So only buy this if you need no Cisco support or warranty whatsoever.

Tried some methods as suggested in cisco support forums (by the way, their forum is flooded with complaints about RV320 and RV325) such as adding a gigabit switch between modem and cisco router, adjusting WAN MTU rating etc

While the device itself is fine, we contacted Cisco support and they said that even though it's brand

Trying to obtain Cisco support is surprisingly difficult

As a small business owner, I didn't purchase a support contract, so Cisco support is not available either.

This device is a nice compromise that offers some advanced features, reliability, and quality build at a reasonable price.

Fast and secure as I use a logger on the output to initially see what gets through and

Maintaining a stable configuration is extremely difficult

Cisco RV320 router has decent throughput rates and a responsive configuration interface.

Throughput is excellent.

The throughput is noticeably faster than the RV-220W.Yes, I know that it's not the same as their enterprise equipment

Cisco RV320 router has decent throughput rates and a responsive configuration interface.

Overall I would give this router a rating of 5 for its aesthetics value and outstanding performance/security features that it brings to this business segment at its current feature-to-cost ratio.

It packs powerful features that can significantly improve security of data in transit

Although the ASA5510 was a little over kill, it had enough feature to make them worth while as the 5505 had too few features such as

This router is fraught with problems:Poor throughputBuggy QoS system (IP's that I band limited were using above their limits according to Wireshark)Only 2 priorities on QoS (this is not fine grained enough for most enterprise use)Access rules that straight don't work (IP's that I banned were still communicating with my network according to Wireshark)It does have some good feature

For a CISCO product that has words VPN and router in the name - lacking a few features, namely flexibility in the IPSEC site-to-site VPN setup, ability to create a NAT between IPSEC VPN networks, etc

No performance issues

The performance for the router is a substantial improvement over previous models of the RV series (I have used an RV042G for years) but still isn't quite capable of routing at higher wire speeds now commercially available for residential internet service.

Good little box, but be aware support is only available M-F from Cisco

Fast and secure as I use a logger on the output to initially see what gets through and

And paired with the UniFi, the performance is fabulous!

Works pretty good, multiple vlans in operation right now and everything works.

I have bought about ten of them and they are all working well in our IPSec VPN, DMZ, Remote management exvironment.

I also attached a Ubiquity UniFi Enterprise access point and (using VLAN tagging), the UniFi works extremely well with the router, keeping all the VLANs intact

Works pretty good, multiple vlans in operation right now and everything works.

Port forwarding just started working redirecting the external wan IP to internal IP but the other NAT IP's fail to pass traffic

So, I love the router in spite of the complex setup.

The user interface still needs work, too many of the parameters appear in several places and you have to play "Whack a Mole" to beat everything into the proper final setup

But then...Setup was easy, plug it in turn it on, good to go, right

If you know nothing about routers you could probably set it up effectively with the easy setup wizard that launched automatically.

If you need multiple sites to establish a complex VPN with custom routing - upgrade to ASA product from Cisco

Hours wasted but now the VPN seems to work great -- I can connect back into my router from my Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc. without an external client, which is excellent

For a CISCO product that has words VPN and router in the name - lacking a few features, namely flexibility in the IPSEC site-to-site VPN setup, ability to create a NAT between IPSEC VPN networks, etc

I also set up Easy VPN server on the router, and yes, it works fine with the Apple iPhone embedded VPN client.

2 WAN ports .. one will remain unused ... but this router provided SSL secured VPN, and QoS ... I would have liked to seen some of the features in the new RV130 like automatic software update, but perhaps that really would be better left to a manual update

I know some about routers and found it a very intuitive interface.

Cisco RV320 router has decent throughput rates and a responsive configuration interface.

Fast and secure as I use a logger on the output to initially see what gets through and

Forwarding ports has a kind of overly complex interface, but it does the job

Interface becomes unresponsive so the only fix is to pull the power

The 180W has always (up to now) been a faithful product.

This product and Cisco are not ready for the mass market.

Many of the Cisco Videos refer to the "Cisco VPN Client" which is now unavailable from Cisco - they recommended a different VPN client product

Great product and had accurate information and reviews.

If your goal is have a simple network topology and have a VPN option for roaming users - this is a great product

When you search google you see statements like NAT should be easiest thing to do, but somehow Cisco has taken something that child can do and make it ridiculous hard along with very bad documentation

The only good thing about this is the familiar Cisco interface

I think that probably the fact that it just works is the key thing - the features are here and they work for everything I've tried

First thing I did was update the firmware to the latest (Dec 2013) and all the menus had "undefined" as a name

Inter VLAN routing not working with 1:1 NAT (CSCuv74771)Damn thing is broken and cisco knows it

The device is easy to configure, I love the vpn feature

Device is horrible and totally unreliable on older firmware.

After updating the firmware, that device made all my network slow, and even the factory reset option on the web console didn't solve it

The device was just not working and there was no means we could leave it in place while Cisco "escalated" the ticket.

In terms of hardware this device has now fallen behind some advanced consumer grade (home) routers, which have faster processors and memory.

But the router GUI showed the dreaded “Connected (Inactive)” message on the WAN port that others have reported on the forums.

Within 3 months it was showing the same WAN connection problem, with the same dreaded “Connected (Inactive)” message on the WAN

The same unhelpful error message was also given when I tried to submit an encrypted private key, since I assumed that it would prompt me for a password, but it seems I have to only upload an unencrypted 2048 size key

just EasyVPN.Similarly when I went to go set up an SSL certificate I kept getting unhelpful error messages before I realised that it was due to my private key being 4096 size

Fast and secure as I use a logger on the output to initially see what gets through and

The documentation suggested I just set up the devices to be static IP, after which you need to tell the router that you did so and what that IP address is.

It is great that this router supports No-IP dynamic DNS in addition to a couple of other options.(c

If you want statistics for static ip devices, you must assign them to a VLAN.....but

If you have a static IP from your ISP, you will have no issues with this unit

Basic DHCP, NAT, Static IP, Subnet, DNS Local Database, and Firewall Access Rule configurations all work fine.