ASUS RT-N16 still good for just routing?

[djoye]

My house is wired so any demanding network transfers are done over the wired network, wireless is reserved for casual stuff. This month my internet connection is eventually going to exceed 100Mbps so I need to dump my WRT54G and while I'm sure the RT-N66U is very nice, I could save $100 buying the RT-N16.

I have a gigabit switch that works great and handles all of the local traffic, I just need the router for DHCP, NAT, basic wireless connectivity, and it needs to be able to pull in over 100Mbps from the internet. So is the RT-N16 adequate for me?

 

[diizzy]

Barely at best, you're better off getting a Netgear WNDR4300/TP-Link WDR4300 or a Mikrotik router (same hardware)
//Danne

 

[Tim_H]

depends what you are running on it. smallnetbuilder has it listed at 141 Mbps

 

[djoye]

Barely at best, you're better off getting a Netgear WNDR4300/TP-Link WDR4300 or a Mikrotik router (same hardware)
//Danne

So are those all the same router? I see that the Netgear is $35 more than the TP-Link. Think I'll check out that TP-Link... ehh, maybe not. Maybe the Netgear is actually better. Looks like TP-Link might have some issues unless they've been recently worked out.

depends what you are running on it. smallnetbuilder has it listed at 141 Mbps

Whatta you mean? The firmware? Can the firmware dictate the speed; such as, if I installed something like Tomato or DD-WRT it would be capable of more efficient throughput? I wasn't aware of that site; glad you brought that to my attention. I'm checking it out.

 

[diizzy]

They use the same platform, the Netgear have more flash memory.
//Danne

 

[beersykins]

I have the RT-N16 and Time Warner's 100 mbit package, you be the judge:

 

[Electrofreak]

The throughput capability of most routers is heavily dependent upon what other services they are running. Some of the enterprise routers I manage can handle hundreds of Mbps if they're just doing static routing with no NAT, but can only manage a scant dozen or so Mbps if you're using QoS, shapers, ACLs, NAT, BGP and OSPF, SNMP, Netflow, Vlan trunking... you get the idea.

So when someone tells you that a router can handle X number of Mbps, the ultimate question is whether they're talking about maximum throughput, or throughput with all services in use.

For residential use, it shouldn't really be a problem, you're not likely to be using half the services an enterprise router would be, but I figure it's worth mentioning... someone else may use an RT-N16 and have it easily handle 100 Mbps, while you may enable a service they are not using and the router would struggle to achieve a fraction of that throughput.

 

[djoye]

I have the RT-N16 and Time Warner's 100 mbit package, you be the judge:

Jebus, dude. They need to give you guys more upstream.

The throughput capability of most routers is heavily dependent upon what other services they are running. Some of the enterprise routers I manage can handle hundreds of Mbps if they're just doing static routing with no NAT, but can only manage a scant dozen or so Mbps if you're using QoS, shapers, ACLs, NAT, BGP and OSPF, SNMP, Netflow, Vlan trunking... you get the idea.

So when someone tells you that a router can handle X number of Mbps, the ultimate question is whether they're talking about maximum throughput, or throughput with all services in use.

For residential use, it shouldn't really be a problem, you're not likely to be using half the services an enterprise router would be, but I figure it's worth mentioning... someone else may use an RT-N16 and have it easily handle 100 Mbps, while you may enable a service they are not using and the router would struggle to achieve a fraction of that throughput.

That's some good info. Now I'm curious about offloading those tasks from my router to my Synology NAS. The NAS probably has better features than my WRT54G anyway; I would use DD-WRT on the WRT54G but it couldn't handle it, heh. I could smell the router getting hot and it would choke up handling too many connections.

I would get an RT-N16 if it could handle more throughput but considering I typically stick with these devices as long as I can, I think I'll check out that Netgear so I have enough headroom in the event my internet speed significantly increases within the next 8-10 years.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

Currently rocking an RT-AC66U, granted my Internet isn't anywhere near 100+ Mb/sec.. it handles everything I need and seems to be pretty rock solid. Flashed it with DD-WRT the other day and it's been a great replacement for my WRT54G router that I used to have. (Well still do, it's just sitting under my desk now)

 

[djoye]

I ordered the Netgear WNDR4300.

These are the results before and after my internet speed increase:

Before upgrade. Comcast 50/10 + 25% with WRT54G:

62 down / 18 up

After Comcast upgraded me to 105/20 with WRT54G:

65 down / 21 up

After Comcast upgraded me to 105/20 without WRT54G / straight to modem:

111 down / 22 up

At least now I can come into the age of wireless N, even my parents had a gigabit N router before me.

 

[Electrofreak]

Yike, yeah, that 'ol Linksys is holding you back big time! I love my WNDR3700 for its power (it eats torrents all day without a hiccup), so I don't doubt your 4300 will be a beast.

 

[diizzy]

Given that its the next hardware generation of the WNDR4300 it will be
//Danne

 

[tacos4me]

for reference, i've been using a rt-n16 on my fiber here at home while i build a pfsense box.

like Electrofreak said, it will almost run 100/100 fine, but it doesn't like to do much else. just with QoS enabled, it tanks pretty hard. in that test i have nothing running on it, just a couple NAT rules.