4 to a switch to be able to connect multiple lan clients / access points to it right? That is correct, except if you want to have multiple router ports in the same network. If that would be the case, then you would be looking at bridging interfaces together, which is a bad idea, that's why I brought up the ER12.

I am on Rogers Internet. I personally, have not seen, or, been affected by, any throughput penalties, with the ER4, in conjunction with the Coda 4582 in Bridge mode. I have had this set up , for probably a year and a half anyway. I gave up the all in one consumer routers a long time ago.

 

[Trip]

@apollo18 - Since this thread was just merged due to cross-posting (should avoid that, by the way), please go back and re-read my post. I think it addresses most of your questions.

@Datalink - Judging throughput purely based on clock speed per core doesn't always equate in an apples-to-apples comparison, because certain architectures are better at routing-related math than others, clock for clock. For examples, MIPS (which is what the ER-4/6/12 platform runs on) is typically almost half again as fast as most relative classes of ARM chips, so a 1Ghz MIPS 64 chip is often able to pull equal to many mid-class 1.5 to 2Ghz ARM chips for many routing activities. Further still, of course, full x86 chips will smoke the pants of either of the former. So a lot depends on architecture. All of that said, obviously its of high interest to get as high a clock-speed as possible on any platform when knowing you'll have to route in-software, for whatever packages/services cause routing to bypass offloading.

 

[apollo18]

@apollo18 - Since this thread was just merged due to cross-posting (should avoid that, by the way), please go back and re-read my post. I think it addresses most of your questions.

@Datalink - Judging throughput purely based on clock speed per core doesn't always equate in an apples-to-apples comparison, because certain architectures are better at routing-related math than others, clock for clock. For examples, MIPS (which is what the ER-4/6/12 platform runs on) is typically almost half again as fast as most relative classes of ARM chips, so a 1Ghz MIPS 64 chip is often able to pull equal to many mid-class 1.5 to 2Ghz ARM chips for many routing activities. Further still, of course, full x86 chips will smoke the pants of either of the former. So a lot depends on architecture. All of that said, obviously its of high interest to get as high a clock-speed as possible on any platform when knowing you'll have to route in-software, for whatever packages/services cause routing to bypass offloading.

sorry about that i just saw someone earlier say that this was wired router forum only so i thought i would post in the other!