Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro-8
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I am curious to know...how is knowing EdgeOS is more useful than ASA software?
Because one is the "most applicable to the SMB market" of any product in the category. The other borders on being the least
Thinking SMB, this makes perfect sense. No way in [insert expletive] I would make a SMB sell their soul for Cisco gear when other gear would be just as good (or better) at a fraction of the cost.
Does getting bigger than SMB suddenly make ASA make sense when it does less?
I would have to compare hardware specs and throughput capabilities to really make a determination on that. If they can both process the same number of packets per second (or at least meet the requirements of the organization), then of course not.
Oh no, it's not even close. The Ubiquiti's claim to fame is its ability to destroy the Cisco in performance. That's specifically why the ASA is seen as such a joke, it's SO slow - without being $20 which is what it should be considering the performance.
-
We can the numbers recently, and it took a $4,500 ASA to match the ER-L for $95. And there is the ER-4 about to release and other higher models of the Ubiquiti's that are still in the <$500 range, each way faster than the one that crushes Cisco.
it's not that Ubiquiti is the answer to every environment, it's really just that the ASA is so bad.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I am curious to know...how is knowing EdgeOS is more useful than ASA software?
Because one is the "most applicable to the SMB market" of any product in the category. The other borders on being the least
Thinking SMB, this makes perfect sense. No way in [insert expletive] I would make a SMB sell their soul for Cisco gear when other gear would be just as good (or better) at a fraction of the cost.
Does getting bigger than SMB suddenly make ASA make sense when it does less?
I would have to compare hardware specs and throughput capabilities to really make a determination on that. If they can both process the same number of packets per second (or at least meet the requirements of the organization), then of course not.
Oh no, it's not even close. The Ubiquiti's claim to fame is its ability to destroy the Cisco in performance. That's specifically why the ASA is seen as such a joke, it's SO slow - without being $20 which is what it should be considering the performance.
Oh? Did someone do some sort of benchmark comparison or something? If so, I'd love to read/see it.
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I am curious to know...how is knowing EdgeOS is more useful than ASA software?
Because one is the "most applicable to the SMB market" of any product in the category. The other borders on being the least
Thinking SMB, this makes perfect sense. No way in [insert expletive] I would make a SMB sell their soul for Cisco gear when other gear would be just as good (or better) at a fraction of the cost.
Does getting bigger than SMB suddenly make ASA make sense when it does less?
I would have to compare hardware specs and throughput capabilities to really make a determination on that. If they can both process the same number of packets per second (or at least meet the requirements of the organization), then of course not.
Oh no, it's not even close. The Ubiquiti's claim to fame is its ability to destroy the Cisco in performance. That's specifically why the ASA is seen as such a joke, it's SO slow - without being $20 which is what it should be considering the performance.
Oh? Did someone do some sort of benchmark comparison or something? If so, I'd love to read/see it.
Found your thread, actually: https://mangolassi.it/topic/14570/comparing-ubiquiti-edgerouter-and-cisco-asa-pps-performance-and-cost
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@scottalanmiller said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I am curious to know...how is knowing EdgeOS is more useful than ASA software?
Because one is the "most applicable to the SMB market" of any product in the category. The other borders on being the least
Thinking SMB, this makes perfect sense. No way in [insert expletive] I would make a SMB sell their soul for Cisco gear when other gear would be just as good (or better) at a fraction of the cost.
Does getting bigger than SMB suddenly make ASA make sense when it does less?
I would have to compare hardware specs and throughput capabilities to really make a determination on that. If they can both process the same number of packets per second (or at least meet the requirements of the organization), then of course not.
Oh no, it's not even close. The Ubiquiti's claim to fame is its ability to destroy the Cisco in performance. That's specifically why the ASA is seen as such a joke, it's SO slow - without being $20 which is what it should be considering the performance.
Oh? Did someone do some sort of benchmark comparison or something? If so, I'd love to read/see it.
You can just look at their numbers. But this has been Ubiquiti's own selling point since day one - directly comparing themselves to Cisco and Meraki to show how they weren't even serious contenders. That's always been the UBNT example - that Cisco can't even begin to compete.
-
I haven't played with Ubiquiti too much, though I do have a cheap Edge Router ER-X sitting in my office drawer. When I set it up, I was super impressed by the UI and apparent tool set.
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
-
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPoe-5 -> ASA5510 or ERPoe-5 -> ERPro-8.
Likely going to do the latter.
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
-
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
The biggest advantage is the ERPro-8 is rack mountable. Also, the ERPro-8 does have a little more horsepower behind it but whether or not it'd be noticable in my environment is another story. I suspect if I wanted to do any sort of VPN tunneling it may fair a little better, but that's just a guess. So, mostly because it's rack mountable.
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
The biggest advantage is the ERPro8 is rack mountable. Also, the ERPro8 does have a little more horsepower behind it but whether or not it'd be noticable in my environment is another story. I suspect if I wanted to do any sort of VPN tunneling it may fair a little better, but that's just a guess. So, mostly because it's rack mountable.
Just buy a rackable tray for the ASA
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
The biggest advantage is the ERPro8 is rack mountable. Also, the ERPro8 does have a little more horsepower behind it but whether or not it'd be noticable in my environment is another story. I suspect if I wanted to do any sort of VPN tunneling it may fair a little better, but that's just a guess. So, mostly because it's rack mountable.
Single VPN would likely not matter at all. JB has shown that if you turn on QoS or other features that an ER-L can slow down (line speed can drop from 1 Gb/s to something like 650 Mb/s - as JB for real numbers). So the ERPro8 might matter here if you do these things, and you have a pipe greater than 650 Mb/s - which you said you'd top out around 100/30, so not likely to affect you.
-
@dave247 said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
The biggest advantage is the ERPro8 is rack mountable. Also, the ERPro8 does have a little more horsepower behind it but whether or not it'd be noticable in my environment is another story. I suspect if I wanted to do any sort of VPN tunneling it may fair a little better, but that's just a guess. So, mostly because it's rack mountable.
Just buy a rackable tray for the ASA
You're probably thinking of the ASA5505. The ASA5510 is already rack mountable. It's a 1U beast.
-
@dave247 said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
The biggest advantage is the ERPro8 is rack mountable. Also, the ERPro8 does have a little more horsepower behind it but whether or not it'd be noticable in my environment is another story. I suspect if I wanted to do any sort of VPN tunneling it may fair a little better, but that's just a guess. So, mostly because it's rack mountable.
Just buy a rackable tray for the ASA
Same goes for the ERPro POE.
But you already have the ERPro 8, assuming you can't return it and spend the money on something else - ok fine, rack it up.
-
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
The biggest advantage is the ERPro8 is rack mountable. Also, the ERPro8 does have a little more horsepower behind it but whether or not it'd be noticable in my environment is another story. I suspect if I wanted to do any sort of VPN tunneling it may fair a little better, but that's just a guess. So, mostly because it's rack mountable.
Single VPN would likely not matter at all. JB has shown that if you turn on QoS or other features that an ER-L can slow down (line speed can drop from 1 Gb/s to something like 650 Mb/s - as JB for real numbers). So the ERPro8 might matter here if you do these things, and you have a pipe greater than 650 Mb/s - which you said you'd top out around 100/30, so not likely to affect you.
If I mentioned anywhere that I'd top out around 100/30, that's not correct (maybe you're inadvertently mixing this thread with another?). In terms of Internet service, I would likely top out around 300/10 (most my cable provider will do...and I may take them up on it just because). However, I may want to play with different firewall zones and could see wanting to throw traffic between zones at wirespeed (or as fast as the configuration will allow).
Aside from all that, I like that 1) it's a nice rack-mountable form factor, and 2) I'm not spending any money to get it.
I suppose I should've mentioned that I would be inheriting these devices. No out-of-pocket money on my part (other than the gas to get them home and recurring power bill to keep them on).
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@dashrender said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
I'll probably go with the ERPro8 mostly for the fact that it's nowhere near as power hungry as the ASA. I'm currently using an ERPro PoE in my home setup and have no complaints. It has served me well.
Why move away from the ERPro8? The OS on the other ER is the same.
I would either be going ERPro PoE -> ASA5510 or ERPro PoE -> ERPro8.
Likely going to do the latter.
Right, my question is - why? If you go the ASA, I get it, you're changing vendors (i.e. new interface), but if going to the ERPro8, why? do you need the extra ports? If not, there's nothing to gain by moving to the ERPro8 over the ERPro POE.
The biggest advantage is the ERPro8 is rack mountable. Also, the ERPro8 does have a little more horsepower behind it but whether or not it'd be noticable in my environment is another story. I suspect if I wanted to do any sort of VPN tunneling it may fair a little better, but that's just a guess. So, mostly because it's rack mountable.
Single VPN would likely not matter at all. JB has shown that if you turn on QoS or other features that an ER-L can slow down (line speed can drop from 1 Gb/s to something like 650 Mb/s - as JB for real numbers). So the ERPro8 might matter here if you do these things, and you have a pipe greater than 650 Mb/s - which you said you'd top out around 100/30, so not likely to affect you.
If I mentioned anywhere that I'd top out around 100/30, that's not correct (maybe you're inadvertently mixing this thread with another?). In terms of Internet service, I would likely top out around 300/10 (most my cable provider will do...and I may take them up on it just because). However, I may want to play with different firewall zones and could see wanting to throw traffic between zones at wirespeed (or as fast as the configuration will allow).
Aside from all that, I like that 1) it's a nice rack-mountable form factor, and 2) I'm not spending any money to get it.
I suppose I should've mentioned that I would be inheriting these devices. No out-of-pocket money on my part (other than the gas to get them home and recurring power bill to keep them on).
If that's the case I'll take the one you don't use :winking_face: .
-
There is no such product as the ERPro PoE
-
@jaredbusch said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
There is no such product as the ERPro PoE
My bad. I've been meaining ERPoe-5.
-
There has always been a third party rack mount solution for the ERL and ERPoE form factor.
Orinigally designed for the ToughSwitch series
-
@anthonyh said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
@jaredbusch said in Cisco ASA5510 vs Ubiquiti ERPro8:
There is no such product as the ERPro PoE
My bad. I've been meaining ERPoe-5.
OK, I think I fixed my blunder everywhere I could.
