I have come across discussions about this topic previously, but I still have some specific inquiries. I have successfully set up multiple 1783-NATR devices with no issues. Recently, I received a recommendation to consider using a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X. I have also had positive experiences with Ubiquiti switches in the past. My interest in trying out the EdgeRouter X is primarily due to its lower cost, with $50 compared to $1000. My main goal is to implement 1:1 NAT for integrating a PLC into our machine network. Can anyone share insights on the variances they have noticed between the two options? Thank you.
I utilize an EdgeRouter X for my residence and so far, it has been functioning effectively. However, as it is not designed for industrial use, its durability in harsh conditions like dirt, vibration, and extreme temperatures is uncertain. While purchasing a significant number of spares for $1000 is an option, the potential downtime associated with a replacement should be considered. Although it is possible to save the device's configuration in advance, there is still a time-consuming process of identifying a problem, locating a spare, installing it, and reconfiguring it. For systems of low priority or those not heavily reliant on network connectivity, the EdgeRouter X could suffice. In a clean and controlled environment, any shortcomings may go unnoticed. However, for systems where the network connection is critical for production (such as receiving just-in-time orders), the additional cost of $950 for an industrial-grade device may be justified by avoiding potential profit losses in case of failure. It is worth noting that the EdgeRouter X has a decent temperature specification range of -10C to 45C, which is higher than what many non-industrial hardware can withstand, even if they are technically capable of handling such conditions.
When it comes to consumer products in the industry, my advice would be to opt for cost-effective and readily available options. This ensures that in case of any failure, the replacement process is quick and affordable. Additionally, keeping spare parts handy is ideal if budget allows. It's important to note that heat and dust are common culprits when it comes to gear malfunction. Regularly cleaning and keeping the equipment cool can significantly extend its lifespan. Personally, I am a fan of the Ubiquiti brand for their quality products. We rely on their equipment at work, and even in harsh conditions like our workshop with forklift dust and Australian summers, we haven't experienced any failures. I have also witnessed the durability of items like the pfSense Netgate 1100 with a DIN rail mount on-site.
Thank you for your responses. I have decided to purchase another AB NATR for the PLC I intend to connect to. While this connection is not vital for production, it will enable supervisors to remotely monitor machine operations from their offices. Although the connection failing could result in numerous complaints, it's best to utilize a tool specifically designed for this purpose. Once again, I appreciate your feedback.
HoldenC expressed appreciation for the responses and has decided to purchase another AB NATR for connecting to a PLC that will allow supervisors to remotely monitor a machine. While the PLC isn't essential for production, a failure in the link could result in complaints. It is best to use a tool specifically designed for this application. Thank you for the feedback provided. When handling someone else's funds and being accountable for any complications, it is wiser to opt for the more reliable and straightforward solution.
I agree with mk42 about the reliability of the 1783-NATR devices we are currently using. While I have not personally worked with Ubiquiti equipment, I have heard positive things about the company. However, I prefer the 1783 devices due to the familiarity of another electrician who has experience with AB RSLinx and other AB web-enabled ethernet devices. This knowledge increases the likelihood of being able to quickly replace a failed device. Additionally, having access to AB tech support at our facility helps minimize downtime, despite the occasional imperfections that come with any tech support service.
From my experience, both devices have their strengths, but they're really designed for different environments and functions closely tied with their respective price points. The 1783-NATR is truly industrial-grade and specifically built for more complex setups like PLC integration, offering a high level of robustness and reliability, something you'd come to expect from such a price tag. The Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X, on the other hand, is a fantastic home or small business router with excellent performance considering its cost but may lack some of the specialized capabilities specifically designed for industrial environments. It may require considerable configuration on your part to get it functioning exactly as you need. So, in deciding between the two, it's paramount you take into consideration your specific requirements, budget, and how much you value the time spent customizing configurations.
Both the 1783-NATR devices and the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X are great options, but they do have their distinct differences. The 1783-NATR is designed for industrial use and thus might be more durable in heavy-duty use cases. However, the EdgeRouter X provides exceptional affordability and lots of bang for your buck. It is renowned for its reliable performance and flexibility which will work great for your 1:1 NAT implementation. Keep in mind though, you might need to play around a bit with the configuration for proper PLC integration. From personal experience, Ubiquiti's customer support is responsive and helpful, so don't hesitate to turn to them if needed.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - The 1783-NATR devices are known for their reliability and ease of setup, while the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X offers a lower cost alternative. Both options can be used for implementing 1:1 NAT for integrating a PLC into a machine network.
Answer: - The Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X is the more cost-effective option at $50 compared to the 1783-NATR devices which are priced at $1000.
Answer: - Users have reported successful setups with both the 1783-NATR devices and the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X. However, the main differences lie in the cost and potentially in the setup process.
Answer: - While the 1783-NATR devices are known for their reliability, the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X offers a cost-effective alternative. Users may have varying experiences in terms of performance and reliability based on their specific requirements and setups.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.