I'd go with a DD-WRT image http://www.dd-wrt.com/ on a good (meaning fast cpu and 64+ MB of flash mem) home router. It will do far more than a typical expensive small office router for a lot less, even things you may not think you'll need now but might later. I know you said no Linksys but the Cisco E3000, aka linksys E3000, is a pretty decent box for running dd-wrt. I use one at home, gig ports, I run an ipv6 tunnel to HE out of it since Verizon Fios doesn't seem to understand what ipv6 is, remote management, SSH access, etc. without expensive software licenses. Here's a page with some other soho router options that are equally good for ddwrt:
https://www.flashrouters.com/blog/2011/06/13/recommendations-of-best-rou ters-for-using-and-installing-ddwrt-open-source-firmware/ David > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rusty Dekema > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Small, Low Power Cisco Router Recommendation > > Hmm. Of the options presented so far, this Mikrotik RB750 > sounds the most > promising. > > I've found that Linksys products have a tendency to partially > or completely > fail on a regular basis for no apparent reason. The Cisco > 819, however, is > far too expensive for this penny-ante project. > > The Cisco 806, on the other hand, looks great, especially for > the 1mbit > application. Is there another Cisco router like that but with 10/100 > Ethernet ports? If so, that would probably be the ideal. > [I'll be buying > these on eBay anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's EOL. And > at prices like > this, one can afford a spare or two...] > > Thanks again, > Rusty D > > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Roy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Mikrotik :-) The RB750 will do it > > > > > > On 7/19/2012 5:19 PM, Rusty Dekema wrote: > > > >> Good evening, > >> > >> This question is a bit far afield for this list, but I > need a reliable, > >> quiet-or-silent, low-power-consumption Cisco router with > two 10 or 10/100 > >> Ethernet ports. All they need to do is do a default route > with NAT between > >> the Ethernet interfaces. One of them will only have to > handle 1 mbit (max) > >> of traffic; the other could receive traffic bursts up to > 30 mbit, although > >> it would still be acceptable if it can only push 10-15mbit. > >> > >> Low cost, quiet/silent operation, and low power consumption are the > >> primary > >> requirements here. Any suggestions? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rusty D > >> ______________________________**_________________ > >> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > >> > https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://p > uck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp> > >> archive at > http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/<http://puck.neth > er.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/> > >> . > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
