What's new

Looking for a 10Gbps wired router

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

Well, i beg to differ. I cannot and will not buy anything from the States because the import taxes these days are insane but ebay US has more than one fully functioning boards on sale for about 400- 500 USD which means you would not need to buy the X710 card as it has 2 10Gbe ports so you would still get it done for 700 USD which is fantastic value for money considering the price of the price of some high-end consumer products.
Loads of people don't want "functional", they want properly working hardware with warranty.
And you forgot about RAM, a case, PSU, drives...
What is fantastic value for you, might not be fantastic value for someone else.

On top of all that, you also have to be knowledgeable enough to install the OS and configure it correctly to get any kind of use out the hardware, again something not everyone can do these days.

Some people just want an appliance that requires minimum setup to get going or worst case, they can pick up the phone and get some support, rather than having to trawl internet forums for days or weeks to find the solution to their problem.

As far as routers goes, I'm one of those that just wants a box that works.
On the other hand, I built a custom NAS, something a lot of other people wouldn't do. However, it's a PITA every time I have a weird issue with it, which luckily only has happened a couple of times.
 
Loads of people don't want "functional", they want properly working hardware with warranty.
And you forgot about RAM, a case, PSU, drives...
What is fantastic value for you, might not be fantastic value for someone else.

On top of all that, you also have to be knowledgeable enough to install the OS and configure it correctly to get any kind of use out the hardware, again something not everyone can do these days.

Some people just want an appliance that requires minimum setup to get going or worst case, they can pick up the phone and get some support, rather than having to trawl internet forums for days or weeks to find the solution to their problem.

As far as routers goes, I'm one of those that just wants a box that works.
On the other hand, I built a custom NAS, something a lot of other people wouldn't do. However, it's a PITA every time I have a weird issue with it, which luckily only has happened a couple of times.
I appreciate that. But you know as well as i do that boxes that do 10Gbps "out-of-the-box" are a rare commodity. I like to think that in this forum, we give people choices and it's up to them to decide which path they want to walk on.

Just for completeness, RDIMMs are dead cheap as well as an M.2 SATA drive...
 
Wait... That Qualcomm SoC has a quad-core A53 plus a dual core Ubi32, and they don't call their SoC "Hexacore"? Missed marketing opportunity there. /s

Fun to note that ubi32 cores are the old Ubicomm IP that Qualcomm bought years ago...

(just pointing out how silly Broadccom's pentacore marketing material was, or router manufacturers adding the numbers of all radios' max link rate and advertise that as total bandwidth).

Agree - because marketing I suppose...

Could go the other way I suppose - Tegra in Switch and Shield claim 4, but their are actually 9 arm cores in the SoC, but only 4 are actually accessed by the kernel.
 
I appreciate that. But you know as well as i do that boxes that do 10Gbps "out-of-the-box" are a rare commodity. I like to think that in this forum, we give people choices and it's up to them to decide which path they want to walk on.

Just for completeness, RDIMMs are dead cheap as well as an M.2 SATA drive...
Sure, but I believe I provided the OP with a solution for what the OP was looking for.
You posting about your experience with something else is fine, but start your own topic.
 
From what I know routing does not take much CPU power, mainly clock speed. It is only when you get into firewalling and IDS\IPS does it take CPU power. In the real old days routers and firewalls were separate animals. You bought a router for routing and a firewall for firewalling.
 
That's not how that scales though and you should know this.
Plenty of 650-750 MHz SoCs can easily do Gigabit routing, as the MIPS architecture is better than ARM when it comes to routing, for some reason.
On top of that, any decent router SoC has, just like all other Arm based SoCs, dedicated co-processors that handle things like routing, which means the Arm processors are freed up to handle other tasks, like running the OS.
As such, 10 or 25 or even 100 Gbps is feasible on an Arm SoC, I mean how would those big Arm based servers do 100 Gbps otherwise?
It's obviously up to the SoC vendor to test and make sure it really works and to provide software support for the co-processor(s) to make sure it all works as intended. In the past, some companies have charged extra for this, which some router/device makers were unwilling to pay for and the end result was poor performance.
SoC Mhz have just about nothing to do with routing speeds.

I was quoting for SW based routing - without any fast path accelerators...

We get to 10Gbe space, and things get interesting - QCA is up front, and MediaTek is chasing them and close behind.

MIPS was always interesting, as one could run it big-endian, e.g. network order, so it didn't have to do the swap from big to little for packet processing - Broadcom via SiByte was little endian (mipsel) as was Ralink (ramips)...

That being said - you could take a N300 device on MIPS/ath9k, and basically be perfectly balanced between LAN/WAN/WLAN - the AR9531 was that chip, and for dual-band devices, the most recent would do a single stream 11ac 5Ghz channel at 430, which once the wifi overhead was removed, kept the whole device solid at 100 Mbe... as that radio was running on the SoC's PCIe bus

Someone running a pfSense box with a 2.4GHz intel processor can be fine with a 1Gbe connection on the WAN side, and this would be full-duplex on the slow path with all routing, firewall, and NAT running on the CPU.

These days - it's interesting that a lot of the network is offloaded to the NIC's for 10/40/100/200 GBe - nVidia with Mellonox, AMD with Pensando, and intel with their own stuff (which they recently sold) - and there, the benchmarks were a bit different - it was more about packets per second vs. overall throughput - and the PPS benchmarks had a solid figure - the iMix..

More info on iMix here... benchmarks there need to change, as things like Speedtest.net, etc are hard to apply with 10G - they were not designed for this, and as such, will give bad info...


@TheLostSwede - I used to work in the Telecom Carrier Core Network, so yes, I'm aware of the challenge on 10Gbe on the last mile...

Once we get to 10Gbe connections - things do change, much like Tesla and comparing them to Gas cars on the dyno - the dyno as a benchmark never consider that for an Electric Motor, max torque is at zero RPM, so it runs off the charts and doesn't give a good perspective on what really is...
 
From what I know routing does not take much CPU power, mainly clock speed.

Exactly - clocks matter more than CPU on intel - so it really doesn't matter whether it's an efficiency core or a performance core...

It is important to some degree on the chipset used, and the memory types, as packet processing can hit the memcopy limits on the DDR once/if things get out of L2/L3 cache...

SW fast-path solutions depend on that directly - how fast can we move bits around in RAM - and this changes for switching, even at at layer 3, as the control plane is only part of that.

Once we get into routing, it's a bit different... fast-path in netfilter helps out a bit, but if you apply rules, you go back into slow-path where everything becomes memory limited first, and then clock speed.

1Gbe was easy, as even Intel Silvermont could handle that, and do it well, one didn't need big cores...
 
In the real old days routers and firewalls were separate animals. You bought a router for routing and a firewall for firewalling.

In the more recent days - Firewalls vs Routers vs LoadBalancer's in all about the rules applied to the use case - SDN and Network Virtualization... and there, it's all been broken down into microservices...

You'd be surprised on things work in the cloud where resources are basically unlimited - so setting up a router, LB, or FW is just a configuration file...
 
Wait... That Qualcomm SoC has a quad-core A53 plus a dual core Ubi32, and they don't call their SoC "Hexacore"? Missed marketing opportunity there. /s

(just pointing out how silly Broadccom's pentacore marketing material was, or router manufacturers adding the numbers of all radios' max link rate and advertise that as total bandwidth).

I think it ends up more silly when it comes to the lower end SoC stuff Broadcom offers. A7 on those triple/quad's pools everything from what I can see. Granted.. a 4x4 "add on chip" has it's own "A7" for processing.

Significantly weaker than B53 + "A7" 4x4 they offer. IE: Evolved "Penta core"... or could we say "Octo core" now... Main B53 Quad + Quad band A7 Radios lol.

Either way.. The marketing most brands use is kinda skewed anyway.. A "Quad" BCM6755 is significantly outclassed relative to above metric, but I guess its semantics at that point.
 
Last edited:
I am not going to use anything smaller than an i3 at 3GHz basic for my Pfsense router. I am using an Intel 6100T which is max of 35 watts and 3.2GHz. I strip my Dell box down to the basics with no harddrive.
I feel like 3 GHz gives fairly fast, snappy routing.
I don't think this will do 10gig but it might. I would use the same logic for 10gig.

My thinking is turbo is of no real use for a router. You want base clock.
 
Last edited:
Alright guys, got my router, installed it, and things are fine. Many thanks to all of you who helped make this purchase. Here's one question for all of youse: the default router setting assigns each of the LAN Ethernet ports a separate subnet (192.168.10x.xxx): is there anything ... superior about this subnet separation? Would I be missing out on any major features should I decide to lump all subnets together into one, as usual? (Note that the context is simply my home network, not some sophisticated enterprise network.) I am concerned about this subnet separation because my Home Assistant contraption no longer detects devices on the network, and I suspect that this is precisely due to this separation.
 
Alright guys, got my router, installed it, and things are fine. Many thanks to all of you who helped make this purchase. Here's one question for all of youse: the default router setting assigns each of the LAN Ethernet ports a separate subnet (192.168.10x.xxx): is there anything ... superior about this subnet separation? Would I be missing out on any major features should I decide to lump all subnets together into one, as usual? (Note that the context is simply my home network, not some sophisticated enterprise network.) I am concerned about this subnet separation because my Home Assistant contraption no longer detects devices on the network, and I suspect that this is precisely due to this separation.
It sounds like the default is setting up VLANs using subnetting. If you don't need to segment your devices for security purposes then I would set all LAN ports to be on the same subnet.
 
Alright guys, got my router, installed it, and things are fine. Many thanks to all of you who helped make this purchase. Here's one question for all of youse: the default router setting assigns each of the LAN Ethernet ports a separate subnet (192.168.10x.xxx): is there anything ... superior about this subnet separation? Would I be missing out on any major features should I decide to lump all subnets together into one, as usual? (Note that the context is simply my home network, not some sophisticated enterprise network.) I am concerned about this subnet separation because my Home Assistant contraption no longer detects devices on the network, and I suspect that this is precisely due to this separation.
Routing at layer 3 is better than bridging at layer 3 in terms of performance. You want to route between subnets. A layer 3 switch will do it much better but there is no way to insert an L3 switch in the middle of the miniPC or any PC for that matter. To insert an L3 switch you would need to move all but 1 LAN to the L3 switch so it can handle all the layer 3 routing.
 
It sounds like the default is setting up VLANs using subnetting. If you don't need to segment your devices for security purposes then I would set all LAN ports to be on the same subnet.
Networks are networks they do not need to be VLANs.

My guess is if they were VLANs then they all would be running on the same NIC. So, I assume they are not VLANs. It could be done but it would be odd to run 1 network per VLAN per NIC. You could bind all the NICs together and run your VLANs across them but I doubt you have that support in the PC. A switch would have that support.
 
Last edited:

Support SNBForums w/ Amazon

If you'd like to support SNBForums, just use this link and buy anything on Amazon. Thanks!

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!

Staff online

Top