Fine vendors both. In my (admittedly limited) experience Peplink equipment is easier to configure and deploy, and the customer support is absolutely fabulous
Ubiquiti seems to allow more sophisticated/detailed choices w.r.t. their RF setup (incl. WiFi), however I have found that to be of use primarily when one configures RF-based network links (microwave, RF-based long-haul and the like), which is quite far afield from your situation.
No - I mean (and the specs say) “Router Throughput.” (The specs are available at Surf SOHO specifications).
Think about it this way:
- There is the port speed at the ethernet interface as per the appropriate IEEE standard (10/100/1000 Mbps). The SOHO is up to 1000Mbps.
- There is the LAN speed (“router throughput”) which caps how fast the router can route packets from one device to another on your network. The SOHO is up 120 Mbps.
- There is the WAN speed which caps how fast the router can route packets between the external and internal networks. This is usually the same as the router throughput, and in practice the external connections are slower than the internal ones (but not necessarily).
As a consequence:
If your internal network speed (via the router) is an issue (i.e., significant traffic between devices on your own network) then you either
(1) consider router throughput to be important or
(2) you split the responsibilities: Let the router only deal with traffic between the external and the internal networks, and have only one LAN connection from the router, to a local switch which then handles all internal traffic at full 1000Mbps speed. This assumes there are no internal firewall needs.
If your WAN connection is fast and you want to employ all its capacity then router throughput becomes the issue. E.g., if you have a 1Gbps fiber connection then your Surf SOHO will reduce it to being only a 120 Mbps connection - a waste of good bandwidth.
Yes it is possible. You would have to administer each device individually (somewhat tedious) or you could manage them all using the cloud-based InControl2 as the controller (first year free, then $29/year/unit)
Yes. Rotuer throughput is the critical parameter for network speed in the absence of switches on your LAN. However, traffic among devices connexted to the same access point would be faster (limited by the AP capacity rather than by the capacity of the router)
The user interfaces are similar - so there should be no worries there. The devices function pretty much right out of the box (just remember to change the passwords from the defaults )
If you are concerned about possible complexities I’d say your alternative scenarios (three devices (a router and two APs), each configured separately, adding two switches for internal throughput) is actually more complex than getting the Balance One.
To summarize, assuming that the budget is OK:
Zone 1 + WAN:
One Balance One (with WiFi). Throughput is 600Mbps, and it has 8 LAN ports.
Access point AP One, either the AC Mini or the Enterprise, depending on your space, Throughput 300-1300Mbps (depending on the model).
A small, dumb switch with enough 1Gbps ports to satisfy your wired connection needs.
Conection between zones: A CAT5e or better cable between a LAN port on the Balance One and the uplink port on the Zone 2 switch (or directly into the AP One, if you don’t need the wired ports in Zone 2)
You’re most welcome.
PS: One advantage with two APs rather than a WiFi-enabled Balance One and one AP is that the AP AC minis are quite tiny and can be anywhere as long as you can get an ethernet cable to them (they can be powered by PoE, so no need for a powerbrick at the AP location). Thus that alternative would replace the Balance One + 1 AP with a Balance One Core and two APs.