What’s the point of having 1G on WAN and 2.5G on LAN? Traffic won’t hit the LAN port until it’s routed to the Internet, yet the WAN port is the bottleneck.
Edit: Seems like I switch up the port speed but my point still holds as the bittleneck still exist.
The LAN and WAN ports aren’t labelled as such on the device and can be configured to do anything. The 2.5Gb port can also be used to take in PoE so for a lot of people - myself included - this will be the only port that’s actually used, or at least the port that will be used the heaviest. The reason, I think, that it’s configured as WAN by default is so that the LAN port can be used to plug a laptop in directly without disconnecting the whole network.
It doesn’t matter. Port configuration can switch around and the bottleneck is still there. Traffic with in the broadcast domain (i.e. subnet) will handled by the switch alone.
There is WiFi onboard so it can have some actual benefits, depending on design and how user access resources, but how likely you’re going to saturate that 1/2.5G link? Not even you stream some 4K movies from Plex to iPhone will does that.
Local NAS, local security cameras, in-house streaming, LAN multiplayer, local torrent-like data sharing (FYI, Windows Update and more uses the local network to share update between computers by default, so it gets downloaded once and then shared internally)
Does it have enough power to handle routing (not just switching) 2.5Gb + 2.5Gb + whatever the WiFi can support? My guess is it cannot and it would have pushed the price up signifcantly to do so.
Does seem counter intuitive to me as this is squarely aimed at enthusiasts who would like to min max their home network.
What’s the point of having 1G on WAN and 2.5G on LAN? Traffic won’t hit the LAN port until it’s routed to the Internet, yet the WAN port is the bottleneck.
Edit: Seems like I switch up the port speed but my point still holds as the bittleneck still exist.
The LAN and WAN ports aren’t labelled as such on the device and can be configured to do anything. The 2.5Gb port can also be used to take in PoE so for a lot of people - myself included - this will be the only port that’s actually used, or at least the port that will be used the heaviest. The reason, I think, that it’s configured as WAN by default is so that the LAN port can be used to plug a laptop in directly without disconnecting the whole network.
It doesn’t matter. Port configuration can switch around and the bottleneck is still there. Traffic with in the broadcast domain (i.e. subnet) will handled by the switch alone.
There is WiFi onboard so it can have some actual benefits, depending on design and how user access resources, but how likely you’re going to saturate that 1/2.5G link? Not even you stream some 4K movies from Plex to iPhone will does that.
This person knows openwrt haha.
Tranfering between devices on the LAN.
Edit: Wait, no, it’s the other way around. 2.5 on WAN, and just a single 1GB LAN port. That absolutely doesn’t make sense.
This is a common setup for WiFi routers, where the idea is that most traffic will be on WiFi.
Local NAS, local security cameras, in-house streaming, LAN multiplayer, local torrent-like data sharing (FYI, Windows Update and more uses the local network to share update between computers by default, so it gets downloaded once and then shared internally)
Then use a switch …
It’s default 2.5G WAN and 1G LAN. It also has wifi to use some of that bandwidth.
https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one
Maybe it can be used as a router on a stick.
That’s the only use I can think of but I don’t know if OpenWRT support VLAN cuz I never used it directly.
Does it have enough power to handle routing (not just switching) 2.5Gb + 2.5Gb + whatever the WiFi can support? My guess is it cannot and it would have pushed the price up signifcantly to do so.
Does seem counter intuitive to me as this is squarely aimed at enthusiasts who would like to min max their home network.
Could it help with internal tasks, like self-hosted services or a business that transfers files around a lot?