Want to move away from Asus routers, Ubiquiti? advice needed

[Tech9]

I have 3x UCG-Ultra already, but none of them uses PPPoE connection and don’t know what the limits are. UCG-Fiber has better hardware and is perhaps better fit. Other option is to use the ISP provided gear for PPPoE connection and UCG-Ultra in DMZ, but only if UPnP is not needed.

 

[Tech9]

By the way, as an experiment and after seeing new features added with last updates - managed to get functional UniFi system with dedicated wireless uplink. I have 2x UX (UniFi Express) units and now they allow LAN port configuration. My UX units are used as wireless bridges to wired devices, but I found an AP can be Ethernet uplinked to UX as well. This means the additional AP can broadcast on different than wireless uplink channel (between the Parent AP and the UX unit). This means folks with existing 2x UX units in wireless mesh configuration can increase the performance of their system almost twice by adding APs.

Original intended configuration:
UX1 - wireless - UX2
(quick test @80MHz non-DFS, 2-stream AX client- ~700Mbps from UX1, ~350Mbps from UX2)

Modified with dedicated wireless uplink:
AP - Ethernet - UX1 - wireless - UX2 - Ethernet - AP
(quick test, same conditions, different channel - ~700Mbps from both APs connected to UX1/UX2)

In real life the user experience though is about the same. Wirelessly uplinked UX does consistently >200Mbps and quite far from the main UX unit at -65dBm signal level. Plenty for mobile devices and for the purpose of range extension. The new UX7 will be better.

 

[Jbennett360]

I have 3x UCG-Ultra already, but none of them uses PPPoE connection and don’t know what the limits are. UCG-Fiber has better hardware and is perhaps better fit. Other option is to use the ISP provided gear for PPPoE connection and UCG-Ultra in DMZ, but only if UPnP is not needed.

AHH not to worry. Don't really want to go up to the max/fiber just to make sure I can fully maximise the connection I have.

Ultra should work, in theory, but previous posts don't fill me with confidence

 

[Tech9]

Some folks report different numbers on Ubiquiti Community Forums, but from what I can tell about UCG-Ultra:

Smart Queues (like Traditional QoS, FQ-CoDel AQM) - ~550Mbps (not recommended >300Mbps ISP)
App/Category QoS (like Adaptive QoS, not sure what it uses) - ~550Mbps
App/Category QoS + IDS/IPS - ~450Mbps
IDS/IPS (all categories enabled) - ~940Mbps
AdBlocking + GeoBlocking + IDS/IPS - ~940Mbps
AdBlocking + GeoBlocking + Contend Filtering + IDS/IPS - ~940Mbps

Still not bad for $130 device with Gateway, Controller and Switch on board. Folks with slower than 300Mbps ISP lines are covered, folks with Gigabit ISP lines perhaps don't need performance impacting QoS options. PPPoE some report ~700Mbps, some report ~900Mbps.

The 2.5GbE WAN port is mostly marketing, nothing else than the device itself can use that speed. The Switch inside has Gigabit uplink.

Hope it helps.

 

[tgl]

The UCG-Ultra is intended as entry-level equipment, so it's not surprising that it struggles to sustain Gbps-ish speed as soon as you turn on any expensive features. You might want to consider the UCG-Max which is the next step up, if you want no-restrictions 1Gbps throughput.

(Yeah, UI's product nomenclature leaves a lot to be desired.)

 

[Tech9]

You might want to consider the UCG-Max

No, UCG-Max may have the same limitations, the same Quad 1.5GHz A53 CPU inside. UCG-Fiber has more power under the hood with Quad 2.2GHz A73 CPU. Based on listed IDS performance - may have 2x higher packet processing speed under same conditions.

 

[tgl]

No, UCG-Max may have the same limitations, the same Quad 1.5GHz A53 CPU inside.

You sure about that? UI's tech specs claim 2.3 Gbps IDS/IPS throughput for the UCG-Max but only 1Gbps for the Ultra. Sure, the UCG-Fiber is a better box than either, but it's also more expensive.

 

[Jbennett360]

You sure about that? UI's tech specs claim 2.3 Gbps IDS/IPS throughput for the UCG-Max but only 1Gbps for the Ultra. Sure, the UCG-Fiber is a better box than either, but it's also more expensive.

See that's the frustrating thing, is the Ultra is capable of 1Gbps with IDS/IPS according to them, but there nowhere on the site in the manual, guide etc that says users with PPPoE may not achieve that.

I have seen a few UK users who have the Ultra and say it's fine with PPPoE and they are achieving the usual 940ish that they get from other routers they've used.

 

[Tech9]

You sure about that?

Pretty sure, some unknowns. It's the same generation CPU, unless the variant in UCG-Max has some extra hardware offloading we don't know about. UCG-Ultra is Qualcomm IPQ5322, UCG-Max is Qualcomm IPQ5332, both quad-core 1.5GHz A53. UCG-Max has 2.5GbE Switch and uplink to it as well as internal storage, all the rest is the same. Because of internal storage (up to 2TB) UCG-Max also supports Protect, Access, Talk features. UCG-Ultra IDS performance is limited by the LAN ports. I believe the posted specifications are about accurate given the hardware configuration of each device.

See that's the frustrating thing

Not sure what the PPPoE issue is. I'm seeing reports on Ubiquiti Community Forums about both models doing full advertised speed or limited to something under Gigabit. Some folks speculate PPPoE + VLAN requirement is causing the issue. I also see UCG-Fiber is built around Qualcomm IPQ9574 and there is a confirmation from Ubiquiti it has PPPoE hardware offloading. The reason I'm assuming UCG-Fiber is the guaranteed to work device. It's a bit hard to get at the moment though, sold out shortly after it becomes available. If you want one you have to set notifications and act quickly.

 

[Tech9]

I have seen a few UK users who have the Ultra and say it's fine with PPPoE and they are achieving the usual 940ish

If the reports are coming from folks on the same as yours ISP - it should be fine.

 

[Jbennett360]

If the reports are coming from folks on the same as yours ISP - it should be fine.

Unfortunately, not the same ISP.

Might just take the gamble and see how it goes.

 

[Tech9]

What is the intended purpose of this gateway in your case?

Reading previous threads I believe you have an RT-AX86S router. Are you thinking about UCG gateway and Asus access point?

 

[Jbennett360]

What is the intended purpose of this gateway in your case?

Reading previous threads I believe you have an RT-AX86S router. Are you thinking about UCG gateway and Asus access point?

Basically looking to replace the AX86S with the UCG and a U6 Pro.

I'm hoping with the flexibility of being able to move the access point, i can also remove the RP-AX58 that I have attached to the current setup too.

I've bit the bullet

• UCG-ULTRA
• U6-PRO
• U-POE-AT

I guess the only way to know whether or not it's going to work, is to actually try it out!

 

[tgl]

Pretty sure, some unknowns. It's the same generation CPU, unless the variant in UCG-Max has some extra hardware offloading we don't know about. UCG-Ultra is Qualcomm IPQ5322, UCG-Max is Qualcomm IPQ5332, both quad-core 1.5GHz A53. UCG-Max has 2.5GbE Switch and uplink to it as well as internal storage, all the rest is the same. Because of internal storage (up to 2TB) UCG-Max also supports Protect, Access, Talk features. UCG-Ultra IDS performance is limited by the LAN ports. I believe the posted specifications are about accurate given the hardware configuration of each device.

Yeah, it's clear that the UCG-Ultra is limited by its 1G ports. But your theory implies that they took hardware capable of doing near 2.5G and stuck 1G ports on it. That doesn't strike me as sane product design. Maybe there's some economy-of-scale argument for building both models with the same CPU, but still, not the way to build a low-cost product. Also, if the internals actually were capable of 2-plus Gbps, why would we be seeing these reports of the Ultra struggling to reach 1Gbps depending on enabled features?

I suspect your speculation about better offloading hardware in the Max may be the right idea.

 

[Tech9]

The performance limiting features are actually not a real problem because 450-550Mbps is high enough bandwidth to fit the need of QoS options. I have 2x residential lines under this bandwidth (300/30 and 100/40) and not using any QoS. This is not a gaming device and no QoS will fix bad ISP anyway. I'm perhaps lucky the ISPs are quite consistent. About PPPoE + VLAN issue - I can't confirm or deny the information found online. Some say ~700Mbps, others ~900Mbps (for UCG-Ultra), there are also reports for ~700Mbps and full speed ~2.3Gbps (for UCG-Max). I guess, @Jbennett360 will let us know soon. Hopefully it works well on their ISP.

About hardware similarities between UCG-Ultra and UCG-Max - I wouldn't be surprised if the PCB for Ultra has missing components used in Max. Two SKUs for GbE and 2.5GbE applications give users a choice. Nothing to complain about $130 Ultra version.

 

[Jbennett360]

The performance limiting features are actually not a real problem because 450-550Mbps is high enough bandwidth to fit the need of QoS options. I have 2x residential lines under this bandwidth (300/30 and 100/40) and not using any QoS. This is not a gaming device and no QoS will fix bad ISP anyway. I'm perhaps lucky the ISPs are quite consistent. About PPPoE + VLAN issue - I can't confirm or deny the information found online. Some say ~700Mbps, others ~900Mbps (for UCG-Ultra), there are also reports for ~700Mbps and full speed ~2.3Gbps (for UCG-Max). I guess, @Jbennett360 will let us know soon. Hopefully it works well on their ISP.

About hardware similarities between UCG-Ultra and UCG-Max - I wouldn't be surprised if the PCB for Ultra has missing components used in Max. Two SKUs for GbE and 2.5GbE applications give users a choice. Nothing to complain about $130 Ultra version.

Seems to achieve full throughput for me - which is good.

Not sure what to make of the coverage. Arguably better than having the Single AX86s running on it's own, that's for sure.

Majority of the devices upstairs can connect to 2.4ghz and are showing pretty much full strength, or a bar below, speeds aren't amazing though (30-100 down and 15-80 up - depends on the device)

If push comes to shove, I could always look at adding in a U6+ upstairs, where the current RP-AX58 is. That way, I've effectively replaced like for like.

I have noticed though that sometimes the devices do seem to randomly drop the connection? Not sure why this is, tends to be more when the device locks?

Edit: Might have solved the disconnects. Fingers crossed.

 

[Tech9]

It’s unlikely single AP to replace AP + Extender for range. All your home routers or APs are region limited to 100mW on 2.4GHz and 200mW for 5GHz non-DFS. Some mobile devices do disconnect at sleep state, you have to check the settings on the device.

 

[Jbennett360]

It’s unlikely single AP to replace AP + Extender for range. All your home routers or APs are region limited to 100mW on 2.4GHz and 200mW for 5GHz non-DFS. Some mobile devices do disconnect at sleep state, you have to check the settings on the device.

Oh yeah I totally get that, it's why it's hard to make a comparison between this setup and the previous, they aren't like for like so it's not really fair.

Will run it for a few days and see how it goes, or if there's any complaints from anyone in the house.

 

[Jbennett360]

Couple of findings, purely through testing and being curious

Samsung S23 on the old setup, could reach 600-800 pretty much all the time from a few feet away from the Wireless AP. Just tried the same thing with the U6 Pro and its 500-600. Not sure if this is normal, or something needs to be changed?

 

[Tech9]

I can see ~800Mbps on an iPhone, but in reality it doesn't matter and mobile devices have power saving features we can't control.