Your review is slightly one-sided. What in the world is that thing doing that it needs a dual core, 1.8 ghz processor? The website makes me feel like I just walked into best buy and am having their upsale tactics shoved down my throat to meet their margins. Too many bells and whistles that I don't understand the need for in my opinion. They took a router and turned it into an Alienware gaming device.
Salzburg reviews quieres ser mi novio di que si fiel admirador pocket wifi r206 review and herald transmisie cvt toyota sreesanth symonds fight.
I didn't see (easily) any specs on their site, just a lot of 'high tech' graphics and fancy words. I'm sure the router gets the job done, but plenty of other less fancy routers do as well with more bang for your buck. I'm probably running similar specs (lower WiFi type but that varies anyways by client and environment) at a third of that's things power consumption. Also important is that all of the fancy talk of network speeds and the underlying reference per Asus, '. Quoted network speeds and bandwidth based on current IEEE 802.11ac specifications. ' Nearly every manufacturer has a wireless AC router these days. I don't see any reference to memory and can't find any benchmark network tests to support all of their info, but navigating that site was painful so I might have missed it.
Keep in mind your VPN needs to also support those speeds and as Asus even says, 'actual speeds will vary based on environment.' Anyways, thanks for the option and your opinion, but from what I know, that thing certainly doesn't get classified as 'the best router out there.' Especially for folks running pfsense or other standalone firmware on their i386 devices they have lying around.
You're paying a lot for Asus hardware to reflash another firmware. I'd grab a cheaper router if you're headed that direction, but otherwise entirely agree to get off of Asus' proprietary OS! What 'review'? I stated one fact that it is probably the best vpn router out there if you want more than about 40mb.and you go off on a complete tangent babbling about ac and 'upsale tactics' Your very first question in your first line is clearly answered in the post you are replying to.its doing vpn encryption (as well as QoS and anything else you want to throw at it). If you don't want a decent router, go pay $50 for some cheap crap that can't be customised with new firmware, struggles to get 10mb from a vpn, and has the processing power of a pocket calculator.
Or spend hours faffing about with pfsense if that's your thing, for the other 99% of people this router is currently the fastest you will get for openvpn and is right up there with the best consumer routers regardless of the vpn capability, Asus are very well known for making very good routers and this is one of the best (and I don't even own it!). TLDR; touche, I entirely misread your closing comments and directed myself on a tangent away from your point. Not to mention it was early and the coffee didn't kick in. Entirely my bad. Hey, I know I'm late to respond but I wasn't home over the weekend and well, life. I saw your response and thought, 'man, how was I so misunderstood?' Then I reread and wondered how the heck I got off on such a tangent.
I think I missed your qualifier, '. Best router FOR VPNs. And thought, 'best router, 'hands down'? What is this thing? ' and then started researching and lost myself in the features.
Anyways, thanks for calling me out on it. I also reset my own expectations of my system. I hadn't put my vpn client on my router in years and after reading this and forcing myself to relearn the config, realized how cpu intensive it was. I never ran but a subgroup of my traffic through and therefore didn't notice the performance hit. I certainly can see how if that's how you're routing everything how important it is.
Regardless, thanks for the response. I have an HD Homerun as well and think I might be able to assist. I found two things which might be causing your issue that I'm currently dealing with. First, and possibly the easiest thing to correct is, I had my HD Homerun set up directly on my network shelf and it seemed to be picking up a lot of interference from the various other equipment in the area.
(Switch, Data server, phone PBX, etc.) I set up a steel box for the HD Homerun to act as a Faraday cage. The signal is pretty good now, but I should be able to get a few more channels. The second issue and I'm waiting to get the equipment to correct it, is that my HD Homerun seems to pick up LTE signal. Adding an LTE filter or what I'm doing is adding an inline preamp with LTE filtering. I'm not certain if new TVs come with a built-in LTE filter now and the Homerun does not have one?
I'm considering making a post with my set up. I should have the preamp today and be able to get it all set-up tonight.
While I didn't consider the other devices for interference, I could see that could also contribute. I'm in a similar boat but changed things while troubleshooting so server, switch, etc were not near the device. My HDHR was sitting on top of things initially and it had gotten terribly hot. I have a setup that allows me to set it aside without causing too many problems. However, I was next worried about the electrical lines it crosses in my utility area. The other house lines do the same but I wasn't sure if I'd have to route them around. I'm pretty sure I need to keep the lines perpendicular to reduce interference but when nothing was working I questioned whether I had anything correct.
Good point on amplifying interference. The amplifier had been used for so long with no issues I didn't even question it.
Can you use separate network interfaces for management and virtual machine traffic? You shouldn't need to but it may resolve your issue. I found it easy to mangle the default config such that the web interface would break but otherwise network would be normal. I found more exciting ways to resolve my issues (LACP) but an intermediate step was to configure another bridge on a separate interface to use for virtual machine traffic - leaving the default bridge strictly for management (webUI / SSH) traffic.
I think this is solved now although the specific item is unclear to me. To summarize, it was NOT a proxmox-specific issue, or anything with the hardware/drivers.
It was (of course) a configuration issue on the network interface for proxmox as well as, I presume, my mikrotik router/switch. Here's the summary of what I changed, but for reference of why, I used this proxmox network info:. I have only one network cable plugged into my server. The default configuration for proxmox is to use a bridge. This seems to be one of the sources of the problem.
I changed to the routed configuration they identify, with the exception of the ips that were changing on my end for a 10.0.0.0/8 type of IP on both interfaces, eth0 and vmbr0. Both now have their own unique IPs on the same subnet.
Mikrotik/router/switch configuration - I had the port included in my local bridge using DHCP and had assigned the proxmox MAC a static IP. I changed this to assign a subnet to the port and removed DHCP for static ips only. Restarting the server just to be certain, everything has been relatively stable without notice of any other issues (yet).
![Through Through](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125464495/755574503.png)
Marking 'solved' - thanks a lot - I really do appreciate that you took the time to respond. If you have any other tips or ideas based on what you've setup/seen, please let me know.
EDIT - formatting. I think you're onto it. I noticed that when the outage would happen, I could locally curl the console directly from the host on the public ip. So the proxmox service is fine. I started looking into removing the default bridge and setup routing in case if multiple MACs against the ip would be the problem, but that didn't seem to fix anything (yet). I may not be doing it correctly, but I removed the container so I don't have any virtual hosts setup and it's still happening. Any input as to how to configure the network interface, specifically?
Thanks for the input, really appreciate it!