High-speed WAN vs. the number of WAN ports - correlated price structure

Fiber-to-the-home/premises (FTTH/FTTP) is becoming more common (very affordable) in the small business and consumer network space. Consequently the Stateful Firewall Throughput parameter becomes critical, regardless of the number of WAN ports.

The Balance prices are closely correlated with the number of WAN ports, which is then correlated with the throughput capacity.

Example use case:
FTTP connection at 1.0 Gbps. The Peplink router serves as a speedfusion/PepVPN hub for many remote Peplink devices (MAX or Balance model lines). Only one WAN port is required (possibly adding one additional port for backup connectivity redundancy).

At this point the minimum model required would be the Balance 305 or the Balance 380, possibly going for a Balance 580 for a 1.5 Gbps bandwidth cushion (and with 2-4 wasted/unused WAN ports). That’s expensive.

One alternative could be to deploy a couple of Balance One Core devices (2 x 600 Mbps), both connected to the FTTP (handling the 1,000 Mbps), with the resulting network architecture mess. A rather unhappy solution.

Feature wish:
There may be a market for high-throughput Balance models with only a few (or even one) WAN port. E.g., a 1.5 Gbps model with one port.

More generally - disconnect the correlation between the number of WAN ports and the throughput capacity.


Thanks for your opinion.

Actually, we are currently developing a gigabit throughput router with few WAN ports, and in cheaper price range. More detail will come soon.


And Peplink delivered very nicely indeed, with the new models.