Edgerouter X + AP Lite or Asus RT-AC88U

[Robertomcat]

Hello good day!

I currently have an HPE ML110 G9 server, and the home router is a ZTE F680 that the operator provides, and I would like to change it. I was torn between the possibility of buying the Edgerouter X + Unifin AP Lite or the Asus RT-AC88U.

There are several differences between them, and the main one is the processor, Wi-Fi connection and RJ45 ports. As for the processor, the Edge works 800MHz and the Asus at 1.4GHz. As for Wi-Fi, the Unifi I think is a 2 × 2, while the Asus a 4x4 (Apart from the different technologies). And finally, the RJ 45 ports, the Edge only has five ports, compared to the eight ports that the Asus has.

It is clear that the Edge and Unifi software is more versatile than the Asus, but in the case of prices, there is quite a difference.

Edge + Unifi + PoE 24v 1a: € 155

Asus RT-AC88U: € 225 (Amazon Germany)

What are your opinions?

Thank you very much and greetings!

 

[umarmung]

Why the 88U instead of the more modern and more powerful 86U? I think it is even cheaper too.

Ports are almost a non-issue on a router as long as they are more than one because you can just buy a switch. If cost is an issue, an unmanaged switch can be extremely cheap.

If your Internet connection is lower than 150 Mbps, then you can turn on SQM on the Edgerouter which will keep your latency very low no matter the bandwidth used.

If your Internet connection is greater than that, then the main reason for Ubiquiti is stability and adding multiple APs.

If you use VPN on the router and need a high VPN speed, then the Asus is (much) better.

If you have a Gigabit Internet connection, the Asus is better than the Edgerouter X specifically due to artificial limitations in the Edgerouter X (1Gbps aggregate throughput).

 

[Robertomcat]

Why the 88U instead of the more modern and more powerful 86U? I think it is even cheaper too.

Ports are almost a non-issue on a router as long as they are more than one because you can just buy a switch. If cost is an issue, an unmanaged switch can be extremely cheap.

If your Internet connection is lower than 150 Mbps, then you can turn on SQM on the Edgerouter which will keep your latency very low no matter the bandwidth used.

If your Internet connection is greater than that, then the main reason for Ubiquiti is stability and adding multiple APs.

If you use VPN on the router and need a high VPN speed, then the Asus is (much) better.

Hello! Thanks for your reply.

Currently I have fiber 400/400 (and in the future I think I will increase). There are times of the day when the server traffic is high (p2p, plex, backup copies ...).

As for the VPN, it would only be to manage the iLO web page of the server.

As for the switch, I do not intend to expand the LAN in the future, but you never know, and in the Edge I would only be left with a free RJ 45.

Then he thinks that from certain traffic, the Edge will work better than the Asus, or worse?

 

[Robertomcat]

Why the 88U instead of the more modern and more powerful 86U? I think it is even cheaper too.

Because it does not take the aggregation of links, and I do not know if Merlin's firmware incorporates it in that router (at the moment I do not plan to use it either, since I think it only works for LAN). But I also think it's a good recommendation.

 

[sfx2000]

As for the VPN, it would only be to manage the iLO web page of the server.

Why do you want to access ILO via the WAN (whether VPN or other)?

I don't see a need, however, I do see a misguided want perhaps...

Do you understand the risks with your ask?

 

[Robertomcat]

Why do you want to access ILO via the WAN (whether VPN or other)?

I don't see a need, however, I do see a misguided want perhaps...

Do you understand the risks with your ask?

Because sometimes I need to access iLO for server management. I would also like to be able to use the VPN on the Windows remote desktop.

One question that arises me. Is there any kind of benefit in link aggregation when it is only used in Internet access?

Thank you!

 

[sfx2000]

Because sometimes I need to access iLO for server management. I would also like to be able to use the VPN on the Windows remote desktop.

It's pretty risky - best approach is to use a trusted jump box on the LAN side to access ILO - don't expose the ILO direct to the VPN - a jump box can be something as simple as an RPi running VNC once you're into the VPN.

Anybody experienced with machines of this class will tell you that - in a past job, I managed many HP, Oracle/Sun, and IBM servers in a carrier grade network - the ILO functions were broken out into a specific management LAN that only trusted folks had access to.

Putting ILO on the WAN, even via a VPN, is akin to providing direct physical access to the server...

One question that arises me. Is there any kind of benefit in link aggregation when it is only used in Internet access?

No direct benefit... if you have two WAN connections, one can load balance to provide connection redundancy.

 

[Robertomcat]

It's pretty risky - best approach is to use a trusted jump box on the LAN side to access ILO - don't expose the ILO direct to the VPN - a jump box can be something as simple as an RPi running VNC once you're into the VPN.

I'm sorry, I do not have so much experience. Would you have a link to hand to solve it? Yes, it is very risky, and I have had the web open for a long time, but with the default port changed, although it is not the solution.

No direct benefit... if you have two WAN connections, one can load balance to provide connection redundancy.

So, it would be of little use for me to have link aggregation, since in the future I will not incorporate other devices into the internal network. Thank you!

 

[sfx2000]

I'm sorry, I do not have so much experience. Would you have a link to hand to solve it? Yes, it is very risky, and I have had the web open for a long time, but with the default port changed, although it is not the solution.

Purchase a Raspberry Pi (3 or 3+ is recommended), install Raspbian which comes bundled with RealVNC - sign up for a RealVNC connect account (Raspberry Pi Foundation is granted a free 5 seat license for RealVNC connect), install the RealVNC connect software on your laptop/desktop PC (they have Mac and Windows clients, as well as Linux).

Set up credentials on both ends - and you're done...

RealVNC brokers a tunnel between the remote and the local machine, similar to TeamViewer - this means no port forwarding needed, no VPN needed.

Raspbian comes with Chromium Browser, which is the open source equivalent of Chrome for Desktop - this is more than sufficient to manage your ILO on your remote server.

Total out of pocket here for the Pi, an SD Card, a case and a good power supply is about $60...

 

[System Error Message]

get all the options , its actually what i did.

 

[Robertomcat]

Purchase a Raspberry Pi (3 or 3+ is recommended), install Raspbian which comes bundled with RealVNC - sign up for a RealVNC connect account (Raspberry Pi Foundation is granted a free 5 seat license for RealVNC connect), install the RealVNC connect software on your laptop/desktop PC (they have Mac and Windows clients, as well as Linux).

Set up credentials on both ends - and you're done...

RealVNC brokers a tunnel between the remote and the local machine, similar to TeamViewer - this means no port forwarding needed, no VPN needed.

Raspbian comes with Chromium Browser, which is the open source equivalent of Chrome for Desktop - this is more than sufficient to manage your ILO on your remote server.

Total out of pocket here for the Pi, an SD Card, a case and a good power supply is about $60...

It seems to me a very good idea, when I can I put it in motion, thank you very much!

 

[Trip]

Getting back to the original ask...

For any setups beyond typical SOHO end-users, I prefer to segregating routing, switching and wifi to discrete components. Performance almost universally goes up in each area as a result, the the combined effect is quite often a noticeable one.

For routing, what is your internet speed? If it's 100-200 Mb/s aggregate or less, an ER-X will be fine. If it's in the hundreds of Mb/s or more, I'd look to an ER-4 or ER-6P. For switching, if you go ER-X and don't need more than 4 switch ports, you can use the built-in switch chip. If you need more ports or if you go ER-4/6P, you'll want a good quality L2/L2+ web-managed switch. Cisco SG-200/300 or HPE 1820/1920S come to mind. Lastly would be wifi. You could do a consumer all-in-one (like the 88U) running in AP mode, or for more range, whatever wifi mesh system meets your requirements. Then if any discrete component is sub-par, you just return/replace that piece, instead of having to tear down the whole house of cards and start over.

Just a thought.

 

[sfx2000]

It seems to me a very good idea, when I can I put it in motion, thank you very much!

There is tremendous utility once you get it set up - not just as a jump box to remote access hosts, but you also have a fully realized Linux distro - with all the tools and packages needed...

 

[coxhaus]

I vote the Edge + Unifi + PoE 24v 1a: € 155.

If you can handle the setup the over all network can be setup in a more advanced fashion making for a better network with lots more potential for the future. The only future network you have with an all in one consumer unit is to buy another all in one unit.

 

[System Error Message]

there are differences between asus and ubiquiti. Ubiquiti goes for range rather than throughput, asus goes for throughput and number of users. A unifi AP cant handle as many users as an asus can if you're pushing a hundred wifi users at the same time. ASUS also comes with other things, like their WTFast VPN service, anti malware and some other stuff. Ubiquiti is much simpler, an embedded linux based OS with a router GUI, and their APs, only have the features needed to be an AP. It is focused at networking focused setups, where things like game throughput dont mean a thing and where you want fewer but better wifi clients or better control. And while ubiquiti edgerouter would be better than asus at gaming, you'd have a hard time making use of its linux features for doing non router based stuff or supporting crazy number of wifi clients (its known that ubiquiti APs cant handle that many simultaneous clients).

However i would not get the edgerouter, its simply a poor choice versus what you can get out there.

 

[Robertomcat]

For routing, what is your internet speed? If it's 100-200 Mb/s aggregate or less, an ER-X will be fine. If it's in the hundreds of Mb/s or more, I'd look to an ER-4 or ER-6P. For switching, if you go ER-X and don't need more than 4 switch ports, you can use the built-in switch chip. If you need more ports or if you go ER-4/6P,

Currently, I have a line of 400/400. I had also thought that the ER-X has a small processor, but buying an ER-4 / ER-6P is already a high price, and the ER-4 does not carry PoE ports. The companion umarmunq, also recommended the AC86U, although it has fewer ports (at this time I do not plan to expand the network), the router is more modern and the processor works at 1.8GHz and I think it's a good option. Thank you!

If you can handle the setup the over all network can be setup in a more advanced fashion making for a better network with lots more potential for the future. The only future network you have with an all in one consumer unit is to buy another all in one unit.

Yes, it is clear that to have more benefits in the future, the Edgerouter is better, but the ER-X does not carry only a powerful hardware, and should move to a higher branch, which by discarding, should be already an ER- 6P, which can be a decent enough hardware for many years. I could make an effort and buy it, but I do not know if my capabilities to manage the Edgerouter software will be up to the task. I've asked several people and they say it's pretty simple, but I do not know for sure from my perspective. Thank you very much!

there are differences between asus and ubiquiti. Ubiquiti goes for range rather than throughput, asus goes for throughput and number of users.

As for Wi-Fi users, there are going to be only two or three devices. The privative features of WTFast, aside from the fact that they serve little, I will not use them, and since I will not play on that router, I am simply interested in VPN and the performance of the router through cable.

 

[System Error Message]

Currently, I have a line of 400/400. I had also thought that the ER-X has a small processor, but buying an ER-4 / ER-6P is already a high price, and the ER-4 does not carry PoE ports. The companion umarmunq, also recommended the AC86U, although it has fewer ports (at this time I do not plan to expand the network), the router is more modern and the processor works at 1.8GHz and I think it's a good option. Thank you!


Yes, it is clear that to have more benefits in the future, the Edgerouter is better, but the ER-X does not carry only a powerful hardware, and should move to a higher branch, which by discarding, should be already an ER- 6P, which can be a decent enough hardware for many years. I could make an effort and buy it, but I do not know if my capabilities to manage the Edgerouter software will be up to the task. I've asked several people and they say it's pretty simple, but I do not know for sure from my perspective. Thank you very much!


As for Wi-Fi users, there are going to be only two or three devices. The privative features of WTFast, aside from the fact that they serve little, I will not use them, and since I will not play on that router, I am simply interested in VPN and the performance of the router through cable.

then the ubiquiti APs would be a better choice.
The edgerouter isnt the best choice. Whats your WAN speeds and skill level?

 

[Robertomcat]

The edgerouter isnt the best choice. Whats your WAN speeds and skill level?

I can say that my level is low (although the interface seems quite friendly), and when using CLI, absolutely zero. I have a 400/400 fiber line.

 

[coxhaus]

there are differences between asus and ubiquiti. Ubiquiti goes for range rather than throughput, asus goes for throughput and number of users. A unifi AP cant handle as many users as an asus can if you're pushing a hundred wifi users at the same time.

If I was going to handle a hundred users or more then I would buy the latest Cisco WAP581 small business wireless AP as it is designed to handle around 200 users. You will need a 2.5 gig connection for the WAP581 unless you are going to limit the users bandwidth. I think a gig connection is going to be too slow.

 

[System Error Message]

I can say that my level is low (although the interface seems quite friendly), and when using CLI, absolutely zero. I have a 400/400 fiber line.

go with pfsense as ubiquiti doesnt have anything in your budget range that would work with your connection speed if you use QoS.