Halny 4GQV Router for 500Mb/s Fiber Optic Connection: User Experiences and Reviews

Hello,
I wanted to ask if anyone heard anything about Halny routers?
I connect the fiber to the 500Mb / s home and the supplier offers me such Halny 4GQV equipment
The offer is good because I don't have to pay anything for it.
At home, 2-3 computers on the cable plus a TV, plus a few wifi devices.
Link to the router description
https://halny.com/portfolio/gpon-ont-with-4x4...werful-wireless-voip-and-4-gigabit-lan-ports/
I was going to buy a router in the range of PLN 300-450, if it would be much better, I will consider this option.
Thanks

Good routers. I have a lower model in the 300Mbit option and it easily covers 3 computers

Jimi_Latex wrote:

The offer is good because I don't have to pay anything for it.

Just because you don't pay for it doesn't mean the offer is worth your attention.
The operator's equipment is often neutered, cut off or blocked access to the terminal at all, you won't set anything, you won't change anything ...

KOCUREK1970 wrote:

Jimi_Latex wrote:

The offer is good because I don't have to pay anything for it.

Just because you don't pay for it doesn't mean the offer is worth your attention.
The operator's equipment is often neutered, cut off or blocked access to the terminal at all, you won't set anything, you won't change anything ...

I know that, and that's why I wonder. If it works fine, I'll stay with it.
What would you suggest in a budget of 300-450?

Jimi_Latex wrote:

What would you suggest in a budget of 300-450?

Nothing, because you cannot install two routers in one network, because advanced network services will stop working, e.g. you will not play games on the console, VPN will have problems or VoIP will not work together.
If you want your router, you need to get an ONT terminal or a router set to bridge mode from the operator.
In addition, a router that fully supports the 500Mbps connection costs a minimum of PLN 500.

IC_Current wrote:

Nothing, because you cannot install two routers in one network, because advanced network services will stop working, e.g. you will not play games on the console, VPN will have problems or VoIP will not work together.

1. I was not going to assemble two routers
2. I will test how it works, and maybe I'll make a decision to give it back and buy my own.
3. How is it that the operator provides a 500Mbps link and gives equipment that does not use it? For me, it's a scam - but that's a separate topic.
4. I am asking for specific models of routers for this connection speed at this price of PLN 500

IC_Current wrote:

Nothing, because you cannot install two routers in one network, because advanced network services will stop working

A very far-reaching simplification. Shouldn't - fact, but can't?!?
What advanced network services will stop working? Why can't I play games on the console? VPN is flashing too, and even VoIP is stacking up. A matter of a bit more complicated configuration.

IC_Current wrote:

In addition, a router that fully supports the 500Mbps connection costs a minimum of PLN 500.

I dare to say that now much cheaper routers with 500Mb will do.
Even HEX from mikrotik for half of that PLN 500. Or, how should it be with Wifi, then hAP AC (or higher)

mick1 wrote:

A very far-reaching simplification. Shouldn't - fact, but can't?!?
What advanced network services will stop working? Why can't I play games on the console? VPN is flashing too, and even VoIP is stacking up. A matter of a bit more complicated configuration.

IPSec does not work without NAT-Traversal and no other VPN where authentication is made using an IP address.
VoIP works depending on the operator and the possibility of forcing the client to send a periodic packet maintaining the open NAT session.
Multiplayer games only work if you add the console to DMZ on both NAT routers. Unless the game uses a proxy.

mick1 wrote:

Even HEX from mikrotik for half of that PLN 500

A colleague Erbit did microtik tests recently and it turned out that cheap devices do not cope at all, unless a simple speedtest with one or two sessions but not for smaller packages and several sessions.

Jimi_Latex wrote:

I will test how it works, and maybe I will make a decision to give it back and buy my own.

You will not test anything, because with optical fiber the operator authorizes ONT terminals in your OLT and you will not install anything else. The operator's device must be. You want your router, you must immediately ask for an ONT terminal or the ability to convert the operator device to bridge mode.

Added after 2 [minutes]:

mick1 wrote:

A very far-reaching simplification. Shouldn't - fact, but can't?!?

This is of course a fact, but a user who asks for a router and does not know that he must have an ONT can handle the configuration of multiple NAT so that everything works as it should?

IC_Current wrote:

You want your router, you must immediately ask for an ONT terminal or the ability to convert the operator device to bridge mode.

Could you have a look at the link of the operator's equipment that I pasted above and assess whether such something is enough for a standard user.
The router will hang in the garage which is in the same building as the house. This is also where all cables from individual rooms come out. I want a good wifi signal on the upper floor.

Jimi_Latex wrote:

Suppose they agree to the bridge mode? What benefits will I get from this.

If you do not know what the benefits of bridge mode and your own router are, it just means that the operator's equipment is completely sufficient for you.

Jimi_Latex wrote:

I want a good wifi signal on the upper floor.

Even if you have equipment for tens of thousands, you will not have coverage (with high bandwidth) on the floor. Each WiFi's transmit power is legally prescribed and the same for all devices. The differences are cosmetic. If you want good coverage, you need to add additional access points in several places in your home and connect them with a cable to the main router.

IC_Current wrote:

IPSec does not work without NAT-Traversal and no other VPN where authentication is made using an IP address.

In the sense, port forwarding and packet forwarding do not exist?

IC_Current wrote:

VoIP works depending on the operator and the possibility of forcing the client to send a periodic packet maintaining the open NAT session.

As above

IC_Current wrote:

Multiplayer games only work if you add the console to DMZ on both NAT routers. Unless the game uses a proxy.

DMZ in this case? I would be afraid. Works without, proven.

IC_Current wrote:

mick1 wrote:

Even HEX from mikrotik for half of that PLN 500

A colleague Erbit did microtik tests recently and it turned out that cheap devices do not cope at all, unless a simple speedtest with one or two sessions but not for smaller packages and several sessions.

They can handle bandwidth - and that's what we talked about. It's obvious that the more services (ports, packets, maybe encryption, maybe peering into frames due to L4-L7 operations), the less efficient EVERY router will be.

IC_Current wrote:

Added after 2 [minutes]:

mick1 wrote:

A very far-reaching simplification. Shouldn't - fact, but can't?!?

This is of course a fact, but a user who asks for a router and does not know that he must have an ONT can handle the configuration of multiple NAT so that everything works as it should?

Will a user operating this way use IPsec or VoIP?
But you're right, it may have a configuration problem. Nevertheless, the sentence that you cannot - is still far from true.

_cheetah_ wrote:

It is possible that you would be lucky after all and you will set up WiFi connections all over your home on low-speed clients. But if you would like to have wifi really fast both on the ground and upstairs, you might need two or three additional APs ...

I love it, someone wise will come and write the obviousness that I scratch my head and think why I didn't think about it myself - and by the way, probably the best solution in this situation.
Leave the router that is there and put the AP in a critical place. No second router.

mick1 wrote:

Leave the router that is there and put the AP in a critical place. No second router.

This is an example AP, please

Jimi_Latex wrote:

I was not going to install two routers

But the opa router has to stay, and there is nothing to configure there, because usually optical fiber operators do not give access to their terminals.
You want any configurability for yourself, you have to buy your router and put the router into bridge mode.

Jimi_Latex wrote:

How is it that the operator provides a 500Mbps connection and gives equipment that does not use it? For me, it's a scam - but that's a separate topic.

Internet works for you, www works, wp or other e-mail works, the link is supposed to have, so the equipment is perfect - this is what the operator is interested in, some settings for the client and who is interested in it.

Therefore, to begin with, verification:
- do you have full access to the optical terminal for configuration at all,
- does this equipment have a bridge operation at all,
- do you have any public IP available there?
Your further journey with the next equipment depends on these answers.

KOCUREK1970 wrote:

Your further journey with the next equipment depends on these answers.

S cool. So, for the time being it is holding back so to speak. I am starting to use it in a few weeks, I ordered the connection faster so that I would not wait in line.
I will investigate, check what and how and then I will keep asking and asking what to do to make it good.
Does all that you mentioned also depend on the possible AP?

mick1 wrote:

In the sense, port forwarding and packet forwarding do not exist?

And your friend knows that some VPN and VoIP dynamically sets up incoming connections on random ports, even sets up two or three sessions for other traffic, so how would you like to redirect these ports?
Just because it works for you and you use the most basic functionalities doesn't mean that everything else works.

Jimi_Latex wrote:

Does all that you mentioned also depend on the possible AP?

By all means, because depending on "what comes out in the wash", you will buy either a router with wif, which is also an AP, or a typical AP without routing.
The best option if: the opa terminal could be switched to the bridge mode (then the op can block access to its device), was a public IP - all this has its own router and possibly also an AP, as there is not enough wifi signal somewhere. In such a system, you decide what, how, where and how you create your own network at home.

IC_Current wrote:

mick1 wrote:

In the sense, port forwarding and packet forwarding do not exist?

And your friend knows that some VPN and VoIP dynamically sets up incoming connections on random ports, even sets up two or three sessions for other traffic, so how would you like to redirect these ports?
Just because it works for you and you use the most basic functionalities doesn't mean that everything else works.

I don't know if you are trying to defend your mind now, if you don't know how opening sessions on "random" ports works and what the handshake does, but let's establish that you are right, and I am just checking one of the systems for double NAT (because otherwise there is no way) via vpn ;)

To the author:
Anything from the unifi stable (because it's easy to configure and nice)

IC_Current wrote:

Nothing, because you cannot install two routers in one network, because advanced network services will stop working, e.g. you will not play games on the console, VPN will have problems or VoIP will not work together.

crap - everything works.

IC_Current wrote:

VoIP works depending on the operator and the possibility of forcing the client to send a periodic packet maintaining the open NAT session.
Multiplayer games only work if you add the console to DMZ on both NAT routers. Unless the game uses a proxy.

Even more crap - Multiple NAT works on all routers.
You don't need a DMZ.
Of course, there are exceptions, such as PS3 if I remember correctly Sony "badly implemented" NAT support in the device and did not work with some routers without additional redirections.
Everything behind multiple NAT works by default.

IC_Current wrote:

This is of course a fact, but a user who asks for a router and does not know that he must have an ONT can handle the configuration of multiple NAT so that everything works as it should?

Another load of rubbish - in my 25-year career I have not encountered a router with a network router that would not cope with multiple nat.
Every ONT router I had in my hands also dealt with multiple NAT - it's not a network freak, but normal operation.

Of course, each operator can impose restrictions within its network causing the above-mentioned inactivity, however, without restrictions in the network ALL the above-mentioned services work properly.

Buddy @IC_Current, please, if you have such nonsense to write out, delete the description of an IT network specialist in your nobody, because it stuns the eyes with ignorance.
I'm sorry but I had to react sharply if someone thinks he is a specialist and writes such nonsense.
Network specialist / administrator with 25 years of experience.
Regards in peace.

Added after 5 [hours] 26 [minutes]:

mick1 wrote:

I don't know if you are trying to defend your mind now, if you don't know how opening sessions on "random" ports works and what the handshake does, but let's establish that you are right, and I am just checking one of the systems for double NAT (because otherwise there is no way) via vpn

Managed to?
I don't see any obstacles for it not to work.
Dynamic? What a problem, after all, NAT does a dynamic translation "imperceptible" to the recipient.