I have bought a Vigor 2860 to replace my ancient Linksys RV082 for my home office.

I would like some input in the best way to set up the internet connection.

I do a lot of homeworking including a lot of Windows Remote Desktop work to remote sites. The kids also play a lot of online FPS games. We also host a few game servers ourselves. So latency is important. But security is also, of course, a concern.

We're using Sky Fibre Broadband and currently have it set up so:

Sky/BT Modem --> Sky Router (192.168.2.X) --> RV082 (192.168.1.X) --> LAN (192.168.1.*)

Having the LAN connect to the RV082 on one subnet and only the RV082 connect to the Sky Router on a different subnet creates a kind of DMZ.

It should be noted that we have a Windows Server box providing DHCP and DNS rather than the RV082.

It is my understanding that I have two choices for how to use the Vigor 2860.

1. Replace the RV082 and keep using the Sky Router/Modem
2. Replace the RV082 and the Sky Router/Modem and just use the Vigor 2860


My thoughts are that keeping the Sky Router/Modem leaves me with the "DMZ" (how secure that actually is is up for debate) and that the extra hardware should have virtually no effect on latency (a tracert seems to show the RV082 -> Sky Route link is adding <1ms latency).

I would value anyone second opinion on this. Is there anything I've missed or should be considering?

Aside from the power saving, complexity and aesthetic reasons, I would personally remove the Sky router for reliability reasons.
The Sky router is a consumer grade device provided "free of charge" to Sky customers. The DrayTek 2860 as you know is not a free router and is business grade. You get what you pay for as they say.
Since replacing my BT Hub 5 with my 2860 earlier this year, my broadband reliability has improved significantly. Having used a Sky router in the past I have no reason to believe they are any better than BT supplied routers.
Just keep the Sky router in loft/cupboard for any time you need to phone Sky for technical support.

Thanks for the prompt reply. Simplicity and reliability are certainly worth considering.
I'm just wondering whether that is worth losing the DMZ for, having two routers means any potential hacker has to exploit both to gain access and protects against a single point of weakness in the router.

evoelise wrote: I'm just wondering whether that is worth losing the DMZ for, having two routers means any potential hacker has to exploit both to gain access and protects against a single point of weakness in the router.

That is true, you do have a benefit there but I would suggest it is marginal and probably outweighed by the latency and reliability benefits of removing the Sky router. Your choice as they say.