I would pay for this extra speed, now the how much....would have to see the full picture. If (hypothesis) the device with 1gbps ports is 170€ and the one with 2.5gbps is 200€ doesn't need too much thought to pick the 2.5gbps. But if we are talking about 50€ or even more....then maybe a model with just the 2 10gbps would seem better 😂
as i said on previous video i dont see a reason why to have a 2.5GbE if its not like a free (no losses thing, maybe if it replaced 1 GbE ports as it could still server as management but its a poor upgrade choice) since there are 2 SFP+ 10Gbps cages which can with simple modules be turned into any 1GbE and up rj-45 or SFP. also i do not understand why use 2.5GbE port anyway when most home networks from router to core switch can easily be covered by single SFP+ cage and at that speed its very likely that incoming wire will eb fiber which makes RJ-45 port kinda useless as fiber will work with SFP+ much better
@@bigpodi agree ... if you need more flexibility you can always add a switch and utilize a couple of vlans to create more ports ... if posible add a nother 10ge port instead for added bandwith for the trunk, and let people split it into 1, 2.5 or whatever themself 🙂
I think using a PCIe based solution would miss the point of using that specialized SoC‘s capabilities. Rather keep the 10GbE SFP+ Ports since most 2.5GbE Switches have 1 or 2 SFP+ ports too and you’d have to do way less on the software side when it comes to drivers and such.
I like the original idea of the 2 SFP+ and 2 1G ports, all using the SoC's infrastructure. A switch connected to the SFP+ ports can provide 2.5G if needed.
That's exactly what I was thinking. 10gb SFP+ to 2.5gb switches are like 60 bucks these days. Dont over complicate the router for 1x 2.5gb port for the same cost that a switch with 5-6 ports will have.
@@Allhopeforhumanity popular options on amazon: $65 = 1x10G, 8x2.5G (uses a 10G port) $45 = 2x10G, 4x2.5G (uses a 10G port, but gives you another for chaining) the total bandwidth is reduced by a whopping 1.5G by not having a 2.5G port on the router, which is not super noticeable with 10G downlink, and you can get more 2.5G ports for around the same price IF you want/need them
My thoughts exactly. This is a router not a switch. Your internal devices don't need a dedicated 2.5GbE connection to the router. WAN -> Router 10GbE Port 1 (if you have greater than 1GbE WAN) -> 10GbE Port 2 -> LAN Switch with SFP+.
It would make more sense to have two SFP+ ports for the 10Gb ones. That way you can do DAC, Fiber, 10Gbe, 5Gbe, 2.5Gbe, 1Gbe, etc. Whatever SFP+ module you want, you use.
I'd drop the 2.5G as long as the 2 SFP+ ports stay. As someone else said, maybe do something like the lenovo mini PC's. Allow users to connect a separate ethernet port if they'd like
Whatever the verdict. I definitely like the approach of asking your audience. Hopefully, some other IT TH-camrs can share their thoughts in the comments
@@KennyMacDermid it's a balancing act. I want to hear what people have to say, but ultimately, it's my decision to do what feels right with all the information on hand. Time will then tell whether it was the right one.
Since the router will have dual SFP+ just allow customers to buy a cheap SFP+ to 2.5GbE adapter. They are about 15-20 euros. You could even offer to put one in their shipment on your store by getting a good deal in bulk from a supplier.
I'll be super happy with two SFP+ ports already. Anything more is really a bonus tbh. I'll just be sad it's not gonna be available for me to deploy when I have to set up a network in early summer
Not all SPF+ implementations can be adapted to multi-speed variants such as 2.5GbE or 5GbE. However, it is backward compatible with SPF modules at 1Gbs. For example, my managed switch only supports 10GbE on the SPF+ ports. Is the port on this router compatible with multi-speed SPF+ transceivers?
@@viaujocI've found that it may be cheaper/less problematic to buy a cheap 2.5gbe switch with sfp+ and cover it with a dac. If you allow Chinese devices on your network, one can give very affordable switches that might cost less than a 2.5gbe transceiver module and unlike it will definitely work
I think having a SoC specialised and with hardware acceleration enabled router is much more important than using PCIE to add 2.5 GbE interface. I rather have two 10GbE SFP+ interfaces, which I can add to a switch, than having a 2.5GbE interface. I would rather buy a 2.5GbE switch - as I remember mikrotik has published a latest switch with multigig capabilities.
Hi Tomaž / @tomazzaman, not sure if you're checking comments but the E slot does not require 2 PCIe x1 lanes. It can be wired that way but not all manufacturers use it wire the slots up that way. I actually made the change to the table to try to clarify that back in late 2022. You could potentially add an additional PCIe lane to you implementation if you wanted.
Hell Yeah!! CCIE here. Can 10G ports run natively at 5 and 2.5? Or are they SFP+? Got cable modem yesterday and it only supports 2.5Gbe. That means to use a 10gig SFP+ port, have to buy converter that is like $170. Or I can only get about get 950mbps of the 1400 mbps or 2000 mbps Comcast currently provides with a 1Gig. Now, a few modern cable modems come with 2 ports and LACP. Not sure if your 1Gig ports will support LAG/Etherchannel/LACP … but the 2.5gbps cable modem costs $130, and dual one gig LACP cable modem costs $300. As network engineers, we know a LAG of only supports multi-stream 1 gig, while a true 2.5Gbe supports native stream up to 2.5Gbps. Thus 2.5 just makes sense in the USA, as Comcast is the largest residential ISP, Spectrum and Cox (the other big ones), will all support over 1Gig with Ethernet handoffs, not SFP+. Thanks!
I'm voting for keeping the 2x 10g and 3x 1g original config. Use a SFP+ DAC cable and connect to a switch with 2.5g ports. Much more flexible and use VLANs to segregate the traffic there . Maybe sell a bundle with a switch like this and an AP?
I seem to be in the minority but my use case a 2.5 gbe Port is useful as a WAN. Around here if you want multigig internet with Comcast your options are either LACP or 2.5gbe. If the sfp+ port can negotiate down to 2.5 gbe that may be an option but I personally found many sfp+ ports which won't run 2.5 gbe even with an adapter and instead not working at all or dropping to 1 gbe.
For where I'd use a box like this, I would be happy with 2*10 and 2*1: This allows me to build either fault tolerance on the WAN, or backup WAN, and fault tolerance on the LAN side. A single 2.5G port is okay if all you have is a single AP, but I have many, and they are PoE, so I need to have them hanging off of (vlan tagged) switches anyway. I would be far more interested in having space for doing packet captures than onboard wifi - Where the router is, and where the APs are, for a network that warrants a 10GbE capable router, is usually different. This is from viewing this more as a business/network admin's home/enthusiast-box, and not a cheapest-isp-cpe-solution.
There's one more option: To use key E socket and put 2.5gbe card into there. But that means there needs to be a hole for the port in the back of the router, just like Lenovo Tiny's have. I just bought 2 of those E-socket ports and I will be testing them soon in my Lenovos. I think I paid ~12€ each from AliExpress including shipping..
Most ppl interested are going to have 10gbe networks, with managed switches, 1gbe and 2.5gbe clients will be downstream. That said a 2.5gbe or even 5gbe port for wan would seriously future proof this device and make it very flexible indeed. My main interest is this device is that it can route between networks (vlans) at 10gbps using the sfp+ cages. Sounding interesting so far, good luck 👍
The more recent cable modems have a 2.5Gbps port. If the 10Gbps ports are not NBASE-T (i.e. they only do 10 or 1Gbps, and not 2.5 or 5 Gbps) then those cable modems will connect at 1Gbps to the router. Which is only an issue if you pay for a plan that's 1Gbps or more, like Comcast's 1.2Gbps plan. However, there are relatively inexpensive switches with a handful of 2.5Gbps ports and a 10Gbps uplink port, which is a workaround (i.e. Translates between the cable modem's 2.5Gbps and the router's 10Gbps port). Some of those switches support VLANs, so you could turn that single 10Gbps port into 4 x 2.5Gbps ports, isolated on individual VLANs. So I think it's reasonable to skip the 2.5Gbps port onboard, particularly if it would bypass the hardware-accelerated packet processing. The external 2.5/10Gbps switch is a solution for those who find themselves in that specific set of circumstances (modem with 2.5Gbps port, plan >1Gbps).
Can't you just put another M.2 E-Type Socket on the board but wired in PCIe 1x1? (Or maybe have a switch/BIOS option to disable one of the sockets/reroute the lanes to the other socket for a full PCIe 1x2?) That way people could just plug in a M.2 2.5GbE card at full speed or both it and WiFi at reduced speed after the fact, if someone wants to do that, i've seen a lot of people mention they would like to have a cut-out in the case so they could plug such a card in themselves if they chose to do so, all without impeding the 1GbE supply correct? I would love to know what you think about this approach since technically you don't have to increase the cost compared to including the 2.5GbE phy in the first place unless i missed something.
Frankly, with a good switch and VLAN support, I think just 2x 10gig would be more than enough, especially if NIC teaming and VLANs can be used on top. If anyone wants the 2.5 port, there needs to be a justified actual use case for it beyond "bigger number go brrrr", especially if you have to sacrifice hardware acceleration to achieve it.
Well, one good and possibly common enough use case is ISP + switch + NAS, that makes 3 high speed devices. Another one is a home server, if you have a server that should be accessible form the internet in your home/office instead of renting a VPS, then you might need a third high speed port. Yes, those devices might be connected via a switch, but they both might need package filtering so connecting directly to router would be better (and faster).
I love the name of the product!!! Something that maybe a lot of people forget is this is a router, not a switch; keep cost down with the two SFP+ ports and *maybe* another copper port for easy management. Also please consider adding a M.2 for NVMe storage even if only connected with 1x PCIe lane.
I’d want two M.2 for mirrored boot drives. Wouldn’t matter whether they were SATA or NVMe But unless you’re talking about DNS, DHCP, or other similar services that run within the routing/firewall software, I’d rather have any other services running elsewhere. I like to let my router route, my NAS serve files, and everything else run on a virtualization host of some sort. YMMV Edit: A console port would be very nice to have.
@@vladconutI wouldn't recommend running docker directly on your router. Docker has a ton of security issues and from my experience running it on anything that is not behind a firewall is just asking for trouble. We had servers hacked many times due to docker messing with linux firewall and disabling security rules. There is even a well known bug that docker (the company) does not want to fix due to "compatibility", where if you set docker to run only on one network interface it will sometimes ignore that rule depending on how you started your container. TLDR: Don't run docker on your router.
M.2 slot doesn't have to implement all pcie lanes, just one is enough unless you want more speed. And since you aren't likely to require more than 8 Gbps of bandwidth for your router - it's not a NAS - you can get away with implementing just a single pcie lane in the port. Infact a lot of embedded systems do just that.
I wanted to say that, Also you don't need to implement all the other interfaces. There is one gotcha, though: some devices like eg. intels network/bluetooth combo cards use both lanes since they are just 2 separate devices on a single board.
Hey there, I understand if you disagree, but I really think it's important to consider how your device integrates into a network setup. In terms of future-proofing without inflating costs, here's what I suggest: incorporating 2x 2.5G (or 5G if bandwidth allows) and 2x SFP+ 10G ports as the ones you already have. Here's why: 1) With internet speeds exceeding 1Gbps in many countries, this setup accommodates a WAN connection via 2.5G or one of the SFP ports, if your provider supports direct connectivity. 2) The second 2.5G port provides flexibility for direct device connections, be it a switch or a tool for network management and debugging. 3) The additional SFP+ port allows seamless integration with a modern switch's uplink. Since users of a robust router like this likely have a switch for their devices, the flow would be: Internet > (2.5G or SFP+ 1) Your Router > (SFP+ 2) Switch > (Switch's port) Devices. 4) Having 4 gigabit ports would limit both high-speed internet reception and device connections. It's redundant to have two SFP+ 10G ports if the uplink is only 1Gbps, or to have gigabit ports if SFP+ ports suffice for the uplink and switch. It just doesn't add up in my opinion.
Upgrading from a 1GbE port to a 2.5GbE port doesn't seem worthwhile to me, given that I already have a connection at home that's faster than gigabit. However, transitioning to a 5Gb port would turn it into the ideal router for me. Having a 5Gb port for WAN while still retaining two 10G ports (perhaps even with the potential for link aggregation) is the router of my dreams. I'm not particularly concerned about the 1G ports, though they could prove useful for "miscellaneous" APs, such as a separate IoT network or similar setups. Equipping it with 2xSFP for LAN usage and 5G for WAN usage (I'm not sure if we've discussed potential software options yet, but most open-source or advanced router software can accommodate such configurations) would, in my opinion, make it extremely future-proof. I'm unsure about the price disparity between 5GbE and 2.5GbE, but in my humble opinion, 5GbE would make more sense, especially if it can operate in a 2.5GbE mode as well.
At those speeds I would imagine the infrastructure is already fiber (for WAN) and it makes more sense to go directly into the SFP+ cage with an optical transceiver rather than having another device to go from fiber to copper just to use the copper port.
@@vladconut You're absolutely right. It would make much more sense to go directly into an SFP+ port. Unfortunately, my ISP thinks differently. When I attempted to bypass their device using a GPON transceiver, they contacted me within 2 business days, stating that their monitoring showed something was wrong with their device and they would replace it. When I explained about the GPON module, I was redirected to someone else who informed me that this goes against the Terms of Service (ToS) and if I don't use their hardware, they will terminate my contract. So, yes, it would be much more sensible to connect directly to an SFP port, but regrettably, it's not something my ISP allows or tolerates.
Remember that your firmware can allow multiple Serdes configs on the same hardware. For example, you could allow a software-downgrade to mode 2233 on serdes 1 to allow people to plug in 2.5 Gbit SFPs into the 10Gbit/s SFP+ Ports if they have no 10Gbit infrastructure - usually, this is pin-compatible or requires minimal change to the pcb for dual use compatibility
(although probably less sensible overall,) the same could be done for SATA - move the M.2 to RX2/3 on the second serdes, and also route rx3 to a SATA Port, now the user can choose between using the M.2 at x2 or the SATA port and M.2 at only x1 - although here it will require a bit of extra hardware and good communication so users don't think they'll be able to use both, so that might not be worth it
I saw that top comment in the previous video, very soon after the video went live. I assume it's a "give me all the ports" mentality. However 2.5GbE is an extremely new implementation on AP's. I personally wouldn't waste such a high speed port on the theoretical max speed of a WiFi AP, but if that was the use case then PoE would definitely become a must have too. Considering it's powered over USB-C PD, that could ad additional complexity. More to the point, many people (myself included) like power efficiency. And if it's going to add more CPU overhead, I would say "Keep it simple stupid" But that's just me
I definitely agree with you on pretty much everything. I just wanted to entertain the idea since so many people voiced their opinion in favor of the 2.5GbE port.
I disagree, as I just moved my whole network to 2.5gbe with fsp+ option if I ever find time to drill some holes for the new wires. All the moderately priced motherboards and mini PCs already come with an 2.5 gig port. Also my wireless routers are now using 2.5 gig link, not to mention switches I bought for ~30€ pcs. So for me the choice is either to get sfp+ modules for 2.5 gigs, or have those built into the device, or to use M.2 E-key card for it. I think the last one would be the cheapest option if there would be a hole in the back for the extra port.
@@mahagr78 There's definitely an argument to be had on both sides. There's certainly nothing wrong with adopting the newest technology. I'm glad you mentioned the M.2 E-key as I was wondering about that. I know you can break it out to PCIe on the normal M.2 but I wasn't sure if there was a direct 2.5 GbE module. I recently bought Google TPU (M.2 E-key) after watching the Hardeware Haven video about them. He showed a SATA module too but I wasn't sure about 2.5 GbE. I would just presume, if I went full 2.5 GbE, then I would be using a switch for it. Unless that traffic needed to be routed
@DanielVidz The card was a bit tight fit for the Lenovo Tiny m710q, but I was able to insert the module and fit it to the serial/VGA port slot in the back. The nic is showing up in kernel logs as "r8169 0000:02:00.0 enp2s0: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control rx/tx". Also my router sees it correctly as 2.5 gig adapter. Now I just need to properly configure it in proxmox... But yes, I think the best option here is to use an optional M.2 card and just drill the holes needed for both wifi antennas and an ethernet port. In that way, people can easily decide if they need wifi, 2.5 gbe or something else. Then just provide people the options to choose between those (or none).
The more I think of it, I would not include 2.5 GbE. I would instead have that M.2 slot and make sure that both Wifi and 2.5 GbE works with it and maybe sell those modules as extra options. You can buy 2.5G switch for 30-40€ and hook it up with 10G sfp+ for another 15€. Or you can buy M.2 A+E key RTL8125B card for 12-15€. To me both of those options make far more sense than raising the price for everyone to get just one extra port, which may or may not get used. 4x 2.5G + 2x 10G port switch and ftp+ cable = +45€ or M.2 RTL8125B card = +15€ or everyone pays 40€ for a single port
Wouldnt you be able to sell a seperate version for those interested that comes pre-shipped with a pcie 2.5g port adapter and respective mounting point / cutout in the case? This way you don't lose hardware acceleration but can still offer a 2.5g port for those that want it. You could even have just one / the same case for everyone, but just have a cover for the unused 2.5g port. This way if somebody wanted to upgrade down the line, they could add it themselves (And you could sell the module for it seperately)
Awesome video and enjoying this series a bunch! I have a tiny grammar correction for you, but I’m mostly posting it to sympathise with how hard English must be to learn. Around 9:50, you say “the good news don’t end there”. Despite etymologically coming from the plural of “new”, “news” is singular, so you have to say “the good news doesn’t end there”. English is a silly language sometimes. Struggled slightly to word this, it’s more me being a linguistics nerd than me trying to correct your grammar, the meaning was obvious from the words you said.
Hi Tomaz. Question and idea: AQC115 is 2.5GbE single port. Why you should waste these PCe 3.0 2x lanes just for one 2.5GbE port? Yes, is increasing the price of the router a little bit, but adding a PCIe 3.0 switch on 2x lanes or even PCIe 2.0 x2 lanes and distribute to 2x or even 3x 2.5GbE PCIe NICs can be a solution: PCIe 2.0 switch 2x lanes has a bandwidth of 1000MB/s (8Gbps) and 3x2.5GbE should have about 937.50MB/s (7.5 Gbps). Also if you use a PCIe 3.0 switch you can use some additional lanes for other devices. Or in my opinion you should optimize the full number of ports like this: 2x10GbE and 3x1GbE interfaces using SerDes1 0x1133 and SerDes2 0x5A59 or 0x5A06. In this case you will have 3x1GbE interfaces + 2x 10GbE via DPAA and additionally you can add a PCIe switch Gen3 to add 2x 2.5GbE interfaces which obviously will not go through DPAA. But PCIe 3.0 1x can handle 7.880 Gbps bandwidth which is more than enough to use for example 2x 2.5GbE interfaces via only one PCIe 3.0 lane shared via a PCIe switch. I don't understand why to waste PCIe 3.0 x2 on a single 2.5GbE chip. In SerDes2 0x5A59 also enables you one SATA if you need.
I was skeptical when you said you weren’t even planning to support wifi, because of the dozens of devices I have, my Raspberry Pi is the only one with an ethernet port (making the 2.5g vs 1g question irrelevant to me). I’m really pleased with your slotted approach, though… this could be the best-value router (ever) if it has the ability to be upgraded over time with new wireless modules. It sounds like you’re doing a great job of evaluating the trade-offs and finding ways of being price-competitive. I hope you can sell the router both with and without the wireless card so that people can opt in if they need it or can buy “verified compatible”modules and upgrades from you in the future
I already have a different solution in this performance class.. However based on the previous video picking the CPU based on a 7 year support window without change, I can only say that 1Gbe interfaces will look ancient once WiFi 7 has been the most common WiFi type for years (Thinking 2 years into the future from now). I think most users however will just be able to use the SFP+ ports with a switch to deal with this. Alternative configuration idea.. Make the SFP+ ports SPF+ OR 10GBe.. IE you have 4 physical interfaces but can only use one or the other for each "port". 10GBe SFP+ modules tend to be very hot so for those that want 2.5/5/10Gbe use but not SFP+ this could be a good compromise. You can see this done on a number of 10GBe switches these days like the QNAP qsw-m2108r-2c. This might be a cheaper way to have greater than 1GBe ethernet ports on the device.
What type of interface will the 10Gbps ports be? SFP+ or RJ45? In both cases you can just connect it to a 2.5Gbps switch right? I don't see the need for a dedicated 2.5Gbps port, just skip it.
I would vote, but I'm not currently in the market for a router. I watch your videos to gain some small understanding of what it takes to bring a product to market. In this, you're doing a great job!
You could also let the 2.5gbit be an optional extra over the m2 slot. Yes, the user had to decide between WiFi or 2.5gbit Ethernet. With an “optional” module that you can insert in the m2 slot and a provision for the optional Ethernet port in the case you might have the most flexible solution. The cost of making the provision for the Ethernet jack in the housing should be less than the cost of including the 2.5gbit port in the base board. This would give you 2x10gbit, 4x 1gbit and optional 2.5/5gbit Ethernet or m.2 WiFi.
I would appreciate a 2.5Gb port for WAN connectivity and would be prepared to pay for this feature. While it's still very uncommon for ISPs to offer gigabit speeds in Europe, it's not the case across the Atlantic, and Unifi have understood this very well. So, to sum up, what I'm looking for: - 1 x 2.5Gb: WAN - 1x 1Gb: another LAN (or a wan failover, with reduced bandwidth, but this is for temporary failover) - 1 x 1Gb: Management LAN - 2 x 10Gb SFP+: uplink to layer 2 switches (much cheaper) configured in LACP (Link Aggregation). These can be POE+(+) so no need for POE out on your router. - On the software side, compatibility with PFSense, please. In fact, you may succeed where Netgate failed with its 4200 model (which lacks both SFP+). Also, do you intend to publish the performance that can be expected in routing thanks to this CPU (as Netgate does)? Thank you and good luck with your project. I'm following it closely...
Having a 2.5Gbit port is always nice, but this is quite the drawback. And replacing all 1Gbit with 2.5 would make the whole thing cost a whole lot more. That makes me wonder now though... if it is an issue of mix and match, would there be a huge problem with compatibility if you just axed the three 1 gig ports and replaced them with three 2.5 gig ports? I'd wager that's not the case. Quite the conundrum. That being said... I think the 10Gbit can easily handle anything with 2.5 gig capability, and you can use switches to have more devices (albeit they'll need to be better switches). So maybe not having a 2.5 gig port natively is not that big of a deal.
5 gbit/s or 2.5 Gbit/s yes. I already have 4 Gbit/s fiber at home (so... maybe a good WAN port?). EDIT: SFP is also fine instead of 10Gbit/s UTP. EDIT EDIT: Nevermind, maybe I don't need those 1 gbit, 5 or 2.5 gbit/s ports. It could be that my media converted can be connected to SFP+ port via a SFP Transceiver Module. And then I will add 10Gb/s switch behind the router. Does that make sense?
RTL8372N are like $10 and have 2xXFI and 4x2.5G ports, if the SoC supports the Realtek DSA modes you get all the ports you want and proper interfaces on the os side.
I have super simple homelab with opnsense running in a proxmox VM, but I’m se fascinated by the design process and all the videos you are putting out that I’m definitely buying one of these as soon as they become available. Such a cool project. I just hope you’ll ship to Canada so I can buy one! As for my opinion! I don’t think it’s worth it. The 10 gbps ports are fine!!
Absolutely, add a 5 gig. Or, have it and the 2.5 gig as optional add ons for a “made to order” approach, I will definitely be buying the 5 gig option though. Out of curiosity (or cause I just forgot) are you adding the ability for a cable hookup or will it just need a media converter for the people stuck with one ISP?
If it really came down to it, I think I'd be alright adding an SFP+ module that can negotiate at the various NBASE-T speeds to the router's included SFP+ port. I don't think the price increase is worth the very slight reduction in functionality, especially if that locks out access to the PCD part of the silicon. You could also (potentially? I'm not speaking from experience here but from what I've seen in the videos already) very slightly increase power efficiency if packets can all be processed by the same core, leaving the other cores open for other tasks. Maybe it would be worth experimenting with this. I have absolutely no personal nuanced experience and I am by no means an expert, but gosh darnit if I paid for the whole silicon and all those features? I'm gonna USE the whole silicon and all those features!
Awesome video, awesome presentation and research as always! Honestly i don't see the issue with not including 2.5gig. This is a router, not a switch. if someone REALLY needs 2.5 gig, (which isn't a lot of people, because anyone who wants high speed NAS access or high speed between PCs in general will use 10gig and everything else like WAPs or cameras or whatever all use 1gig.) there are plenty of switches with one sfp+ 10gig port for communication with the router and a bunch of 2.5 gig ports for all the devices. Just adding needless expenses and complexity to an already premium product seems rather pointless to me for such a niche usecase.
My WAN is 2+Gbps. And I'd be bonding those 10Gb ports to my core switch. And no, I'm not running my WAN through my switch (for various reasons)... So having a 2.5/5 for WAN would be a make or break for me on this. OR have more than x2 10Gb SFP+ so we can use a transceiver and have more options as ISP's offer higher speeds. Just my 2cents 😉 Either way, i hope this is successful, it just might not be the one for me and I'll stick with my (power hogging) DIY setup.
In my target setup the router/firewall will be connected to an managed switch with one or both (LACP) 10G (SFP+) ports while using VLAN's I need 1 or 2 additional [Slow] NIC's, 1 for "High availability Sync" to the second router, and 1 for management (optional). (even 100M will be enough) So personally i don't care about a "faster then 1G" port.
Pozdrav iz susjedne Hrvatske. Svaka čast na projektu, moje mišljenje je da je 2x10G i 2x1G i više nego dovoljno. Ako nekome baš i treba 2.5G uvijek se može staviti neki switch i povezati ga optikom ili DAC kabelom na ruter. U svakom slučaju ću kupiti ruter jednom kada je dostupan. Da napokon nešto nije made in China.
A faster third port could be great for implementing a DMZ for home usage or a guest network. Self-Hosting should be a typical use case especially in the target audience for such a router. A layer-2-switch could split the 10 GbE ports as required to supply more connection options, but configuration of a DMZ would require looking for specific VLAN capabilities again, driving up the cost immensely. I think having a more powerful third port would drastically increase the use cases for the router, but I‘d be interested in hearing other takes on this, if someone would like to comment. It‘s unfortunate that this would undermine the specialized SoC by necessitating PCIe though.
@@Luniii737 I can understand that, but apart from the increased costs, the drawbacks only relate to the upgraded port, so unless the three 1 GbE ports are all budgeted in one‘s setup, the drawbacks would only affect those who wish to use the port. I don’t like to rely on VLANs for segregation in home setups - for one, they need more expensive hardware, and they are less secure than physical ports, even though most known exploits can be mitigated. I think having another capable port for a different network directly on the router would really future-proof the device.
Same for me dual sfp+ the 2.5 I get it people want for AP’s but that’s pointless without PoE. I’d rather some extra go towards supporting PoE in or alt power. Also FYI the OSI layer model you use is the obsolete 7 layer one that never became anything. TCP/IP and packet switching won that war and OSI was reorganized to the 5 layer model that represents networking as we know it so they could salvage some of the effort they had put in.
Yeah do it, 2.5GB is the way to go, here in Portugal there are already 10gpbs connection for 100euro a month for private individuals. So 2.5Gbps is the least, 1gbps is to old, especially if your using this for Vlans or other
other question: which SFP modules does it support? often devices with 10 gbit/s sfp ports support up to 10 gbit/s meaning they often support sfp tranceiver with lower bandwidth as well, so does your router maybe support 2.5 gbit/s rj45 sfp modules? then you would even dont need a 10 gbit/s switch for getting the 2.5 gbit/s ports and also dont need the extra 2.5 gbit/s port but if multispeed is not supported with these sfp ports then I would prefer to even have one extra 10 GBase-T multispeed port using the Marvell AQC113 chip
WIth this explaination you did I guess 2 x SFP+ will do, and we'll see if we need the 1 gbps. I will just connect the router to my switch. just try to make it so it does not overheat when using 2 x 10 gbe SFP modules if someone can't use fiber modules or DAC cables. After all you can make 10 Gbe ethernet ports using SFP+ but not the other way around.
Well I mean you could get sata to pcie host ic But yeah SATA sux, also added cost. Someone is determined they can use M.2 M key or even E key to add sata (one of those exotic adapters from china).
I commented previously about a 2.5gbe port but I’ll be perfectly fine with the proposed layout given the cost increase. Thanks for the update! Your wife’s advice is spot on haha, cheers Tomaž🙏
Why do you even need 2.5gbe when you already have 2x10gb ports? Would it not be better for you to plug a switch into one of the 10gb ports and divvy that up as far as you'd need?
I have an alternate solution, it looks like acquantia xfi phy ics, you could put a serdes mux between this and one of the xfi serdes, and then use this to implelent a 2 5g ethernet combo port for about $30. Though probably the better option is to suggest people use a switch or a 10g-baseT tranciever that supports 2.5G.
IMO most people probably didn't realize the limitations from that initial datasheet slide. If it was a 'freebee' I could see it. But at the same time, there are SFP+ to Ethernet Adpaters that somone could implement 2.5, 5 or 10 Gbit with for fairly cheap. And let's be honest, most people implementing this advanced of a router would likely have a 2.5 GB switch at the very least that likely has SFP+ ports that could then uplink to one of the SFP+ ports on the router. Especially recently, 2.5 GB switches have plummeted in price. So ultimately, all said, if it were my call I'd say keep the original config
Also, separate idea, modular IO? I don't think you could do the PHYs as a socked thing, but, maybe a IO module for different setups? You can still make/sell only 1 to take advantage of scale and discounts, but you could open-source the module design and approved parts/BoMs and let the crazy people take the PCB schematics to PCBway or something and let them take that cost on themselves?
my inclination would be to keep the ethernet configuration as-is and use the left over lanes for a M-key M.2. Putting a low cost PCI-E NVMe (like optane) will make the router much much more reliable and allow swappable storage.
That differential pairs idea is from the telecom world. I use to lay cables that did just that with the signal and it was explained to me exactly the same way you did 🙂
So, maybe I missed it in a previous video, but what sort of customer are you targeting with this router? I feel like the answer would make a substantial difference on that 2.5GbE port.
Can you make a video explaining the difference between the 3 types of m.2 sockets? Ive been re-reading the wikipedia article over and over and i dont understand it. What socket type do m.2 cellular modems use? I would love to be able to add a 3042 or 3052 cellular modem to this router.
Will this device support hardware acceleration for things like switching, routing, VPN's, cryptography and layer 4+ firewalling? I can't remember from the previous video's. The usually lower energy consumption with these features is what keeps me from using a normal computer as a router/firewall
The best bet is make the 1 Gig Port standard and in the board itself make the chip that supporting port swappable like a socketed CPU. That way the order can be full filled with more flexibility
Think my comment got nuked due to the wifi module link but how much space will the M.2 port have? as the 4x4 WiFi modules are quite wide. 524WiFi-9274-DB for example.
From my experience with home networking a high performance home router ideally for majority of users needs only 2 ports but for convenience and flexibility 3 or 4 ports is probably best. I would expect that people who need a high performance router like this have a high-speed network with an advance setups with VPN, QoS, VLANs, smart firewall bouncers etc. And those users already have or will highly benefit from having dedicated switch(es) and access point(s), and they can afford those devices or find some good used/refurbished options. Then why only 2 or 3-4 ports? Because if you have a vlan-capable switch then you really need only a WAN and LAN port. But of course having only two SFP or two ETH ports would be too restrictive so it's probably best to mix SFP and ETH and that has the added benefit of allowing the users to easily create multi-WAN or multi-LAN setup and/or some service port. So to me, a router like this needs fewer high-performance (ie. utilizing dedicated SoC infrastructure) ports rather then multiple ports of many types .
@tomazzaman please make sure that the linux kernel can handle forwarding 2.5Gb of traffic. from my experience, there is an issue with linux on arm when it comes to high data rates, even 1Gb puts a lot of load on the cpu.
Not this CPU, it has dedicated networking hardware. Even the two 10GbE ports should be easy. I'll report once I test the development board (in a month or so)
if i think this could be a server its cause using non server hardware as a server is kinda my thing, who else is crazy enought to turn android phone into a server or run kubernetes cluster main way to run server stuff in my homelab on some rather wierd hardware cobbled together So if it can be made into a server i will think abour doing it
I think most people will have a managed switch in their network. Not sure I see the point in complicating it and driving up costs for a single 2.5gb port when you can connect a switch with a number of 10/5/2/1 gbps ports.
You wanna add two 10gig and three 1gig ethernet ports. For what you need 2.5gig? If it can be set to 2.5gig :/ or I'm wrong? I probably just won't be able to buy it (mostly geographical problems), but I'm I would be glad to see 2.5gig instead of 1gig nics. You can make two versions w/ 2.5gig or w/o :)
What about 1x10g and 1x2.5g while keeping the 4x1g Sounds like it would be an option to replace one of the 10gs with 2.5g. Not sure if 2x10g make sense for this device.
@@tedjohansen1634 I know its a router, but 2x10g still makes no sense to me. If you want redundancy you probably want 2 of them thus you ahve 2x10g you can heart beat/failover 2.5g. Also most traffic probably hapens Intervlan, thus 10g send recive is possible with one port. And it allows for a couple slower managment ports and/or wan Ports if your WAN is multi Gig you want it tagged on a switch anyway in most cases. So Regardless I'd sacrifice a 10g for a 2.5g if ppl want it tho I don't see a need for 2.5g at all.
Something you didn't make clear in the video. If you go with the original configuration (so no 2.5Gb) then SerDes2 has a lot of configuration options available for pcie. I think if you do that you should do one of the following: - pcie 1x2 for an E key slot and pcie 3x2 for an M key slot - pcie 3x2 for an E key slot and pcie 1x2 for an E key slot. Basically I feel like leaving pcie unused and unavailable (not routed) would be a waste.
Well, 2 10gb ports connected to a switch with more 10gb ports does the trick for the ones that need more then 1gb port. It's more expensive then you including a 2.5, but way more versatile. By playing around with profissional FW/router's every day thats the most common setup, fw/router link to a switch with 20gb/50gb trunks and then the switch does the rest.
@@n-steam antennas are one thing but creating the entire solution is another. I just hope that by the time they will finish the prototype they will have router with Wi-Fi that is comparable to the latest offering in the market (probably Wi-Fi 7 routers).
@@eliadbu from what I gathered, he's putting an M.2 slot in, not the wifi board. I think you'd have to buy that separate (making sure to choose one with external antenna).
A Ubiquiti UDMPro runs $379.00 with 2-10GB and 1-2.5GB so if your device was up to $500.00 with those specs I would totally buy one. In fact i would gladly put a down payment on one or buy it on kickstarter.
I'd get TWO 10 Gbit ports if possible. Then I don't have to upgrade for a while and just need to get an additional switch or something or just hook it up to a single accesspoint.
As a comparative of price I226-V from Intel vs Marvel AQC115C, what is the difference? On Intel ARK site is mentioned Recommended Customer Price: $2.87
The real shame is that 2.5G is only used by CPE manufacturers that create retail consumer devices. 10G is far more abundant and available not to mention less expensive than 2.5G. In most cases people only need a single 2.5G port to accept a WAN handoff from their provider, in this case just use a 2.5G to 10G SFP+ media converter and keep your beautiful router filled with 10G/1G ports as the universe intended.
Would you pay more for this device to include a 2.5GbE port? If so, how much?
I would not, 2x10g is fine for a single-homed router, if you are doing multihoming you need at least four.
I would pay for this extra speed, now the how much....would have to see the full picture. If (hypothesis) the device with 1gbps ports is 170€ and the one with 2.5gbps is 200€ doesn't need too much thought to pick the 2.5gbps. But if we are talking about 50€ or even more....then maybe a model with just the 2 10gbps would seem better 😂
as i said on previous video i dont see a reason why to have a 2.5GbE if its not like a free (no losses thing, maybe if it replaced 1 GbE ports as it could still server as management but its a poor upgrade choice) since there are 2 SFP+ 10Gbps cages which can with simple modules be turned into any 1GbE and up rj-45 or SFP.
also i do not understand why use 2.5GbE port anyway when most home networks from router to core switch can easily be covered by single SFP+ cage and at that speed its very likely that incoming wire will eb fiber which makes RJ-45 port kinda useless as fiber will work with SFP+ much better
@@bigpodi agree ... if you need more flexibility you can always add a switch and utilize a couple of vlans to create more ports ... if posible add a nother 10ge port instead for added bandwith for the trunk, and let people split it into 1, 2.5 or whatever themself 🙂
I think that if you really want 2.5GbE that bad you can just get a switch with 4 2.5GbE ports and an upstream 10GbeE port connected to the router.
I think using a PCIe based solution would miss the point of using that specialized SoC‘s capabilities. Rather keep the 10GbE SFP+ Ports since most 2.5GbE Switches have 1 or 2 SFP+ ports too and you’d have to do way less on the software side when it comes to drivers and such.
I needed someone to say this out loud. Someone, that wasn't me. 🙌
I like the original idea of the 2 SFP+ and 2 1G ports, all using the SoC's infrastructure. A switch connected to the SFP+ ports can provide 2.5G if needed.
That's exactly what I was thinking. 10gb SFP+ to 2.5gb switches are like 60 bucks these days. Dont over complicate the router for 1x 2.5gb port for the same cost that a switch with 5-6 ports will have.
Agreed. Very much, actually. But needed for other people to say this! Thank you!
@@Allhopeforhumanity popular options on amazon:
$65 = 1x10G, 8x2.5G (uses a 10G port)
$45 = 2x10G, 4x2.5G (uses a 10G port, but gives you another for chaining)
the total bandwidth is reduced by a whopping 1.5G by not having a 2.5G port on the router, which is not super noticeable with 10G downlink, and you can get more 2.5G ports for around the same price IF you want/need them
also: i don't think the cost is worth a 2.5gbe port. period. we already have two 10gig ports, for inside and outside. this is a router, not a switch.
At first I thought they moan about 2.5g because there is only 1g, if there is actually 10g, then they can f-o
My thoughts exactly. This is a router not a switch. Your internal devices don't need a dedicated 2.5GbE connection to the router. WAN -> Router 10GbE Port 1 (if you have greater than 1GbE WAN) -> 10GbE Port 2 -> LAN Switch with SFP+.
I think a dedicated port can be valuable for creating a DMZ or a guest network. In that regard, an upgraded port could mean a way more flexible device
ever hear of bandwidth and router-on-a-stick bottleneck?
@@BlastingAgents I was addressing OP with 'this is a router, not a switch' nonsense.
It would make more sense to have two SFP+ ports for the 10Gb ones. That way you can do DAC, Fiber, 10Gbe, 5Gbe, 2.5Gbe, 1Gbe, etc. Whatever SFP+ module you want, you use.
Yep, agreed.
"it would be magic if it wasn't science" definitely going to be stealing that one
Time for some t-shirts...
No, the price is already at the end of my budget. I think the SPF ports are sufficient. I think I would rather then buy an 2.5g switch.
Gotcha, I needed to hear this.
I'd drop the 2.5G as long as the 2 SFP+ ports stay. As someone else said, maybe do something like the lenovo mini PC's. Allow users to connect a separate ethernet port if they'd like
Given the amount of docs this dude had to read I vote we fund this guy for life just so he makes good open source hardware so we don't have to.
hahaha MY BRAIN IS OBSESSED!!!11 😂
Then please make a good open source printer next 😁
Then I'd probably join him for a FOSS phone.
Whatever the verdict. I definitely like the approach of asking your audience. Hopefully, some other IT TH-camrs can share their thoughts in the comments
I'm on the fence about the 'ask in a video' side of things. I wonder how representative the subset that end up relying will actually be.
@@KennyMacDermid it's a balancing act. I want to hear what people have to say, but ultimately, it's my decision to do what feels right with all the information on hand. Time will then tell whether it was the right one.
Since the router will have dual SFP+ just allow customers to buy a cheap SFP+ to 2.5GbE adapter. They are about 15-20 euros. You could even offer to put one in their shipment on your store by getting a good deal in bulk from a supplier.
I'll be super happy with two SFP+ ports already. Anything more is really a bonus tbh. I'll just be sad it's not gonna be available for me to deploy when I have to set up a network in early summer
Keep the 1GbE ports because the 10Gb SFP ports can be adapted to 2.5GbE if desired
Not all SPF+ implementations can be adapted to multi-speed variants such as 2.5GbE or 5GbE. However, it is backward compatible with SPF modules at 1Gbs. For example, my managed switch only supports 10GbE on the SPF+ ports. Is the port on this router compatible with multi-speed SPF+ transceivers?
@@viaujocSFP+
@@viaujocI've found that it may be cheaper/less problematic to buy a cheap 2.5gbe switch with sfp+ and cover it with a dac.
If you allow Chinese devices on your network, one can give very affordable switches that might cost less than a 2.5gbe transceiver module and unlike it will definitely work
I think having a SoC specialised and with hardware acceleration enabled router is much more important than using PCIE to add 2.5 GbE interface. I rather have two 10GbE SFP+ interfaces, which I can add to a switch, than having a 2.5GbE interface. I would rather buy a 2.5GbE switch - as I remember mikrotik has published a latest switch with multigig capabilities.
Thanks for being so transparent. IMHO, keep the 10G+10G+4x1G configuration so that networking is handled by the SoC.
Hi Tomaž / @tomazzaman, not sure if you're checking comments but the E slot does not require 2 PCIe x1 lanes. It can be wired that way but not all manufacturers use it wire the slots up that way. I actually made the change to the table to try to clarify that back in late 2022. You could potentially add an additional PCIe lane to you implementation if you wanted.
Hell Yeah!! CCIE here.
Can 10G ports run natively at 5 and 2.5? Or are they SFP+?
Got cable modem yesterday and it only supports 2.5Gbe. That means to use a 10gig SFP+ port, have to buy converter that is like $170. Or I can only get about get 950mbps of the 1400 mbps or 2000 mbps Comcast currently provides with a 1Gig. Now, a few modern cable modems come with 2 ports and LACP. Not sure if your 1Gig ports will support LAG/Etherchannel/LACP … but the 2.5gbps cable modem costs $130, and dual one gig LACP cable modem costs $300. As network engineers, we know a LAG of only supports multi-stream 1 gig, while a true 2.5Gbe supports native stream up to 2.5Gbps.
Thus 2.5 just makes sense in the USA, as Comcast is the largest residential ISP, Spectrum and Cox (the other big ones), will all support over 1Gig with Ethernet handoffs, not SFP+.
Thanks!
I'm voting for keeping the 2x 10g and 3x 1g original config. Use a SFP+ DAC cable and connect to a switch with 2.5g ports. Much more flexible and use VLANs to segregate the traffic there . Maybe sell a bundle with a switch like this and an AP?
I really like all the more detailed information as to "why" and how you present it
Thank you! It's my pleasure!
I seem to be in the minority but my use case a 2.5 gbe Port is useful as a WAN. Around here if you want multigig internet with Comcast your options are either LACP or 2.5gbe. If the sfp+ port can negotiate down to 2.5 gbe that may be an option but I personally found many sfp+ ports which won't run 2.5 gbe even with an adapter and instead not working at all or dropping to 1 gbe.
For where I'd use a box like this, I would be happy with 2*10 and 2*1: This allows me to build either fault tolerance on the WAN, or backup WAN, and fault tolerance on the LAN side. A single 2.5G port is okay if all you have is a single AP, but I have many, and they are PoE, so I need to have them hanging off of (vlan tagged) switches anyway.
I would be far more interested in having space for doing packet captures than onboard wifi - Where the router is, and where the APs are, for a network that warrants a 10GbE capable router, is usually different. This is from viewing this more as a business/network admin's home/enthusiast-box, and not a cheapest-isp-cpe-solution.
There's one more option: To use key E socket and put 2.5gbe card into there. But that means there needs to be a hole for the port in the back of the router, just like Lenovo Tiny's have. I just bought 2 of those E-socket ports and I will be testing them soon in my Lenovos. I think I paid ~12€ each from AliExpress including shipping..
Most ppl interested are going to have 10gbe networks, with managed switches, 1gbe and 2.5gbe clients will be downstream. That said a 2.5gbe or even 5gbe port for wan would seriously future proof this device and make it very flexible indeed. My main interest is this device is that it can route between networks (vlans) at 10gbps using the sfp+ cages. Sounding interesting so far, good luck 👍
The more recent cable modems have a 2.5Gbps port. If the 10Gbps ports are not NBASE-T (i.e. they only do 10 or 1Gbps, and not 2.5 or 5 Gbps) then those cable modems will connect at 1Gbps to the router. Which is only an issue if you pay for a plan that's 1Gbps or more, like Comcast's 1.2Gbps plan.
However, there are relatively inexpensive switches with a handful of 2.5Gbps ports and a 10Gbps uplink port, which is a workaround (i.e. Translates between the cable modem's 2.5Gbps and the router's 10Gbps port). Some of those switches support VLANs, so you could turn that single 10Gbps port into 4 x 2.5Gbps ports, isolated on individual VLANs.
So I think it's reasonable to skip the 2.5Gbps port onboard, particularly if it would bypass the hardware-accelerated packet processing. The external 2.5/10Gbps switch is a solution for those who find themselves in that specific set of circumstances (modem with 2.5Gbps port, plan >1Gbps).
Basically it like an balanced output for audio speakers/monitors.
Yep, I remember when those first hit the car stereo market in the 90s, and it has been used in soooo many things since.
Can't you just put another M.2 E-Type Socket on the board but wired in PCIe 1x1? (Or maybe have a switch/BIOS option to disable one of the sockets/reroute the lanes to the other socket for a full PCIe 1x2?)
That way people could just plug in a M.2 2.5GbE card at full speed or both it and WiFi at reduced speed after the fact, if someone wants to do that, i've seen a lot of people mention they would like to have a cut-out in the case so they could plug such a card in themselves if they chose to do so, all without impeding the 1GbE supply correct?
I would love to know what you think about this approach since technically you don't have to increase the cost compared to including the 2.5GbE phy in the first place unless i missed something.
Frankly, with a good switch and VLAN support, I think just 2x 10gig would be more than enough, especially if NIC teaming and VLANs can be used on top. If anyone wants the 2.5 port, there needs to be a justified actual use case for it beyond "bigger number go brrrr", especially if you have to sacrifice hardware acceleration to achieve it.
Well, one good and possibly common enough use case is ISP + switch + NAS, that makes 3 high speed devices.
Another one is a home server, if you have a server that should be accessible form the internet in your home/office instead of renting a VPS, then you might need a third high speed port.
Yes, those devices might be connected via a switch, but they both might need package filtering so connecting directly to router would be better (and faster).
Amazing work as usual man, very clear video explaining your decision making and research.
Thank you!
I love the name of the product!!! Something that maybe a lot of people forget is this is a router, not a switch; keep cost down with the two SFP+ ports and *maybe* another copper port for easy management. Also please consider adding a M.2 for NVMe storage even if only connected with 1x PCIe lane.
Why do you need a NVME port for ?
@@bastlub additional storage, not NAS like but storage for containers/docker that can run on the router itself for networking related services
I’d want two M.2 for mirrored boot drives. Wouldn’t matter whether they were SATA or NVMe
But unless you’re talking about DNS, DHCP, or other similar services that run within the routing/firewall software, I’d rather have any other services running elsewhere.
I like to let my router route, my NAS serve files, and everything else run on a virtualization host of some sort.
YMMV
Edit:
A console port would be very nice to have.
@@vladconutI wouldn't recommend running docker directly on your router.
Docker has a ton of security issues and from my experience running it on anything that is not behind a firewall is just asking for trouble.
We had servers hacked many times due to docker messing with linux firewall and disabling security rules.
There is even a well known bug that docker (the company) does not want to fix due to "compatibility", where if you set docker to run only on one network interface it will sometimes ignore that rule depending on how you started your container.
TLDR:
Don't run docker on your router.
M.2 slot doesn't have to implement all pcie lanes, just one is enough unless you want more speed. And since you aren't likely to require more than 8 Gbps of bandwidth for your router - it's not a NAS - you can get away with implementing just a single pcie lane in the port. Infact a lot of embedded systems do just that.
I wanted to say that, Also you don't need to implement all the other interfaces.
There is one gotcha, though: some devices like eg. intels network/bluetooth combo cards use both lanes since they are just 2 separate devices on a single board.
@@hubertnnn Those use PCIe for the WiFi and USB for the BT part. 4G/LTE cards only use USB as well.
Hey there, I understand if you disagree, but I really think it's important to consider how your device integrates into a network setup.
In terms of future-proofing without inflating costs, here's what I suggest: incorporating 2x 2.5G (or 5G if bandwidth allows) and 2x SFP+ 10G ports as the ones you already have.
Here's why:
1) With internet speeds exceeding 1Gbps in many countries, this setup accommodates a WAN connection via 2.5G or one of the SFP ports, if your provider supports direct connectivity.
2) The second 2.5G port provides flexibility for direct device connections, be it a switch or a tool for network management and debugging.
3) The additional SFP+ port allows seamless integration with a modern switch's uplink. Since users of a robust router like this likely have a switch for their devices, the flow would be: Internet > (2.5G or SFP+ 1) Your Router > (SFP+ 2) Switch > (Switch's port) Devices.
4) Having 4 gigabit ports would limit both high-speed internet reception and device connections. It's redundant to have two SFP+ 10G ports if the uplink is only 1Gbps, or to have gigabit ports if SFP+ ports suffice for the uplink and switch. It just doesn't add up in my opinion.
Upgrading from a 1GbE port to a 2.5GbE port doesn't seem worthwhile to me, given that I already have a connection at home that's faster than gigabit. However, transitioning to a 5Gb port would turn it into the ideal router for me. Having a 5Gb port for WAN while still retaining two 10G ports (perhaps even with the potential for link aggregation) is the router of my dreams. I'm not particularly concerned about the 1G ports, though they could prove useful for "miscellaneous" APs, such as a separate IoT network or similar setups. Equipping it with 2xSFP for LAN usage and 5G for WAN usage (I'm not sure if we've discussed potential software options yet, but most open-source or advanced router software can accommodate such configurations) would, in my opinion, make it extremely future-proof. I'm unsure about the price disparity between 5GbE and 2.5GbE, but in my humble opinion, 5GbE would make more sense, especially if it can operate in a 2.5GbE mode as well.
At those speeds I would imagine the infrastructure is already fiber (for WAN) and it makes more sense to go directly into the SFP+ cage with an optical transceiver rather than having another device to go from fiber to copper just to use the copper port.
@@vladconut You're absolutely right. It would make much more sense to go directly into an SFP+ port. Unfortunately, my ISP thinks differently. When I attempted to bypass their device using a GPON transceiver, they contacted me within 2 business days, stating that their monitoring showed something was wrong with their device and they would replace it. When I explained about the GPON module, I was redirected to someone else who informed me that this goes against the Terms of Service (ToS) and if I don't use their hardware, they will terminate my contract. So, yes, it would be much more sensible to connect directly to an SFP port, but regrettably, it's not something my ISP allows or tolerates.
Remember that your firmware can allow multiple Serdes configs on the same hardware. For example, you could allow a software-downgrade to mode 2233 on serdes 1 to allow people to plug in 2.5 Gbit SFPs into the 10Gbit/s SFP+ Ports if they have no 10Gbit infrastructure - usually, this is pin-compatible or requires minimal change to the pcb for dual use compatibility
(although probably less sensible overall,) the same could be done for SATA - move the M.2 to RX2/3 on the second serdes, and also route rx3 to a SATA Port, now the user can choose between using the M.2 at x2 or the SATA port and M.2 at only x1 - although here it will require a bit of extra hardware and good communication so users don't think they'll be able to use both, so that might not be worth it
I saw that top comment in the previous video, very soon after the video went live. I assume it's a "give me all the ports" mentality. However 2.5GbE is an extremely new implementation on AP's. I personally wouldn't waste such a high speed port on the theoretical max speed of a WiFi AP, but if that was the use case then PoE would definitely become a must have too. Considering it's powered over USB-C PD, that could ad additional complexity. More to the point, many people (myself included) like power efficiency. And if it's going to add more CPU overhead, I would say "Keep it simple stupid"
But that's just me
I definitely agree with you on pretty much everything. I just wanted to entertain the idea since so many people voiced their opinion in favor of the 2.5GbE port.
I disagree, as I just moved my whole network to 2.5gbe with fsp+ option if I ever find time to drill some holes for the new wires. All the moderately priced motherboards and mini PCs already come with an 2.5 gig port. Also my wireless routers are now using 2.5 gig link, not to mention switches I bought for ~30€ pcs. So for me the choice is either to get sfp+ modules for 2.5 gigs, or have those built into the device, or to use M.2 E-key card for it. I think the last one would be the cheapest option if there would be a hole in the back for the extra port.
@@mahagr78 There's definitely an argument to be had on both sides. There's certainly nothing wrong with adopting the newest technology.
I'm glad you mentioned the M.2 E-key as I was wondering about that. I know you can break it out to PCIe on the normal M.2 but I wasn't sure if there was a direct 2.5 GbE module. I recently bought Google TPU (M.2 E-key) after watching the Hardeware Haven video about them. He showed a SATA module too but I wasn't sure about 2.5 GbE. I would just presume, if I went full 2.5 GbE, then I would be using a switch for it. Unless that traffic needed to be routed
@DanielVidz The card was a bit tight fit for the Lenovo Tiny m710q, but I was able to insert the module and fit it to the serial/VGA port slot in the back.
The nic is showing up in kernel logs as "r8169 0000:02:00.0 enp2s0: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control rx/tx". Also my router sees it correctly as 2.5 gig adapter.
Now I just need to properly configure it in proxmox...
But yes, I think the best option here is to use an optional M.2 card and just drill the holes needed for both wifi antennas and an ethernet port. In that way, people can easily decide if they need wifi, 2.5 gbe or something else. Then just provide people the options to choose between those (or none).
The more I think of it, I would not include 2.5 GbE. I would instead have that M.2 slot and make sure that both Wifi and 2.5 GbE works with it and maybe sell those modules as extra options. You can buy 2.5G switch for 30-40€ and hook it up with 10G sfp+ for another 15€. Or you can buy M.2 A+E key RTL8125B card for 12-15€.
To me both of those options make far more sense than raising the price for everyone to get just one extra port, which may or may not get used.
4x 2.5G + 2x 10G port switch and ftp+ cable = +45€
or
M.2 RTL8125B card = +15€
or
everyone pays 40€ for a single port
Are the 10Gbit ports multi-gigabit ? (10, 5, 2.5, 1)
great question, I dunno. I hope so
Wouldnt you be able to sell a seperate version for those interested that comes pre-shipped with a pcie 2.5g port adapter and respective mounting point / cutout in the case? This way you don't lose hardware acceleration but can still offer a 2.5g port for those that want it. You could even have just one / the same case for everyone, but just have a cover for the unused 2.5g port. This way if somebody wanted to upgrade down the line, they could add it themselves (And you could sell the module for it seperately)
Awesome video and enjoying this series a bunch! I have a tiny grammar correction for you, but I’m mostly posting it to sympathise with how hard English must be to learn. Around 9:50, you say “the good news don’t end there”. Despite etymologically coming from the plural of “new”, “news” is singular, so you have to say “the good news doesn’t end there”.
English is a silly language sometimes.
Struggled slightly to word this, it’s more me being a linguistics nerd than me trying to correct your grammar, the meaning was obvious from the words you said.
Hi Tomaz. Question and idea: AQC115 is 2.5GbE single port. Why you should waste these PCe 3.0 2x lanes just for one 2.5GbE port? Yes, is increasing the price of the router a little bit, but adding a PCIe 3.0 switch on 2x lanes or even PCIe 2.0 x2 lanes and distribute to 2x or even 3x 2.5GbE PCIe NICs can be a solution: PCIe 2.0 switch 2x lanes has a bandwidth of 1000MB/s (8Gbps) and 3x2.5GbE should have about 937.50MB/s (7.5 Gbps). Also if you use a PCIe 3.0 switch you can use some additional lanes for other devices.
Or in my opinion you should optimize the full number of ports like this: 2x10GbE and 3x1GbE interfaces using SerDes1 0x1133 and SerDes2 0x5A59 or 0x5A06. In this case you will have 3x1GbE interfaces + 2x 10GbE via DPAA and additionally you can add a PCIe switch Gen3 to add 2x 2.5GbE interfaces which obviously will not go through DPAA. But PCIe 3.0 1x can handle 7.880 Gbps bandwidth which is more than enough to use for example 2x 2.5GbE interfaces via only one PCIe 3.0 lane shared via a PCIe switch.
I don't understand why to waste PCIe 3.0 x2 on a single 2.5GbE chip.
In SerDes2 0x5A59 also enables you one SATA if you need.
I was skeptical when you said you weren’t even planning to support wifi, because of the dozens of devices I have, my Raspberry Pi is the only one with an ethernet port (making the 2.5g vs 1g question irrelevant to me).
I’m really pleased with your slotted approach, though… this could be the best-value router (ever) if it has the ability to be upgraded over time with new wireless modules.
It sounds like you’re doing a great job of evaluating the trade-offs and finding ways of being price-competitive.
I hope you can sell the router both with and without the wireless card so that people can opt in if they need it or can buy “verified compatible”modules and upgrades from you in the future
I already have a different solution in this performance class.. However based on the previous video picking the CPU based on a 7 year support window without change, I can only say that 1Gbe interfaces will look ancient once WiFi 7 has been the most common WiFi type for years (Thinking 2 years into the future from now).
I think most users however will just be able to use the SFP+ ports with a switch to deal with this.
Alternative configuration idea.. Make the SFP+ ports SPF+ OR 10GBe.. IE you have 4 physical interfaces but can only use one or the other for each "port". 10GBe SFP+ modules tend to be very hot so for those that want 2.5/5/10Gbe use but not SFP+ this could be a good compromise. You can see this done on a number of 10GBe switches these days like the QNAP qsw-m2108r-2c. This might be a cheaper way to have greater than 1GBe ethernet ports on the device.
What type of interface will the 10Gbps ports be? SFP+ or RJ45?
In both cases you can just connect it to a 2.5Gbps switch right? I don't see the need for a dedicated 2.5Gbps port, just skip it.
I would vote, but I'm not currently in the market for a router. I watch your videos to gain some small understanding of what it takes to bring a product to market. In this, you're doing a great job!
Thank you! Even just words of encouragement help. A lot!
You could also let the 2.5gbit be an optional extra over the m2 slot. Yes, the user had to decide between WiFi or 2.5gbit Ethernet.
With an “optional” module that you can insert in the m2 slot and a provision for the optional Ethernet port in the case you might have the most flexible solution. The cost of making the provision for the Ethernet jack in the housing should be less than the cost of including the 2.5gbit port in the base board.
This would give you 2x10gbit, 4x 1gbit and optional 2.5/5gbit Ethernet or m.2 WiFi.
I would appreciate a 2.5Gb port for WAN connectivity and would be prepared to pay for this feature.
While it's still very uncommon for ISPs to offer gigabit speeds in Europe, it's not the case across the Atlantic, and Unifi have understood this very well.
So, to sum up, what I'm looking for:
- 1 x 2.5Gb: WAN
- 1x 1Gb: another LAN (or a wan failover, with reduced bandwidth, but this is for temporary failover)
- 1 x 1Gb: Management LAN - 2 x 10Gb SFP+: uplink to layer 2 switches (much cheaper) configured in LACP (Link Aggregation). These can be POE+(+) so no need for POE out on your router.
- On the software side, compatibility with PFSense, please.
In fact, you may succeed where Netgate failed with its 4200 model (which lacks both SFP+).
Also, do you intend to publish the performance that can be expected in routing thanks to this CPU (as Netgate does)?
Thank you and good luck with your project. I'm following it closely...
Having a 2.5Gbit port is always nice, but this is quite the drawback. And replacing all 1Gbit with 2.5 would make the whole thing cost a whole lot more.
That makes me wonder now though... if it is an issue of mix and match, would there be a huge problem with compatibility if you just axed the three 1 gig ports and replaced them with three 2.5 gig ports?
I'd wager that's not the case. Quite the conundrum.
That being said... I think the 10Gbit can easily handle anything with 2.5 gig capability, and you can use switches to have more devices (albeit they'll need to be better switches). So maybe not having a 2.5 gig port natively is not that big of a deal.
He cant cuz to add 2.5 natively, he need to remove 1 10g port
5 gbit/s or 2.5 Gbit/s yes. I already have 4 Gbit/s fiber at home (so... maybe a good WAN port?). EDIT: SFP is also fine instead of 10Gbit/s UTP. EDIT EDIT: Nevermind, maybe I don't need those 1 gbit, 5 or 2.5 gbit/s ports. It could be that my media converted can be connected to SFP+ port via a SFP Transceiver Module. And then I will add 10Gb/s switch behind the router. Does that make sense?
RTL8372N are like $10 and have 2xXFI and 4x2.5G ports, if the SoC supports the Realtek DSA modes you get all the ports you want and proper interfaces on the os side.
Do you know about the ubiquiti cloud gateway ultra its 150 usd
1gbps tho
There is a 2.5gb port
I have super simple homelab with opnsense running in a proxmox VM, but I’m se fascinated by the design process and all the videos you are putting out that I’m definitely buying one of these as soon as they become available. Such a cool project. I just hope you’ll ship to Canada so I can buy one!
As for my opinion! I don’t think it’s worth it. The 10 gbps ports are fine!!
Absolutely, add a 5 gig. Or, have it and the 2.5 gig as optional add ons for a “made to order” approach, I will definitely be buying the 5 gig option though. Out of curiosity (or cause I just forgot) are you adding the ability for a cable hookup or will it just need a media converter for the people stuck with one ISP?
If it really came down to it, I think I'd be alright adding an SFP+ module that can negotiate at the various NBASE-T speeds to the router's included SFP+ port. I don't think the price increase is worth the very slight reduction in functionality, especially if that locks out access to the PCD part of the silicon. You could also (potentially? I'm not speaking from experience here but from what I've seen in the videos already) very slightly increase power efficiency if packets can all be processed by the same core, leaving the other cores open for other tasks. Maybe it would be worth experimenting with this.
I have absolutely no personal nuanced experience and I am by no means an expert, but gosh darnit if I paid for the whole silicon and all those features? I'm gonna USE the whole silicon and all those features!
Awesome video, awesome presentation and research as always!
Honestly i don't see the issue with not including 2.5gig. This is a router, not a switch. if someone REALLY needs 2.5 gig, (which isn't a lot of people, because anyone who wants high speed NAS access or high speed between PCs in general will use 10gig and everything else like WAPs or cameras or whatever all use 1gig.) there are plenty of switches with one sfp+ 10gig port for communication with the router and a bunch of 2.5 gig ports for all the devices. Just adding needless expenses and complexity to an already premium product seems rather pointless to me for such a niche usecase.
My WAN is 2+Gbps. And I'd be bonding those 10Gb ports to my core switch. And no, I'm not running my WAN through my switch (for various reasons)... So having a 2.5/5 for WAN would be a make or break for me on this. OR have more than x2 10Gb SFP+ so we can use a transceiver and have more options as ISP's offer higher speeds. Just my 2cents 😉
Either way, i hope this is successful, it just might not be the one for me and I'll stick with my (power hogging) DIY setup.
In my target setup the router/firewall will be connected to an managed switch with one or both (LACP) 10G (SFP+) ports while using VLAN's
I need 1 or 2 additional [Slow] NIC's, 1 for "High availability Sync" to the second router, and 1 for management (optional).
(even 100M will be enough)
So personally i don't care about a "faster then 1G" port.
Pozdrav iz susjedne Hrvatske. Svaka čast na projektu, moje mišljenje je da je 2x10G i 2x1G i više nego dovoljno. Ako nekome baš i treba 2.5G uvijek se može staviti neki switch i povezati ga optikom ili DAC kabelom na ruter. U svakom slučaju ću kupiti ruter jednom kada je dostupan. Da napokon nešto nije made in China.
A faster third port could be great for implementing a DMZ for home usage or a guest network. Self-Hosting should be a typical use case especially in the target audience for such a router. A layer-2-switch could split the 10 GbE ports as required to supply more connection options, but configuration of a DMZ would require looking for specific VLAN capabilities again, driving up the cost immensely.
I think having a more powerful third port would drastically increase the use cases for the router, but I‘d be interested in hearing other takes on this, if someone would like to comment.
It‘s unfortunate that this would undermine the specialized SoC by necessitating PCIe though.
I'd rather do VLAN for a DMZ than having those drawbacks that come with the 2.5 or 5 GbE version.
@@Luniii737 I can understand that, but apart from the increased costs, the drawbacks only relate to the upgraded port, so unless the three 1 GbE ports are all budgeted in one‘s setup, the drawbacks would only affect those who wish to use the port.
I don’t like to rely on VLANs for segregation in home setups - for one, they need more expensive hardware, and they are less secure than physical ports, even though most known exploits can be mitigated.
I think having another capable port for a different network directly on the router would really future-proof the device.
For that cost why not just buy a 10gb 2.5gb switch and run it downstream of the router?
Wanted 2.5 gig so badly but after this explanation as many suggests better connect a 2.5gig to downstream 10 gig
Same for me dual sfp+ the 2.5 I get it people want for AP’s but that’s pointless without PoE. I’d rather some extra go towards supporting PoE in or alt power.
Also FYI the OSI layer model you use is the obsolete 7 layer one that never became anything. TCP/IP and packet switching won that war and OSI was reorganized to the 5 layer model that represents networking as we know it so they could salvage some of the effort they had put in.
Yeah do it, 2.5GB is the way to go, here in Portugal there are already 10gpbs connection for 100euro a month for private individuals.
So 2.5Gbps is the least, 1gbps is to old, especially if your using this for Vlans or other
Use case: 2.5GbE (wan) port with PoE would be very useful for connecting & powering 5G modem (e.g. outdoor unit)
SFP+ do not provide PoE.
other question: which SFP modules does it support? often devices with 10 gbit/s sfp ports support up to 10 gbit/s meaning they often support sfp tranceiver with lower bandwidth as well, so does your router maybe support 2.5 gbit/s rj45 sfp modules? then you would even dont need a 10 gbit/s switch for getting the 2.5 gbit/s ports and also dont need the extra 2.5 gbit/s port but if multispeed is not supported with these sfp ports then I would prefer to even have one extra 10 GBase-T multispeed port using the Marvell AQC113 chip
Is there any hardware acceleration for complex switching functionality like bonding/link aggregation or L3 routing?
I have no idea about anything lol. I am just here for the cool tech talk and updates. All the best.
WIth this explaination you did I guess 2 x SFP+ will do, and we'll see if we need the 1 gbps. I will just connect the router to my switch. just try to make it so it does not overheat when using 2 x 10 gbe SFP modules if someone can't use fiber modules or DAC cables. After all you can make 10 Gbe ethernet ports using SFP+ but not the other way around.
Well I mean you could get sata to pcie host ic
But yeah SATA sux, also added cost.
Someone is determined they can use M.2 M key or even E key to add sata (one of those exotic adapters from china).
Is there anyway to know which SFP+ modules will work for this particular build as I have several different types as well a 10gbe SFP+ modules?
But how much estimated price per unit?
Will the SFP+ port support 2.5Gbps, which is important for most fiber SFP modules such as a G-010S-P or a MA5671A?
I commented previously about a 2.5gbe port but I’ll be perfectly fine with the proposed layout given the cost increase.
Thanks for the update! Your wife’s advice is spot on haha, cheers Tomaž🙏
Why do you even need 2.5gbe when you already have 2x10gb ports? Would it not be better for you to plug a switch into one of the 10gb ports and divvy that up as far as you'd need?
@@cartanfan-youtube it was me not thinking basically lol
I have an alternate solution, it looks like acquantia xfi phy ics, you could put a serdes mux between this and one of the xfi serdes, and then use this to implelent a 2
5g ethernet combo port for about $30. Though probably the better option is to suggest people use a switch or a 10g-baseT tranciever that supports 2.5G.
IMO most people probably didn't realize the limitations from that initial datasheet slide. If it was a 'freebee' I could see it. But at the same time, there are SFP+ to Ethernet Adpaters that somone could implement 2.5, 5 or 10 Gbit with for fairly cheap. And let's be honest, most people implementing this advanced of a router would likely have a 2.5 GB switch at the very least that likely has SFP+ ports that could then uplink to one of the SFP+ ports on the router. Especially recently, 2.5 GB switches have plummeted in price.
So ultimately, all said, if it were my call I'd say keep the original config
Also, separate idea, modular IO? I don't think you could do the PHYs as a socked thing, but, maybe a IO module for different setups? You can still make/sell only 1 to take advantage of scale and discounts, but you could open-source the module design and approved parts/BoMs and let the crazy people take the PCB schematics to PCBway or something and let them take that cost on themselves?
my inclination would be to keep the ethernet configuration as-is and use the left over lanes for a M-key M.2. Putting a low cost PCI-E NVMe (like optane) will make the router much much more reliable and allow swappable storage.
Yep, that's the alternative. If those lanes aren't used for another PHY, then we'll add another M.2 socket with M-key. Cheaper too :)
If you're using a PCIe MAC/PHY at this point, why the expensive Marvell chip and not just an RTL8125?
That differential pairs idea is from the telecom world. I use to lay cables that did just that with the signal and it was explained to me exactly the same way you did 🙂
That's a very old concept, not sure how old it is but at least USB released in 1996 was already using it.
Can you make sure that the sfp+ ports are capable of negotiating 2.5 and 5gig and leave off the deadicated 2.5gig port?
I think that's up to the SFP+ modules, but will do the research as in what's possible.
So, maybe I missed it in a previous video, but what sort of customer are you targeting with this router? I feel like the answer would make a substantial difference on that 2.5GbE port.
12:01 but why PCIe 1x2 not PCIe 2x1? Wouldn’t that be the same speed? Cool video! :D
Can you make a video explaining the difference between the 3 types of m.2 sockets? Ive been re-reading the wikipedia article over and over and i dont understand it. What socket type do m.2 cellular modems use?
I would love to be able to add a 3042 or 3052 cellular modem to this router.
Yep, though it will take a bit, each component will get a dedicated video once we'll add it to the PCB.
Will this device support hardware acceleration for things like switching, routing, VPN's, cryptography and layer 4+ firewalling? I can't remember from the previous video's. The usually lower energy consumption with these features is what keeps me from using a normal computer as a router/firewall
The best bet is make the 1 Gig Port standard and in the board itself make the chip that supporting port swappable like a socketed CPU.
That way the order can be full filled with more flexibility
Think my comment got nuked due to the wifi module link but how much space will the M.2 port have? as the 4x4 WiFi modules are quite wide. 524WiFi-9274-DB for example.
From my experience with home networking a high performance home router ideally for majority of users needs only 2 ports but for convenience and flexibility 3 or 4 ports is probably best. I would expect that people who need a high performance router like this have a high-speed network with an advance setups with VPN, QoS, VLANs, smart firewall bouncers etc. And those users already have or will highly benefit from having dedicated switch(es) and access point(s), and they can afford those devices or find some good used/refurbished options.
Then why only 2 or 3-4 ports? Because if you have a vlan-capable switch then you really need only a WAN and LAN port. But of course having only two SFP or two ETH ports would be too restrictive so it's probably best to mix SFP and ETH and that has the added benefit of allowing the users to easily create multi-WAN or multi-LAN setup and/or some service port.
So to me, a router like this needs fewer high-performance (ie. utilizing dedicated SoC infrastructure) ports rather then multiple ports of many types .
Great work! Thanks for the video.
A second E socket would be better than a dedicated 2.5 port. Then it can be anything. Just add some knock out plugs to the case for cable/sockets.
if we have 2 10Gb and 1+ Gb (always nice for management), then anything else can be added with another device and/or software
@tomazzaman
please make sure that the linux kernel can handle forwarding 2.5Gb of traffic.
from my experience, there is an issue with linux on arm when it comes to high data rates, even 1Gb puts a lot of load on the cpu.
Not this CPU, it has dedicated networking hardware. Even the two 10GbE ports should be easy. I'll report once I test the development board (in a month or so)
if i think this could be a server its cause using non server hardware as a server is kinda my thing, who else is crazy enought to turn android phone into a server or run kubernetes cluster main way to run server stuff in my homelab on some rather wierd hardware cobbled together
So if it can be made into a server i will think abour doing it
I think most people will have a managed switch in their network. Not sure I see the point in complicating it and driving up costs for a single 2.5gb port when you can connect a switch with a number of 10/5/2/1 gbps ports.
You wanna add two 10gig and three 1gig ethernet ports. For what you need 2.5gig? If it can be set to 2.5gig :/ or I'm wrong?
I probably just won't be able to buy it (mostly geographical problems), but I'm I would be glad to see 2.5gig instead of 1gig nics.
You can make two versions w/ 2.5gig or w/o :)
What about 1x10g and 1x2.5g while keeping the 4x1g Sounds like it would be an option to replace one of the 10gs with 2.5g.
Not sure if 2x10g make sense for this device.
That makes no sense. Its a router, not a switch aimed at many ports to one fat pipe.
Doesn't make any sense for a router.
@@tedjohansen1634 I know its a router, but 2x10g still makes no sense to me. If you want redundancy you probably want 2 of them thus you ahve 2x10g you can heart beat/failover 2.5g. Also most traffic probably hapens Intervlan, thus 10g send recive is possible with one port. And it allows for a couple slower managment ports and/or wan Ports if your WAN is multi Gig you want it tagged on a switch anyway in most cases. So Regardless I'd sacrifice a 10g for a 2.5g if ppl want it tho I don't see a need for 2.5g at all.
Something you didn't make clear in the video. If you go with the original configuration (so no 2.5Gb) then SerDes2 has a lot of configuration options available for pcie. I think if you do that you should do one of the following:
- pcie 1x2 for an E key slot and pcie 3x2 for an M key slot
- pcie 3x2 for an E key slot and pcie 1x2 for an E key slot.
Basically I feel like leaving pcie unused and unavailable (not routed) would be a waste.
Well, 2 10gb ports connected to a switch with more 10gb ports does the trick for the ones that need more then 1gb port. It's more expensive then you including a 2.5, but way more versatile.
By playing around with profissional FW/router's every day thats the most common setup, fw/router link to a switch with 20gb/50gb trunks and then the switch does the rest.
How good of wifi AP you can get with key E modules? Usually wireless routers have more robust solution either be the antennas or the chip itself.
You can get ones with external antennae (u.FL connectors on board, wired to SMA sockets on the box, and you can connect any standard antenna to it).
@@n-steam antennas are one thing but creating the entire solution is another. I just hope that by the time they will finish the prototype they will have router with Wi-Fi that is comparable to the latest offering in the market (probably Wi-Fi 7 routers).
@@eliadbu from what I gathered, he's putting an M.2 slot in, not the wifi board. I think you'd have to buy that separate (making sure to choose one with external antenna).
A Ubiquiti UDMPro runs $379.00 with 2-10GB and 1-2.5GB so if your device was up to $500.00 with those specs I would totally buy one. In fact i would gladly put a down payment on one or buy it on kickstarter.
I'd get TWO 10 Gbit ports if possible. Then I don't have to upgrade for a while and just need to get an additional switch or something or just hook it up to a single accesspoint.
As a comparative of price I226-V from Intel vs Marvel AQC115C, what is the difference? On Intel ARK site is mentioned Recommended Customer Price: $2.87
If you have 2x10g why bother with 2.5. Maybe a video with the price prediction will be nice !
The real shame is that 2.5G is only used by CPE manufacturers that create retail consumer devices. 10G is far more abundant and available not to mention less expensive than 2.5G. In most cases people only need a single 2.5G port to accept a WAN handoff from their provider, in this case just use a 2.5G to 10G SFP+ media converter and keep your beautiful router filled with 10G/1G ports as the universe intended.