Function Comparison Between vro and vro

Today, we compare the use of flexible routing and hardware wide-collar routers in broadband access. Therefore, we need to put the primary content in these areas. Then, we can have some clear opinions on this point.

We divide the comparison of functions into essential functions and rated functions. The so-called essential functions refer to the functions required by customers in terms of network access for small and medium-sized enterprises, while the rated functions refer to functions that are not required or temporarily unavailable in this respect. Let's give a clear example. For example, the Cisco router we often see is powerful enough to be specific! However, if I bought a Cisco router for broadband access, then the dynamic routing in the Cisco router, such as igrp, ospf, VPN, and other such as 802.1x, radius, broadband dialing, supporting ISDN, is-is, bgp, and so on are basically useless for pure network access.

The functions mentioned above are the rated functions that we refer to. These functions are not listed in the requirements of the existing test conditions. Therefore, we must remove them when comparing them.

The following functions are essential:

1. Difficulty level of equipment. In this regard, the hardware wide-collar router completely wins. RouterOS has many equipment parameters. The complex and full-English equipment interface is far from competent by common users. Professional technical staff also need to refer to their equipment manuals when equipped with soft routing. Even with the help of the manual, they cannot have full control. I can only test and explore it from time to time. However, the hardware wide collar router in this regard is very humane, simple clear all Chinese equipment interface, comfortable interface and clear function structure so that a popular user is very easy to get started with the operation. Here, the hardware Broadband Router wins.

2. NAT is the most fundamental and central function of a wide-collar router. If you do not enable NAT, it is not called a wide-collar router. Although the different products design the NAT Function is the same, however, the software's black/white design directly affects NAT efficiency and router functions. When the NAT Function is enabled, there are many vrothrothroughput statements, which are a measure of vro functionality.

In addition, whether the NAT Function can specifically weigh whether a product can match a mature specification, for example, whether your router can support one-to-one NAT translation and the number of NAT services you can support, whether it can support more sensitive NAT port ing (forwarding), whether it can support multipleNAT, whether it can support enabling NAT in different time periods, and so on, the comparison between a hardware wide-collar router and a soft route is smooth;

However, in terms of function comparison, RouterOs should be stronger, but the strong function directly leads to the complexity of the equipment, and its NAT Function is too deep in the internal structure of the data packet, its controllable parameters are too precise, if all of its NAT functions are enabled and its forwarding functions are controlled, their forwarding functions will be seriously affected. In this regard, RouterOS won the championship.

3. Intranet restraint. This comparison is relatively simple. In terms of strategy (accesslist), the first thing is to see if the Intranet can be effectively controlled. For example, we often see some usage: in a certain time segment, can a limited user be allowed to visit a port of a limited IP address of an external network, or can a certain IP address be allowed to access the Internet through the router for a relatively simple use. In this regard, the hardware wide collar router relies on the WEB management interface and the decree of the line of generi. Strategic Restraint is equivalent to the function of soft routing.

Flexible routing can control more parameters, but in the hardware wide collar router generic strategy to control more parameters, and the hardware wide collar router restraint is more simple and intuitive. In terms of other Intranet controls, both the hardware wide-collar router and the soft route support the IP/MAC binding function, Port Mirroring, and PortVLAN functions, hardware wide collar router this router supports Intranet arp attack prevention function, after enabling it to avoid arp attack option, can be useful to avoid Intranet arp attack, on the soft route did not find this option, think about how to win the hardware Broadband Router.

4. bandwidth restraint. In terms of bandwidth restraint, the two routes have their own characteristics. A hardware wide-collar router is characterized by a bandwidth Restraint Method Based on the CBT bandwidth restraint algorithm. This bandwidth restraint algorithm is similar to the Bank's false loan rule. Its biggest characteristic is that the bandwidth can be shaken up and down. If it is not used, it will be rewarded. If it is used for more use, it will be punished to ensure the use of the useful bandwidth;

The bandwidth limit of the soft route can be so based on the group, based on a single PC to limit a fixed bandwidth, so as to ensure that the bandwidth abuse of users will not affect other Internet users, in addition, it derives some additional functions from this base. For example, it can promise that the user's bandwidth in a certain time segment (for example, within S) can temporarily break a set value, which is similar to the CBT function, you can also set the time range for the Effective Bandwidth limit and set the bandwidth priority of different groups. In addition, the soft route has some built-in options to avoid P2P download, users only need to select a P2P software title to avoid many downloads. This is convenient and suitable for most administrators, it can be seen that its bandwidth restraint is more sensitive. In this regard, RouterOS won.

5. routing functions. The primary advantage of the routing function is the static routing function. The optional parameters and the completed method are surprisingly consistent. In this regard, the two are equivalent.