Top router for a gigabit Wi-Fi connection
Top router for a gigabit Wi-Fi connection
For a few reasons (mainly out of curiosity), I now possess two gigabit WAN connections and am uncertain whether my ISP offers aggregation. If they do, a suitable router—such as one built-in with preinstalled software like OpenNMS or similar—would work well. Ideally, it should support dual WAN aggregation or load balancing. Preferably all ports should be 2.5G or higher in case I upgrade to a more premium connection.
I’m planning to purchase an x86 or high-end ARM mini PC from AliExpress and install OpenWRT or OPNsense. My current NanoPI R5S handles my 500+500MB load balancing well, but it would struggle with more demanding tasks. Perhaps a NanoPI R6S with the RK3588 or one of those beelink devices would work better. I’m open to using other bezelink models like Topton, CWWK, or even non-brand options with CPUs like CE, i3, i5, or Ryzen. You don’t have to worry about these details—just get a capable router and manage the load balancing as needed.
N5105 supports a minimum of 2.5Gbit, though overhead when using PPP isn't certain; otherwise it should comfortably handle double the gigabit rate. Considering the slight cost variation, N100 seems more logical.
Sure, the N5105 works well on its own, but often you can find a N100 available at no cost, which makes sense.
I'm changing from my N5105 to an N100 for a backup router that I can easily replace if needed. I want to find out if the N100 consumes less power compared to the N5105, which is currently around 11-14 watts most of the time, but can spike to about 18 watts at Gigabit over PPPoE. I’ll use a PoE+ adapter to 12V so the reported wattage matches what my switch shows.
I don’t really like x86 routers, to be honest—they seem pretty dull lol. I’m currently using an ARM one, but I’d love to switch to a RISC-V one someday haha. My existing device can handle 2x500/250 links without any problems (though it wouldn’t go much further), and it only draws around 5W.
A strong ARM/RISC-V architecture clearly outperforms x86 in efficiency. However, x86 offers significant compatibility advantages, making it easier to replace without major issues—though this could pose challenges for pfSense if new drivers alter interface naming conventions. On Linux, the recent shift to name interfaces based on physical connections feels like a setback compared to traditional names like eth0 and eth1, where swapping hardware didn’t disrupt functionality despite some initial confusion about ordering.