Home networking

[wayner]

Anyone else here using Unifi for their home networking hardware? I bought a few of their WAPs a couple of years ago and I just replaced my Asus router with a Unifi USG Gateway. It is a bit more work to get configured but it gives you a lot more control over your network and excellent monitoring including DPI so you can see what is using up all of those GBs.

It also gives you very good flexibility in terms of creating separate WLANs and VLANs.

[gclayto]

I'm a big Ubiquiti fan boy! I've been using Unifi equipment for many years at my day job as an IT director for our parochial school system. I have deployed around 80 UAP access points and I'm now in the process of upgrading them to the newer UAP AC PRO units. Ubiquiti equipment competes with enterprise level equipment at consumer grade prices. The Unifi switches are very good, too and they plug right into the same web console that all of the other Unifi equipment uses.

On my home network, I went with the Edgemax router ERX and a UAP AC Lite. I paid less for this setup than I did for the Buffalo DD-WRT Wifi router that it replaced, and the performance gains were significant. Not to mention the little AP is quite sexy looking. I placed one AP in the center my 1400 sqft farm house and I have good wifi reception even outside in the yard. Dollar for dollar I don't think you can do any better. YMMV

[wayner]

I was going to go with the ER Lite router but the Unifi USG integrates better into the Unifi Controller UI.

[panteragstk]

I have a WAP the LR version to be specific. One of the best pieces of wifi equipment I've ever used. Super simple setup, great range. No dropouts. I won't go back to consumer grade equipment ever again.

I plan to grab some switches and a router, but I have a Sophos box which is VERY powerful so I'll have to figure out how to integrate the two when the time comes.

[wayner]

The controller now has a very nice dashboard as well:
https://community.ubnt.com/ubnt/atta...16_6-48-19.png

and cool DPI information:
https://i0.wp.com/dailyhypervisor.co...7/DPI_page.png

[panteragstk]

Yep. Are you using the docker for unraid? Ver nice to have all (almost all) of my server related things in one place.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

Yep. Are you using the docker for unraid? Ver nice to have all (almost all) of my server related things in one place.

Yes I am . Prior to switching my controller over I was using a very old version - this new version has much more functionality.

[KarylFStein]

I went with Ubiquity when I last upgraded my wireless. The Ubiquity WiFi stuff with the dashboard is pretty slick. I can't really compare it with my previous installs as I don't upgrade the wireless all that often so it would be apples and oranges. Certainly they were less expensive for what I like to do, (which usually involves spending extra for "pro" gear). And they blend in nicely when mounted on the ceiling so no more stuffing them in sub-optimal closet locations .

[Fuzzy]

I have a used Dell 24 port switch connected to an old Atom330 based PC (in a case made out of cardboard) with an intel dual gigabit network card on it. I run pfSense on the Atom, and haven't touched it, or even logged into the web interface in many years.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I have a used Dell 24 port switch connected to an old Atom330 based PC (in a case made out of cardboard) with an intel dual gigabit network card on it. I run pfSense on the Atom, and haven't touched it, or even logged into the web interface in many years.

I was doing exactly this - I added a second NIC to an old Dell that I got from work and installed pfSense and started playing around. I decided against using that as the power consumption would probably be a bit high and I really liked the integrated reporting that the Unifi Dashboard gives you. And for some reason I was having issues with Port Forwarding on pfSense.

The only problem with using a lower powered CPU like an Atom is that it may not be able to handle faster internet speeds. I am currently on 250/20 although it Speedtests at 320/22 and I am likely to move to 1000/50 in the near future. From what I have read on the pfSense forums you need a bit of CPU horsepower to handle gigabit WAN-LAN throughput.

[bcjenkins]

I have a Fortigate 100D for the router, Ubiquiti ES-48-500w for the LAN, and an Aruba IAP-225 for wireless.

I am waiting for fiber to come to the neighborhood. Currently getting 340/22 on my cable modem. (300/20 package)

My new server will have a 10gb NIC which the ES has two SFP+ ports.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by wayner

I was doing exactly this - I added a second NIC to an old Dell that I got from work and installed pfSense and started playing around. I decided against using that as the power consumption would probably be a bit high and I really liked the integrated reporting that the Unifi Dashboard gives you. And for some reason I was having issues with Port Forwarding on pfSense.

The only problem with using a lower powered CPU like an Atom is that it may not be able to handle faster internet speeds. I am currently on 250/20 although it Speedtests at 320/22 and I am likely to move to 1000/50 in the near future. From what I have read on the pfSense forums you need a bit of CPU horsepower to handle gigabit WAN-LAN throughput.

An Atom330 is likely still far faster than any processor found in an embedded router - in any case, I might get bumped up from 70Mpbs to possibly 120Mbps sometimes in the next few years, but I doubt it will go higher than that on the current connection anytime too soon, so the old atom (which draws next to nothing anyway) will hold out for quite some time. Back when I was first bumped up from 50 to 70, I remember checking the CPU load while grabbing full-speed from usenet (which means a tone of connections), and the cpu on the thing was running around 10%.

[UgaData]

Another Ubiquiti fan.

Other than Ubiquiti AP, I don't use the UniFi at home. I do use Edge Router-X-SFP and Edge SWitch-24-lite for my home network.

I expect to have a mix of EdgeMax and UniFi equipment at work. Already have several Rocket M2 APs (outdoors), 1-UniFi AP-Pro, 1-ES-48-lite, and 2-US-8-150Ws.

The Unifi controller is a double edge sword for me. I don't out an out dislike it, but I am not completely comfortable having to use it (exclusively) to configure any UniFi devices. I would like the option to also use a web browser to configure these devices (i.e. Open web browser, type in IP address of device, etc.).

[KryptoNyte]

Does anyone with Unify experience know if this device;

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...E&gclsrc=aw.ds

can pass Internet to the LAN port clear, without any manipulation? We have a VOIP system that needs this as the first device inside the building (VOIP port), but we would still like to put our normal router behind it for the separate LAN traffic.

[wayner]

That is the router that I use but I am not sure about your question. You might want to ask on the Unifi forums at https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-...ching/bd-p/USG and mention your specific VOIP service as there may be others that have solved this problem. You should be able to put your VOIP adapter inside the DMZ which may work or do some other configuration.

[KeithAbbott]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

Does anyone with Unify experience know if this device;

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...E&gclsrc=aw.ds

can pass Internet to the LAN port clear, without any manipulation? We have a VOIP system that needs this as the first device inside the building (VOIP port), but we would still like to put our normal router behind it for the separate LAN traffic.

I had a VOIP router in front of my home router at one point, per the VOIP company’s recommended installation. Until one night, the VOIP company pushed out an unannounced firmware upgrade, and borked all of my internet access to my entire home including VOIP. That was the last time that I allowed any equipment between my cable modem and my home router. Your VOIP company may not push firmware updates out to the router, in which case you’d probably be fine. Just thought I would share my learnings from a painful experience with others.

[KryptoNyte]

The problem right now is that the phone system is misbehaving (incoming calls are cutting out intermittently, only incoming audio), and we have the VOIP company and our Internet provider (wireless from a tower) pointing fingers at each other. So the VOIP company said that if we purchased the Unify router that might solve the problem. On the other hand, we don't want to lose the security of our current router, so the plan would be to pass Internet through the Unify to our current router without Unify affecting it.

We have tested the Internet providers wireless connection and it's continuously solid. We also have our current router configured to reserve a minimum of 4 times what the VOIP company recommends for bandwidth, so it's a head scratcher.

[JustFred]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

pass Internet to the LAN port clear, without any manipulation?

Routers, by definition, will always do SOME manipulation. A NAT router will chew on your packets more than a non-NAT router. NAT really complicates everything.

The problem right now is that the phone system is misbehaving (incoming calls are cutting out intermittently, only incoming audio)..
We also have our current router configured to reserve a minimum of 4 times what the VOIP company recommends for bandwidth, so it's a head scratcher.

The specifics of your network config (model of router, using NAT?, VOIP box model, VOIP provider's name, measured network upload/download speeds) would be helpful.

Random thoughts:
1. I gather that QOS is enabled in the primary router, but the symptoms sound suspiciously like a classic QOS issue. I'm assuming the dropouts started after placing the VOIP box behind the router.
2. If you have the luxury of multiple WAN-side IP addresses, perhaps assign one of those to the VOIP box so that VOIP traffic doesn't have to traverse the main router at all?
3. I'm guessing that you've considering placing placing the VOIP box on the router's DMZ? No guarantee that this will skirt a buggy QOS implementation in the current router.
4. I've seen issues with the NAT + ALG implementation in some older NAT routers. Temporarily try turning ALG off.

[KryptoNyte]

Thank you for all the input, folks, we'll start chasing it.