1. Home
  2. Cisco Systems
  3. 851 and 871 Performance Inquiry

851 and 871 Performance Inquiry

Hello,

My company recently setup a wireless network for a hotel. This wireless network contains 40 access points, and needs to be able to support 200 concurrent users connecting to the internet at one time. The router that we are currently using doesn't do the job well, and we need to replace it.

Basically, all the router does is provide DHCP addresses to the users, and PAT the internal addresses to the external interface, then over a DSL line to the Internet. We would like to replace the router with one of Cisco low-end routers, i.e. the 851 or 871, but I have concerns about whether the router could handle a lot of users.

So, what are your experience with the 851/871 and lots of users?

Thanks, KB

Reply to
KB
Loading thread data ...

How sure are you that your performance problems with your existing existing are a function of your router's behavior, rather than the fact that you have 200 users concurrently trying to access the Internet via a single DSL line?

As far as the 85x vs 87x ... the former is rated for up to

5Mbps, the latter up to 10Mbps (ref.:
formatting link
could provide DHCP and NAT service to a goodly number of clients,but the "recommended number of users" for those platforms are 10/20 respectively. For 200 users, a Cisco sales person would prefer that buy an 2801 or something.

Aaron

Reply to
Aaron Leonard

Our dissatisfaction with our current router has nothing to do with performance issues - it is just a crappy router that occasionally drops the connection due to faulty routing logic and bad firmware. The wireless network is brand new and has not yet been subjected to a heavy load. As an offsite company, our part of the contract only covers the router and the wireless access points. The DSL connection is the Hotel's responsibility and if they are running into an bottleneck at that point it is their responsibility to fix it.

(ref.:

formatting link
Both could provide DHCP and NAT service to a goodly number

I interpreted Cisco's recommendations to mean 10/20 users with QoS, VOIP, and VPN services enabled. This router won't be doing any of that, so I was hoping that we could get significantly more users. Anyone else want to weigh in?

Thanks, KB

Reply to
KB

(ref.:

formatting link
> Both could provide DHCP and NAT service to a goodly number

Considering the hardware is rated on speed, the real question is will the router have a hard time managing a 200 user NAT. I do agree that

20 users is probably with multiple processor intensive features for a small router, but I also hesitate to think it will handle 10 times that without a hitch. If it were my hotel, I'd opt for the 2801. Since you are a consultant, its a slightly different ballgame. All depends what the ROI based on not having to replace it in X years if you have the right hardware. Is there any anticipated growth at the hotel over time? Are you making money per user, or is it free to hotel customers and you get a flat monthly fee for the service? While none of this is my business, this is a financial decision, not necessarily an equipment one. What will make your customer happy for the least amount of spend and therefore the highest return on your side? And how likely are they to yank your contract if they have to complain to you about a perceived hardware problem? Just my two cents.

If you need to watch your spend and you do opt for the bigger node..consider buying used or refurb.

Reply to
Trendkill

(ref.:

formatting link
> > Both could provide DHCP and NAT service to a goodly number

Agreed.

Can't comment on 8[57]1 strictly, but we have taken out a couple of 877s that crashed regularly, apparetly under high load. We use lots of 8x7 for "home" users but for an office of any kind we now use 2801. Fine they are too.

Not tried 1800s.

83x seemed OK too by the way.
Reply to
Bod43

Thanks for the advice!

KB

Reply to
KB

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.