What's the best wired router for ~250 connected devices / clients (medium business)?

Paul-Macey

Honorable
Sep 2, 2013
3
0
10,510
Hi,

As in the title, I'm looking for opinions on the most reliable, easiest to configure router for a medium sized business. I was wondering if anyone here knew what kind of router might best fit our needs?

We run around 180 computers on a peer to peer network, and a couple of HP DL servers for DHCP and other applications.

However most computers are simply standalone administrator accounts, and we don't have a domain controller. We have a 100mb/s 1:1 contention leased line from Virgin Media that terminates a

Needless to say I work for a company that doesn't have an I.T. department, that has muddled through for years with a 'If it ain't broke...' mantra. I'm trying to change this however by slowly changing the kit to more reliable and scalable solutions as our company expands.

Recently our router (Draytek Vigor 3300V) started dropping connections, and had consistently very high CPU usage (100%). We've decided to replace this unit, as it is at the end of it's lifespan - but I've been given the task of replacing it and I'm not sure what unit to purchase.

I was looking at Cisco ISR ranges of routers, perhaps a 1900 series?

We have no real need for dedicated VoIP functionality, nor do we really need any wireless connectivity, as that's currently being taken care of by a Cisco AP541N access point, but another antenna would be a plus. Ideally a VPN service would be useful although not essential.

My only concern is that the Cisco routers seemed to require a lot of CLI setup via the IOS platform. None of us here have ever earned a CCNA or received any training and my concern is it arriving and I won't be able to configure it. Would Cisco be overkill or with the amount of connected clients here demand it? Are there any other business grade routers or appliances that will suit the need?

Thank you in advance for your replies,

Paul
 
Solution
You would think there would be a standard method to test throughput of a router. Many many routers claim huge speeds but they either ignore the fact they are doing NAT. There have been some sites that have done tests but they test with unrealistic data patterns like single sessions.

The key issue that will kill a router is lots of tiny session open for very short times. Once the entries to memory are made it is fairly straight forward for the router to just do the translations on the rest of the packets. The big time is on the first packet where it must build the table in its memory. Since web pages open many many tiny sessions it puts a burden on the router but it is nothing when you only have a small number of machines. When...

Paul-Macey

Honorable
Sep 2, 2013
3
0
10,510


Thanks legokill101, but my only concern is that model doesn't seem highly specced enough either! The Cisco site suggests a typical usages of 5-20 users...

 

Paul-Macey

Honorable
Sep 2, 2013
3
0
10,510


Definitely, if it's reliable and does the job!
 
You would think there would be a standard method to test throughput of a router. Many many routers claim huge speeds but they either ignore the fact they are doing NAT. There have been some sites that have done tests but they test with unrealistic data patterns like single sessions.

The key issue that will kill a router is lots of tiny session open for very short times. Once the entries to memory are made it is fairly straight forward for the router to just do the translations on the rest of the packets. The big time is on the first packet where it must build the table in its memory. Since web pages open many many tiny sessions it puts a burden on the router but it is nothing when you only have a small number of machines. When you start talking many 100s of users all running at the same time it can kill most routers quickly.

This is why I am surprised a $100 consumer router is screaming it can do many 100m/sec throughput and a firewall that costs many thousands of dollars says they can only do say 150m. The difference I suspect is the large vendor is saying exactly how they measured it.

This is a link from junipers small firewalls ...cisco has them also I just can't find it now

http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000281-en.pdf

They do not outright list nat performance in this table but IPSEC tends to also be very cpu intensive so it should be a good indicator.

The smaller srx boxes are in the $500 range.

Even if you were to stay with commercial cisco gear I would use a firewall rather than a router. The routers you are paying for the ability to add cards to run telco lines like DS3 or T1. This is the only reason I could ever see the routers being so expensive compared to the firewall lines and the firewalls have much higher throughput ratings.
 
Solution