3 ms·
Fun solution, but seems like overkill for just about every home user. I used to use a dual-WAN setup with cable modem + DSL backup. It worked well with automat
by Johnny555 8y ago
Fun solution, but seems like overkill for just about every home user.
I used to use a dual-WAN setup with cable modem + DSL backup. It worked well with automatic failover. I use a pfSense APU based router and, with no moving parts, it's been very reliable, nearly 4 years without any unscheduled downtime.
Then I moved and only had a single ISP to choose from, so my backup is to manually turn on a Wifi hotspot. I thought about using a cellular router with ethernet or a wifi connection to the hotspot for auto-failover, but it just wasn't worth the time and/or money to set it up -- if I'm home when the internet goes down, I can just switch to the hotspot, if I'm not home, then all I really lose is the ability to control the lights and thermostat remotely, not exactly a critical function.
- zf00002 8y ago> seems like overkill I think that's quite the understatement. The thing that really stands out to me is the claim that all of that is only drawing 220W at idle. I'm curious if he means truly idle, like literally just booted up and not doing anything at all, zero traffic, etc. Or if that's the draw with stuff actually being used. Because 220W just for your home network is hilarious. I mean I feel dumb often because my little pfsense box pulls about 15W.
- bluedino 8y agoPfSense or something like an out of maintenance Fortigate is an easier solution