TP-Link Safestream Multi WAN Router | 4 10/100M WAN Ports w/ Load Balance Function | Portal Authencation Access Management | Abundant Security Features | Lightning Protection(TL-R470T+)

I have had this router for a week and am very, very impressed. I am using it to load balance (and provide redundancy) between a satellite internet connection and a 3G/4G internet connection in a rural area where satellite and 3G/4G are my only internet options - and both are unreliable. I wanted certain traffic to go via 3G (low latency) and most traffic to go via satellite (lower cost) and redundancy as both connections are really flaky (bad weather, infuriated gods). It was pretty easy to configure - and surprisingly easy to configure some of the more advanced features (load balancing, online detection, policy-based routing, static routes etc.). And unlike Linksys, Netgear and D-Link products in general, this thing actually works and does what it says it will do. Great value, great product.My only criticism (perhaps unfair) is that the CLI is not documented and I really wish there was a way to query throughput stats via the CLI (to monitor throughput in another program via a telnet connection/query) - but that's not important for most people.In all, if you're after redundancy and load balancing (and more) for 2-4 WAN connections, this router delivers what $150++ routers deliver.EDIT/UPDATE: I have had this router working for 3 weeks and it has performed flawlessly. I've implemented Load Balancing, Traffic Control (QoS), Policy Routing, Static Routes and all work exactly as expected. My setup routes online games traffic, DNS requests and VPN/PPTP traffic via the 3G/4G connection and routes other traffic via the satellite - and because those rules are setup via Policy Routing the satellite takes over if 3G/4G goes down - and vice versa. The result is a much more usable, fast and reliable rural internet solution. Another bonus is that I've been able to limit device bandwidth usage as I have lots of bandwidth hungry users - so rather than Netflix and other services consuming all the available bandwidth (and plowing through my ISPs' usage caps) I can now constrain video to SD quality (via Traffic Control limits), and allow my AppleTVs to work at higher quality resolutions. A shortcoming is perhaps that other routers' QoS/Traffic Control give you more control over the types of traffic and purport to be able to control bandwidth for specific applications (i.e. Netflix, games, etc.), rather than by device/IP but I can live with that shortcoming. Another shortcoming is that the load balancing is fairly simplistic: it simply spreads the traffic demand across the WANs based on ratios. It'd be great if there was the option to base load balancing on prioritized capacity (i.e. if WAN1 bandwidth is consumed, start routing traffic to WAN2) but again, not a huge issue.In all, this is a great router. It has enabled me to reduce my internet bills enormously and dramatically improve reliability with my limited networking skills!

This router absolutely rocks -- especially given the cost. I have an unreliable, very high-speed cable connection and a very reliable poky DSL connection. The cable connection drops maybe 3-10 times in 24 hours and usually reconnects within 5 minutes but on occasion takes an hour or more to reconnect. I have previously used a dedicated Linux box to implement a failover router but the box itself was the source of maybe 1/2 of the internet drops. So, I have been searching for an alternative multi-WAN router. I have initially overlooked this router since it does not explicitly claim to be a dual-WAN router. That's because it can be configured to be up to a 4-WAN router.I think the box is fairly simple to configure if you have basic networking skills. It took me about 1 hour to get everything configured as I like. Setting up WAN connections was simple. My primary WAN port is directly connected to the cable modem. My secondary WAN port is downstream from another wireless router (configured with DHCP but on a different subnet) that is fed by the DSL modem. While the secondary WAN port topology might be undesirable (cascading routers) it actually works just fine (whenever failover occurs). I need the DSL connection to have its own router and subnet for reasons I won't get into here.There are various ways you can configure the load balancing between the two WAN connections. Initially I set it up as a failover system. When my cable connection goes down the DSL connection then goes active and is used to provide internet. As it turns out this is a non-optimal implementation because when primary WAN failure is detected the router then has to first connect to the secondary WAN device, get an IP address and wait until the connection is stable. This process, as it turns out is not seamless, and in my case took about 20 seconds. Not good enough!So I reconfigured the TP-Link'sload-balancing to sharing the internet load between the two WAN ports. This works seamlessly but some devices/processes end up using the poky DSL connection based on random assignment. This might not be noticeable for an email or even web access but for Netflix or a large file download this is a problem. So I took the additional step to specify that all local network hosts should only use the primary internet connection. The result is basically "unfair" load balancing. Everyone always uses the fast connection unless it becomes unavailable and in that case everyone uses whatever connection is available, namely the secondary WAN connection. This works much better and faster than "explicit failover." In most cases I do not notice when the primary WAN goes down and virtual switchover occurs. And the switchover back to from secondary to primary also works seamlessly. Very nice indeed.There was still a problem however because the WAN failure detection as pre-configured is a actually a "connection detection." That's fairly useless since the upstream devices remain connected but fail to be able to provide internet. It's possible and easy to reconfigure failure detection by specifying a ping to an external host. This results in nearly instant failure detection and detects the correct type of failure.One issue is that my ATT microcell device does not work properly when connected to the router. This is a problem that has been discussed on the internet. I am not aware of a solution. I simply circumvent the problem by connecting the microcell to the DSL outer upstream of the TP-Link router. The microcell is not affected by the TP-Link and works fine. It sits on the more reliable connection and does not really benefit from a faster connection -- so all is well.Only one annoyance remains and it is minor. In the above described setup I have not found a way to access the upstream DSL router via the main network. I can access the cable modem because it sits on the WAN port that is used by default but I can't override the load-balancing bias and connect to the secondary WAN port unless I am currently in a failure mode and all traffic has moved to the secondary WAN port. No big deal but a bit irritating.

Fue facil de instalar y trabaja muy bien y fue a muy bajo costo me ahorrro comprar un equipo mucho mas caro

TP link load balancing router is really does its job. I purchased this product, first configured the product with Airtel cable, and then added Jio cable to another port. then I took output from the LAN ports, i am able to access both Airtel and Jio services on the LAN ports, if any one is down, automatically another one is made available to all the ports. very useful one for work from home professions.

Very easy to use and understand.This unit will in fact increase your speed in Some instances. But mostly it just let's you use 2 sources of internet on the same computers. I'll explain..I have 2 6mb DSL lines into the house.(we live in the country and thats the best we can get). Before getting this router I would just have some computers or WiFi devices on each WAN(Incoming internet connection) and hope for the best.Now with this new router, all of the computers are connected to the router (via Ethernet or WiFi) and the router handles which internet connection each computer tries to get data from.Now depending on how the information is sent from the server you are getting it from we can get 12Mbps.Example. Netflix seems to be able to use the 2 connections together and pulls 11-12MBps.ITunes can only use one connection. HOWEVER.. I can Now download 2 podcasts at the same time at 6Mbps each. So while each file will take the same time to download as it did before.. We can do 2 files at the same at the full 6mbps.The router basically works like this.1) Let me try to get what this computer is asking for.2) Let me check which internet connection seems to be less active right now3) OK I've found a connection that seems to be pretty open so I'll use that one instead of trying to piggyback on the connection that's already busy.In some cases(on serves that allow it) the router can get the data from both internet connections at the same time and then put the file together on your computer.That's how it can "increase" the internet speed. It doesn't actually increase the speed it just allows data to be pulled from 2 pipes and then put together on arrival.Now, a side effect of this is an automatic fail over device.Becuase when you ask the router to get you a file and it can't get it from the first connection it naturally wants to move to the next connection.

It has been working great with some initial setup, which was not too complicated. I now have multi WAN setup and the router can deliver a steady speed. One thing to note that the max delivery speed from eth port is capped at 100Mbps regardless the number of WANs you connect. having said that it should be sufficient for many small businesses.

This is an awesome router. I wanted something I could use ethernet with and TPG helped me get it all configured and it works wonderfully. Great value