RT-AC86U upgrade to cisco rv320

[verydima]

Hi everyone.
I have never owned a Cisco, but I have heard that they are safer and more secure than regular routers.
I have an RT-AC86U and I haven't encountered any problems with it in the last 3 years. Everything works fine. I recently did a second AN. And in LoadBalance mode, it somehow works crookedly.
I can buy a used Cisco RV320 for $150.
My question:
Will the Cisco for 2x WAN work better than the Asus? And is it okay that Cisco has significantly worse hardware judging by the specs?

 

[follower]

Hi everyone.
I have never owned a Cisco, but I have heard that they are safer and more secure than regular routers.
I have an RT-AC86U and I haven't encountered any problems with it in the last 3 years. Everything works fine. I recently did a second AN. And in LoadBalance mode, it somehow works crookedly.
I can buy a used Cisco RV320 for $150.
My question:
Will the Cisco for 2x WAN work better than the Asus? And is it okay that Cisco has significantly worse hardware judging by the specs?

Keep using AC86U. RV320 is not for you.

 

[Tech Junky]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish other than spending $150?

 

[verydima]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish other than spending $150?

I want to remove "microlags" while web browsing with an active load balancer.

 

[verydima]

Keep using AC86U. RV320 is not for you.

thanks

 

[Tech Junky]

A LB uses the same connection during a session while moving packets. There are packet based LB's though as well.

You seem focused on using dual WAN's as well...What's your current ISP situation?

LB can be used in so many different terms but, I doubt you're using a LB and using 802.3ad instead for the links on the WAN.

 

[verydima]

A LB uses the same connection during a session while moving packets. There are packet based LB's though as well.

You seem focused on using dual WAN's as well...What's your current ISP situation?

LB can be used in so many different terms but, I doubt you're using a LB and using 802.3ad instead for the links on the WAN.

I use LB with these settings on Asus:

I have a local network:
1 Server (NAS, work soft)
2 PC (work)
3 WiFi clients
4 Media clients (apple tv, TVs, av-receiver)

I need to build something like this:
1 Server use only WAN1
2 Some VMs on the Server using only WAN2
3 All other clients use LB.

1 and 2 work well now.
With 3 problems. I see on PC when using browser micro lags. All other clients work well.
As you can see on the screen I set up LP 9:1 and in this config, I almost don't see micro lags in the browser. If I use 1:1 - I see lags.

 

[Tech Junky]

When you're "browsing" what are you pulling content from? General web surfing? Surfing content off the server/NAS?

If you built something you could place different things into VLAN's and do policy based routing. Using routing statements you could push traffic to use specific connections.

Getting into the misc clients to use whatever is available for the WAN would just require LACP to pick the next available egress or you could weight them to use the higher bandwidth connection and if that fails automatically use the redundant WAN.

Using something more geared towards SMB than your current setup would be beneficial for the slightly more complex setup you're alluding to. If you're looking for more point and click you can get there with pfsense. If you're good at CLI options then any Linux distro would work and just build config files based on what you want to do. Or pay up for a packaged hardware solution with a GUI.

I think the RV might accomplish some of this but, I haven't dealt with that model specifically coming from an enterprise environment dealing with Nexus / CRS level gear. However there are some more options like the edge router that would get you multiple ports to configure as you wish.

 

[degrub]

my experience in the RV 320 was that turning on QOS cut the throughput in half. Otherwise, ok device.
i don't know about the RV 340 version. @coxhaus may be able to provide more detailed experience as i recall he uses one of these.

 

[coxhaus]

The Cisco RV340 router would be a much better choice over the RV320 router. The Cisco RV340 routers run about $50 now used as you can't buy them new anymore.

PS
You can't buy a Cisco RV320 router new since 2018. It has been end of sale for 4 years.

 

[degrub]

are you running QOS ?
experience ?

 

[coxhaus]

No. I played around with it when doing speed tests. I don't feel I need it. I sure did need it back in the old DSL days. I guess you know QoS only really works on upload. You can do a little with download but not much and you cannot control download. And this is true for all QoS devices regardless of software.

I used QoS for my daughter's business because she had 19 Polycom IP phones on 100 meg business internet connection but I used the Cisco L3 switch instead of the RV340 router. I think the Cisco L3 switch can handle the voice VLAN much better than the router.

I used QoS in the old days with T1, OC3, and DS3 etc. But I was in control of both ends as they were point to point connections for work. Telnet always got priority so we could get to the equipment when the pipe was full.

 

[Tech9]

I want to remove "microlags" while web browsing with an active load balancer.

Disable this Dual WAN and use the better ISP only. Dual WAN doesn't work properly in Asuswrt.

 

[verydima]

Thanks for all the good thoughts.

"Disable this Dual WAN and use the better ISP only."
I have 2 good ISP and I want to use dual WAN because in work software I see almost twice an increase in connection speed.

Do you think the RV340 will be better for 2 WAN than my Asus? I'm monitoring the local aftermarket and yesterday someone put the RV340 on the market for $150.
I am not a system administrator, just interested in networks and PCs. So forgive me if the questions are a bit silly.
The main misunderstanding I have about Cisco is that they have much worse hardware than the same RT-AC86U in terms of features. I mean CPU and RAM. So why are they new and used more expensive?

 

[Tech9]

Do you think the RV340 will be better for 2 WAN than my Asus?

I don't think - I know. I have 3x Cisco RV345P routers in Dual WAN configuration. The difference is working (Cisco) vs non-working (Asus). Just keep in mind RV340 is going end of-support at the end of 2022. You can use it for Dual-WAN only though with your Asus behind it, if you want.

So why are they new and used more expensive?

Much more reliable small business equipment. I still have one Cisco RV320 in use. It may not have tons of options, but what's available works properly. In Asuswrt many options are available, but work only good enough to advertise the feature and sell the router to non-tech consumers.