|
|
|
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:
Control4 guys, what gigabit router are...
| |
|
Topic: | Control4 guys, what gigabit router are you using? This thread has 36 replies. Displaying posts 1 through 15. |
|
Post 1 made on Monday February 24, 2014 at 21:02 |
Audiophiliac Super Member |
Joined: Posts: | August 2006 3,309 |
|
|
We have been using the Netgear SRX-3205, but it has been discontinued. The SRX5308 is overkill with quad WAN capability, and not sure what its life cycle will be. C4 keeps trying to talk us into using the Luxul stuff, but we are not too keen to do it for several reasons. We have been using UniFi successfully for our WiFi deployments and I am thinking we should just grab the Edge Router Lite and get comfortable with it.
Any thoughts? We have a few jobs coming up SOON that we may not be able to source the SRX3205 for. I do not care if it is on the C4 recommended list either. :)
|
"When I eat, it is the food that is scared." - Ron Swanson |
|
Post 2 made on Monday February 24, 2014 at 21:07 |
Hasbeen Loyal Member |
Joined: Posts: | November 2007 5,273 |
|
|
I can't help you the best router for C4 because I'm not a dealer. What I can help you with is to tell you to stay away from anything with the word Luxul on the box. What a bunch of disappointing products. I would literally use any other Gig router before I used a Luxul.
|
|
|
Post 3 made on Monday February 24, 2014 at 21:16 |
vwpower44 Super Member |
Joined: Posts: | August 2004 3,662 |
|
|
Luxul is utterly terrible. The ERL is a nice router. You will have to configure your ports, Masquerade for wan, DHCP Server, etc. It doesn't function out of the box as a router. I dont like how the UPNP settings have to be done command line, same for failover. Bang for the buck, its great. Is it for everyone, no. If I need just a basic router, maybe a few UniFi APs, then I move towards the AirRouter. I have been hesitant to upgrade my Egde OS to 1.4, which supposed adds a bunch of features. I may upgrade my personal unit tonight.
|
Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish... |
|
Post 4 made on Monday February 24, 2014 at 21:24 |
vwpower44 Super Member |
Joined: Posts: | August 2004 3,662 |
|
|
Just upgraded my personal ERL to 1.4. They added UPNP to the GUI under Wizard. Still have to do fail over in CL. They also have a factory default that loads a 1-Port WAN, 2 ports LAN config, which would probably help most. Also there is a Port Forwarding Wizard.
|
Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish... |
|
Post 5 made on Monday February 24, 2014 at 21:26 |
cshepard Advanced Member |
Joined: Posts: | June 2008 767 |
|
|
Why should I not be using Luxul? Just wondering because I've used them on our last 3 or 4 bigger C4 jobs. What am I missing?
|
Chris |
|
Post 6 made on Monday February 24, 2014 at 21:58 |
77W Advanced Member |
Joined: Posts: | June 2012 971 |
|
|
Why do you even need a gigabit router?
|
|
Post 7 made on Monday February 24, 2014 at 22:04 |
iimig Senior Member |
Joined: Posts: | April 2011 1,154 |
|
|
I must say I really like the TP-Link TL-ER6020 and 6120. They are a good value, rackmount, dual WAN, straightforward GUI, lots of VPN flexibility, etc. We used a 6120 recently on a large C4 project and it has been bomber.
They remind me of if the Cisco RV082 was gigabit. Same feature-set basically, just gigabit. The RV082 used to be our go-to but these TP-Links have been consistently delivering.
|
The less I say, the smarter I will appear |
|
Post 8 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 07:38 |
lippavisual Senior Member |
Joined: Posts: | December 2007 1,458 |
|
|
Most C4 jobs we go with a Mikrotik rb750. It takes all of 2 minutes to upload a saved file that already has the majority of my settings. Then I'm off!
|
|
|
Post 9 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 08:38 |
jimstolz76 Loyal Member |
Joined: Posts: | December 2007 5,607 |
|
|
On February 25, 2014 at 07:38, lippavisual said...
Most C4 jobs we go with a Mikrotik rb750. It takes all of 2 minutes to upload a saved file that already has the majority of my settings. Then I'm off! +1, except we've moved to the RB2011UiAS-RM strictly because it's rackmount. We might move to the CRS125-24G-1S-RM because it gets you 24 ports and we have quite a few jobs where we use a router and 24 port switch where we could get away with this single piece. Plus, it's a Layer3 switch, so if the need arises you can do some crazy stuff with it. I'm testing one right now - I was a little worried that the CPU in it was the same as the RB2011 and was now handling 24 ports of traffic, but with ~10 devices connected to it I haven't seen the CPU go over about 15%, and that's a peak. [Link: routerboard.com]
|
|
|
Post 10 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 10:11 |
thecynic315 Senior Member |
Joined: Posts: | August 2008 1,001 |
|
|
On February 24, 2014 at 21:58, 77W said...
Why do you even need a gigabit router? You don't really. Except it is 2014 and nearly all network equipment worth a damn just has Gigabit switching built in. Also you will gain better LAN->WAN speeds.
|
|
Post 11 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 10:40 |
I_Do_It_C4_Style Long Time Member |
Joined: Posts: | January 2014 15 |
|
|
I have no problems with Luxul routers. On the other hand I have a very big problem with Luxul AP's or Wifi. Complete garbage. Back to the routers. They work great in my opinion.
|
Whats this wire?!? |
|
Post 12 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 10:44 |
flandon Advanced Member |
Joined: Posts: | September 2004 805 |
|
|
RV042g Cisco
|
Flandon the mighty Dragon Fisher |
|
Post 13 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 11:58 |
lippavisual Senior Member |
Joined: Posts: | December 2007 1,458 |
|
|
On February 25, 2014 at 08:38, jimstolz76 said...
+1, except we've moved to the RB2011UiAS-RM strictly because it's rackmount. We might move to the CRS125-24G-1S-RM because it gets you 24 ports and we have quite a few jobs where we use a router and 24 port switch where we could get away with this single piece. Plus, it's a Layer3 switch, so if the need arises you can do some crazy stuff with it. I'm testing one right now - I was a little worried that the CPU in it was the same as the RB2011 and was now handling 24 ports of traffic, but with ~10 devices connected to it I haven't seen the CPU go over about 15%, and that's a peak. [Link: routerboard.com]Jim, We've used the 2011 before, as well, for rackmount. I haven't noticed these new Cloud routers. Do these support cloud configurations and access too? I couldn't find any info other than the usual basic cutsheet from Mikrotik. Thanks,
|
|
|
Post 14 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 13:34 |
bcf1963 Super Member |
Joined: Posts: | September 2004 2,767 |
|
|
On February 24, 2014 at 21:58, 77W said...
Why do you even need a gigabit router? Some here will probably say you don't... but I think that has changed for at least some people. Today, WAN speeds of 50Mbps are pretty common, and 100Mbps is not uncommon. But even assuming 50Mbps, you might say that a 100Mbps router is fine. Lets think about that. Packets are not 100% efficient. TCP/IP is the most common protocol used today, and efficiency is a function of how large the packet is. Efficiency varies from a low of about 50%, to a high of about 97.5%. So, if a large number of packets are small, the router will be right at the limit of keeping the WAN pipe filled. This is however unrealistic, and in reality averages of 75% are pretty normal. If you doubt the above, here's a nice overview from someone who knows the info well: [Link: tamos.net]Another thing to keep in mind is that often users will want to transfer files between computers, and will also do things like attached DVR's and other things which will consume network bandwidth. As you start adding these other devices, you can easily get to the point where having a local switch of 100Mbps with a single uplink to the router would be a problem. A single streaming 1080p assuming H.264 is 5Mbps, and H.264 requires quite a bit of compute power for decompression. So assume several of these streams, along with a houseful of users serving webpages on mobile devices, along with a file transfer, and the overhead of all the above, and 100Mbps is getting close to full, if not filled. Gigabit networking is pretty inexpensive, so sidestepping these issues makes managing the network incredibly simple, and provides lots of bandwidth for file transfers over the network, streaming video, and access to the WAN at the full bandwidth of the WAN connection. At today's price point for Gigabit routers, the question is more aptly put, why wouldn't you use Gigabit?
|
|
Post 15 made on Tuesday February 25, 2014 at 14:00 |
jimstolz76 Loyal Member |
Joined: Posts: | December 2007 5,607 |
|
|
On February 25, 2014 at 11:58, lippavisual said...
Jim,
We've used the 2011 before, as well, for rackmount. I haven't noticed these new Cloud routers. Do these support cloud configurations and access too? I couldn't find any info other than the usual basic cutsheet from Mikrotik.
Thanks, They run the same RouterOS as all their other hardware, so if you're familiar with one, you're familiar with the other. To be honest I have no idea what the whole "cloud core" series of products was named for. Maybe I'm missing something. I do know the biggest Cloud Core Router is supposed to be able to do around 28 Gbps LAN to WAN speed. 36 core CPU, etc. Ridiculous. I don't need ANYTHING like that, but the little CRS-125 is only $199 retail so it was kind of a no-brainer.
|
|
|
|
Before you can reply to a message... |
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now. |
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
|
|