TP-Link Archer C8

[microchip]

I enjoyed reading the review on the C8. I'm a big TP-Link fan and currently own the C7. I'm really surprised and disappointed that the C8 requires NAT boost to be disabled to use bandwidth control, among other things. From the review testing, NAT boost makes a huge difference in routing performance. The C7 does not have the same issue and actually requires NAT acceleration being turned on (instead of off like the C8) for some features to work. I think TP-Link should have sticked to the QCA/Atheros designs.

It is really beyond my head why TP-Link would release a device with features requiring NAT being disabled for them to work, and in the process making such a big throughput sacrifice in routing performance.

I have a 400Mbps connection so from the review, with NAT boost off, the max it could handle was about 331 Mbps. So if I'd like to use bandwidth limiting for guest networks, I will not be able to fully utilize these 400Mbps since it won't be able to route at such a speed

Very, very disappointed

 

[stevech]

It is really beyond my head why TP-Link would release a device with features requiring NAT being disabled for them to work, and in the process making such a big throughput sacrifice in routing performance.

I have a 400Mbps connection so from the review, with NAT boost off, the max it could handle was about 331 Mbps. So if I'd like to use bandwidth limiting for guest networks, I will not be able to fully utilize these 400Mbps since it won't be able to route at such a speed

Very, very disappointed

Bold-face - shouldn't it say "NAT Boost [proprietary] being disabled" "

Where you say "wont be able to route at such as speed", do you mean 331 vs. 400Mbps raw WiFi bit rate (not net IP layer rate)? I'd think you're speaking about intra-LAN, presuming your ISP's WAN speed is quite a bit less than the net layer 3 yield of 400Mbps WiFi rate which would be about 250Mbps at best.
The C8 is what, $130?

 

[microchip]

Bold-face - shouldn't it say "NAT Boost [proprietary] being disabled" "

Where you say "wont be able to route at such as speed", do you mean 331 vs. 400Mbps raw WiFi bit rate (not net IP layer rate)? I'd think you're speaking about intra-LAN, presuming your ISP's WAN speed is quite a bit less than the net layer 3 yield of 400Mbps WiFi rate which would be about 250Mbps at best.
The C8 is what, $130?

I am speaking about wired LAN speed, not WiFi. If with NAT Boost disabled it reduces the throughput by more than 50% on the LAN side, then if 400 Mbps come in from the WAN, it won't be able to process that much on the LAN and then to the wired devices. To be more clear, I'm talking about LAN -> WAN and WAN -> LAN. Not LAN -> LAN which is switched and I suspect the NAT issue is non-existent

A quote from the review by thiggins

Remember when I mentioned the NAT Boost's effect on throughput earlier? Table 5 shows that disabling NAT Boost (it's enabled by default), which is required to use Bandwidth Control, cuts throughput by more than 50%. However, 300 Mbps of both up and download throughput will be more than enough for plenty of users.

EDIT: looking at the table, it indeed affects WAN -> LAN and LAN -> WAN http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...ess-dual-band-gigabit-router-reviewed?start=3

This is just unacceptable and a huge blunder by TP-Link. QCA-based routers from them do not have this issue, and are faster anyways. I'm for now sticking to my C7 and will wait for a review by thiggins on the upcoming C9

 

[thiggins]

NAT boost has no effect on LAN to LAN traffic, only traffic that passes through the NAT router.

 

[microchip]

I already mentioned suspecting LAN -> LAN not being affected by NAT boost.

But as I said, my Net speed is 400 Mbps (wired) so if I want to set up a WiFi guest network on this router and limit the bandwidth, I need to disable NAT boost for this, which cuts throughput from WAN -> LAN and LAN -> WAN by more than half. Unacceptable. Or am I missing something?

 

[azazel1024]

You aren't missing anything that I am aware of. That said, maybe I am dealing with some jealousy here, but if you have 400Mbps to throw around, do you really NEED to limit the guest network? I'd think you'd have plenty of bandwidth to throw around (I am running only a 75/75 connection).

Other option, just run the C8 as an access point and run the C7 or something else as the router.

 

[microchip]

You aren't missing anything that I am aware of. That said, maybe I am dealing with some jealousy here, but if you have 400Mbps to throw around, do you really NEED to limit the guest network? I'd think you'd have plenty of bandwidth to throw around (I am running only a 75/75 connection).

Other option, just run the C8 as an access point and run the C7 or something else as the router.

Hi,

I need to limit the guest network in case guests come here and try to download big files. It's not the first time I had guests I busted trying to do this (eg, downloading torrents). I can't possibly sit and monitor whatever they're doing. Sometimes I even go out to get something to drink while they wait at my place.

I am skipping the C8 and will wait for the C9 to come out and read the reviews. Hopefully it won't have this issue as the C8. For now, the C7 serves perfectly my guest network. I also have an RT-AC66U here but it doesn't support bandwidth limiting on guest networks

 

[azazel1024]

Then why not run two routers? You can setup one as the guest wireless SSID provider and limit bandwidth that way. You've got a C7 and an AC66u. If you can't run either as an AP with those bandwidth limits, fine, run it double NAT'd. It would only be for guests anyway, and basic internet functionality is rarely a problem for double NAT situations.

Just a thought. Or if you don't want to do it through the router as a guess access point, do it through a semi-managed switch between the main router and the guest AP. Configure port limiting on it to something reasonably slow.

 

[microchip]

Then why not run two routers? You can setup one as the guest wireless SSID provider and limit bandwidth that way. You've got a C7 and an AC66u. If you can't run either as an AP with those bandwidth limits, fine, run it double NAT'd. It would only be for guests anyway, and basic internet functionality is rarely a problem for double NAT situations.

Just a thought. Or if you don't want to do it through the router as a guess access point, do it through a semi-managed switch between the main router and the guest AP. Configure port limiting on it to something reasonably slow.

I already do it that way where the C7 provides guest network and the AC66U the rest. But I was looking for a new toy and I saw TP-Link released the C8 and wanted to buy it, until I read the review. So my original post is just my expression on how disappointed I am on the C8.

I don't have any questions or need help setting up my network or something. Just to express (and maybe warn others) my opinion on this new C8 toy they released

 

[azazel1024]

I get that. It is unfortunate it doesn't meet your needs, but that is a bit edge case. Most people aren't going to be limited by NAT boost being off or can run with it on.

What it comes down to though is that the C8 isn't really much of an upgrade over the C7 in general. There are a few things it is better at, IMHO wireless is a bit better (especially in the 2.4GHz range) and I like the new interface a lot more (storage I think is a bit better too if that matters), but it isn't necessarily better at routing itself, but that may not matter. Oh and it is rock solid with Apple devices, which I know at least the C7v1 had/has issues with with some people.

I am very curious about the Archer C9. Though at this point, I'd personally get another C8 to replace my WDR3600 that I am running as an AP either when money is a little less tight and/or once the price comes down a little more, over the C7 (in part because I have said Apple devices).

Though I am very curious on the AC2350 stuff if/when MU:MIMO support is added and when clients start shipping with support. Realistically I feel like that is probably really 12+ months from now before that'll be any real concern and I'd really prefer to upgrade my AP to something fast sooner than that (though it might end up having to wait anyway).

 

[microchip]

You are correct on all points. I was just looking forward in playing with something new. I also like the new interface of the C8. About the C7 and Apple devices, they state in the latest firmware for it that compatibility with Apple devices has greatly improved. I do not know if there are any remaining issues, though, as I don't own any Apple devices... http://www.tp-link.com/en/support/download/?model=Archer+C7&version=V1#tbl_j

And apparently the C9 has been just released (at least I suspect so) since if you go look at TP-Link's site on wireless routers, the C9 is no longer labeled "Coming Soon" like some days ago, but now it's labeled as "New" like the C8 http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/?categoryid=3850