Thread Info
  • State Suggested Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 22 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 53802 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Is a limit of 50 IP addresses still realistic for home use?

Paul C

I've recently started using a UTM 9 home license on a small firewall appliance (Intel J1900-based). It's working well, and I'm definitely a fan. However, I'm immediately running into the 50 'user' (really IP address) limit.

We're a typical family of three, admittedly a gadget-heavy household, but not ridiculously so. I expect that's likely to be a common trait of anyone sophisticated enough to want to run Sophos UTM 9 at home.

In short, I've exceeded the 50 IP limit by over 10% without even trying. Which surprised me at first, when I started counting the devices I've added to my network over the past few years, sure enough, the count was correct. For example: three eero WiFi units, 5 small 'web smart' network switches (i.e. each has a web interface), A/V receiver, four DVRs, two HDHomeRun Prime network tuners, two smart TVs, a Sonos system, a printer and an all-in-one, standalone doc scanner, two Nest thermostats, the main '24x7' Linux server, plus a small Synology and Qnap NAS, Xbox 360, nVidia Shield TV, security camera, sprinkler controller, SmartThings Hub, Roomba ...that's 32 IP addresses, before we even start talking about laptops, tablets, smartphones, kindles, etc. Even my Smartwatch requests an IP address...

As I understand it, the Home license allows 50 IP addresses, period. The only way past that limit is to purchase a commercial license, whose costs runs to four digits for even a subset of the functionality provided in the home license. If that understanding is correct, either I have to work around this limit by putting some devices on a NAT'd subnet (which seems counter to the spirit of the license), or give up and go elsewhere. Which would be a shame, the only other negative I've come across is the complete lack of UPnP port forwarding (yes, I fully understand the controversy - but believe it's a solvable problem).

I see the value being offered, and would happily pay to increase that limit to 100 or 150 IP addresses (say $99 or $149?). I'd rather not pay a subscription personally, unless it's significantly less per year. But I don't have either option, it seems.

Thoughts?

- Paul



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents Reply Children
  • 0 in reply to PaulTaylor

    pure speculation from my side and a good portion fantasy:

    lets call it an advanced home licence than, i would guess that sophos could sell it, maybe take a few home features away (aside from branding, sandstorm and active-active HA its feature complete) and charge 100 € / year for it. 

    The amount of people is probably quite low who would consider buying this, the financial outcome for sophos not worth the troubles.

    I would still have them considering removing the ipv6 count vs. protected IP addresses for obvious reasons. (or at least have it calculated at a fraction against it)

     

    Regarding IoT Devices, you could consider putting another router in Front of those, effectively creating a seperate zone for it.

    ---

    Sophos UTM 9.3 Certified Engineer

  • 0 in reply to PaulTaylor

    I live in Silicon Valley and work from home :)  I'd be the first to admit my network isn't typical, but the number of IoT devices is the main contributor here, and that's something definitely on the rise.

Unfiltered HTML