Which router can handle 1000Mbit/s WAN speed? Is there nearly a budget option around 100€ which support VLAN and IGMPv3? The IPQ80XX devices are to slow, right?
yes, all-in-one devices will be to slow.
especially if budget your best bet is:
- some cheap, used desktop pc (not atom/celeron)
- second networking card/port
- old router as wifi-ap
3 Likes
Remember that just a couple years ago a 1 Gbps line was considered enterprise-grade connectivity. It still is.
x86_64/AMD64, at least two real NICs. Four preferable if you truly want to get close to the 1000 Mbps mark, especially if they are Realtek NICs. I'd avoid no-name Chinese boxes. Something like the Hardkernel H2 would be on my list. I agree that the Atom chips are generally not a good idea, but upper-range Celeron CPUs are fine (C2000-series excluded, because of the silicon bug).
3 Likes
Pro:
- fast CPU with AES-NI support
- low power consumption
- no build-in switch and wifi
Con:
- Realtek NIC’s
- No build-in switch and wifi
2 Likes
Those are both "pros"
A proper, managed switch is generally preferred to the consumer-grade SoC-based switches, if only because they don't "bleed" at power-on. One that natively manages bonding is equally important at gigabit rates.
AFAIK, there aren't any PC-based wireless cards that support dual-band, simultaneous operation. Cheaper to buy your choice of all-in-one routers that are designed for AP operation.
4 Likes
Thank you all for the suggestions! I will see which bandwidth the ISP is providing and than chose the right device.
I read that some routers support hardware NAT with OpenWRT. Could this be a cheap solutions for bandwidths between 250-500Mbit/s? I see that I need more processing power for the 1Gbit/s Uplink.
Marvell hardware will do gigabit, like the WRT3200ACM. Most likely the espressobin board too but I haven't tested it personally. x64-64/AMD64 is probably a better choice in the long run however but that's above 100 EUR.
archer c7 still does the job, with flow offload and overclock 930Mbps reached easily
1 Like
Meaning it can hardware-NAT that rate, correct?
My experience with Archer C7v2 units is that they can't process much more than a few hundred Mbps, such as for SQM or packet inspection.
Edit: If I were in the UK, I'd have bought one of those EA6350 units as a backup for my EA8300s. Can't buy a used Archer C7 for that price, and the Archer C7 isn't worth that either.
2 Likes
no hw-NAT driver is available, instead we utilise flow offload (hwNAT only in stock fw). that gives about 800Mbps(sometimes less sometimes more depending on code revision), do the overclock and get full speed
1 Like
Is it correct then that, by doing so, the packet flow is not going through the CPU so that SQM and/or packet inspection is not possible?
wouldn't know that. wired ethernet is not my main point of interest 
i'd expect you guys already tried that in this year or so - since flow offload existed
... easily barely
(in germany) there are a lot of businesses that would probably make a human sacrifice if it would get them 1gig line to their office, while at the same time cable companies sell it to consumers (in residential areas) for <100e/mon.
strange times
1 Like
There is a lot of devices that can NAT 1 Gbit, starting with IPQ40xx.
SQM is not needed for most of users.
OP didn't mention VPN and/or SQM requirement. Bare NAT is easy now.
Good to know! So I can provide one of my IPQ40xx devices for testing the speeds! VPN is not necessary (at full speed). Normal firewalling and NAT is enough. Thanks.
is that so?
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.42.43.1, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.221 port 38688 connected with 10.42.43.1 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 112 MBytes 937 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 112 MBytes 937 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 113 MBytes 945 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 9.0-10.0 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 10.0-11.0 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 11.0-12.0 sec 113 MBytes 945 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 12.0-13.0 sec 112 MBytes 944 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 13.0-14.0 sec 112 MBytes 936 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 14.0-15.0 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 15.0-16.0 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 16.0-17.0 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 17.0-18.0 sec 112 MBytes 943 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 18.0-19.0 sec 111 MBytes 934 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 19.0-20.0 sec 111 MBytes 930 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 0.0-20.0 sec 2.19 GBytes 940 Mbits/sec
For instance NBG6617 NATs 1Gbit at full speed. Wireguard tops up the CPU at 300 Mbps.
That seems unusually high for being LAN-WAN (including NAT) unless you're using some kind of fork, MT7621 doesn't even come near that and that's a dual core solution with higher clocks (1004kc vs 74kc but still).