how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2002-02-04 16:24:31: For those interested, PC Magazine is running a breakdown of 25 different routers over at their website with the full results available here (.pdf file). ..
| |
 
Ugly
Fishy Cool Bird
join:2001-12-12
The Meadow | thank you justin this is a Good "News Link" redirect | |
| Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
 ·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| That was fun I took part of that test roundup. It was fun to play around with all the routers, though exhausting when running the same test script 24 or more times. Was amazed to see how several routers were almost identical to each other, even on the firmware, despite competing vendors.
--
Posting sig removed by system administrator. Sig cannot exceed 30GB in size. | |
| 
Loh
join:2000-12-20
Placentia, CA | Not Working I cant get any of those links to work. Down? | |
| | | 
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| SPI feature FWIW, I own the Linksys BEFSR41, and it supports SPI. Their assertion is that the Netgear products are the only ones in their survey that support this.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer doesn't follow those rules. | |
| | 
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: SPI feature Here's what the Linksys User's Manual says about SPI:
"SPI (Stateful Packet Inspection) - This feature checks the state of of [sic] a packet to verify that the destination IP address matches the source IP of the original request. To use the firewall, click the Enable button; otherwise select Disable to use the NAT firewall."
Could you explain what this means and what practical purpose it serves?
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7200/900 kbps | |
| | |
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| Re: SPI feature Well, as you can tell, whoever wrote the Linksys documentation doesn't exactly have a firm grasp on English. The quote out of the docs implies it's the state of the packet that matters, and thus the confusion. Packets don't really have a state; they have a header and contents/payload. The state being referenced is the state of a network connection. SPI not only looks at the source and destination addresses (as in IP addresses) and ports (if applicable), but also monitors other attributes of a packet, such as TCP sequence numbers or some timer attached by the router to recently passed packets (often for ICMP or UDP, which are connectionless protocols). It is an enhancement to security because more about a packet has to "match up" before it is allowed to be passed through. It's therefore more likely to be a legit communication and less likely to be someone trying to sneak something past your router.
[edit]oh, yeah...forgot practical application.
Let's say some random cracker is doing some packet sniffing and is waiting for the end of some mail sesssion you have going, and wants to inject some packets for whatever reason back behind your firewall. S/he waits for the connection to close, then sends packets that look like they might belong with that data stream, so the router passes them back. If the router does SPI, it realizes you've already sent the packets for TCP connection shutdown, so it says, "no way, Jose". Usually it just drops the additional packets on the floor, or it may return some ICMP message, or in addition to dropping, it might log internally or to some computer (syslog packet, SNMP trap, etc.).
Or let's take another, DoS example. BlAcKHaTCrAcKeR that I am, I want to cause constant TCP RST responses in your communication, so I just inject packets with invalid TCP sequence numbers, thus causing the connection to be reset and terminated. An SPI firewall would refuse to let these out-of-bounds packets through.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-04 23:35:30] | |
| | | | 
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: SPI feature SPI (stateful packet inspection) is a very poorly understood term (even in the documentation of the vendors that claim SPI!
Description of SPI in Linksys documentation is wrong. So, is the description of SPI at PracticallyNetworked.com.
Pls. see my take on this issue.
»RT311 and SPI | |
| | | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Bobcat:
Linksys's SPI is not SPI in the strictest sense. We were looking at the firewalls ability to handle packets stateful.
SPI is a firewall architecture that works at the network layer of the OSI model. This means that it does not only look at the packet header information (this is the SPI functionality Linksys refers to for source and destination inspection) but also at the packet contents. This allows the system to block questionable packets (denial-of-service, syn-flood, etc.). A SPI firewall also monitors connection state and compiles the information in a table (often refered to as state table).
Additionally users can apply certain user-defineable rulesets to an incoming packet.
As a simple example:
1 Allow Send Email (SMTP) * 192.168.1.66
2 Allow File Transfer (FTP) * 192.168.1.77
3 Deny Default * LAN
This rule would allow packets that match 1 and 2 to pass (to the respective IP addresses), but would deny certain other packets.
Hope that shed a little more light onto the issue.
-ok
----------------------------------------
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs
[text was edited by author 2002-02-05 19:20:39] | |
| | | |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: SPI feature okaven: I am glad to see you guys participating in this discussion.
The following are accurate descriptions of SPI (as I have referred in the reference thread above).
»www.avolio.com/apgw+spf.html
»rr.sans.org/firewall/anatomy.php
Linksys routers do not have the overhead of any packet filters that Netgear and ZyXEL routers have (by the way Netgear RT311/RT314/RP114/RP334/RO318/MR314 are all based on ZyXEL's ZyNOS - modified by Netgear, others are based on SonicWall). So, Linksys is benefiting from the lack of meaningful packet filtering capabilities. Secondly, an SPI firewall has more to do as opposed to one that simply does packet filters and much more against the one that does not
have specific filtering and just relying on the NAT. So, comparing NAT only router with one that has packet filter capabilities and even SPI is not a fair comparison.
Finally, you tests seems to placed extra importance on small packet performance whereas for bulk transfers large packet performance is what really matters. Over there Netgear is either as fast or faster than Linksys and advantage of 64 byte packets is not that important. Also, test environment is very important. WAN port of Netgear routers is half-duplex only. If would not like bi-directional artificial small packet performance tests. In real life most packets are large packets and small ACK packets do not consume much bandwidth.
Another test that is conducted by Tolly group.
»www.2wire.com/products/pdfs/tolly_hp0501.pdf
Alas, on this test Linksys performed poorly on large packets. | |
| | | | | | | |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: Linksys vs. Netgear... First, small packet performance is not really meaningful. You generate large packet during any significant transfer. Whatever is using 64 byte packets are not using much bandwidth anyway so the test is very artificial.
Secondly, a NAT router that does not even implement packet filters has an edge over one that implements packet filters. Netgear RP114 in test probably came preconfigured with a couple filters in default configuration (though these filters are no longer needed in 3.25 firmware Netgear is shipping routers with these filters installed anyway).
Third, 10 sec test is not enough. Some router significantly degrade when test is extended.
Fourth, PC Mag is not the only company that did tests. Here is another picture from Tolly Group.
»www.2wire.com/products/pdfs/tolly_hp0501.pdf
RP114 is basically the same as RT314 plus some rudimentary content filtering.
Finally, the reviews did not consider the stability of firmware. Also, the reviews did not note that Linksys is not properly translating the port numbers as the packet goes through NAT and solely relying on randomness of packets. If two PC uses the same fixed source port it does not work with Linksys router. Linksys routers do not support UDP based traceroute of Unix like systems either. These are just two examples that demonstrate corners cut in the design of the router. Of course, when you implement less you have more CPU cycles to move data.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-05 20:22:30] | |
| | | | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Linksys vs. Netgear... [[First, small packet performance is not really meaningful. You generate large packet during any significant transfer. Whatever is using 64 byte packets are not using much bandwidth anyway so the test is very artificial.]]
Yes, the test is artificial. However, unfortunatly do all hardware manufacturers indicate their switch or router performance based on 64-byte frames. Also, the traffic generator is layed out to actually stress the device harder using 64-byte frames. While it is true that the frames are smaller, the DUT (device under test) has to work harder to move the same amount of data comprised of 64-byte frames than 1518-byte frames.
[[Secondly, a NAT router that does not even implement packet filters has an edge over one that implements packet filters. Netgear RP114 in test probably came preconfigured with a couple filters in default configuration (though these filters are no longer needed in 3.25 firmware Netgear is shipping routers with these filters installed anyway).]]
This is true! However, you can see that we chose the Netgear FR318 as Editor's Choice-- despite its performance. We did this especially with small business implementations in mind and we did value the existance of a SPI firewall higher than raw throughput. A small business router without SPI would not have been an option for the Editor's Choice.
[[Third, 10 sec test is not enough. Some router significantly degrade when test is extended.]]
We did run the tests over an extended period of time to see if we run into any problems. As a matter of fact, the Netgear router was one of the routers I let run for over 8 hours.
[[Fourth, PC Mag is not the only company that did tests. Here is another picture from Tolly Group.
»www.2wire.com/products/pdfs/tolly_hp05..[?]]]
This is very true and I am not arrogant enough to say that our testing was the ultimate router testing ever conducted. There are lots of additional tests that I would like to have done, which was largely impossible because of our relatively short testing cycles that are dictated by editorial deadlines. Firmware stability testing and most importantly customer service and long term reliability are items that we unfortunately do not have the time to investigate. However (maybe contrary to public opinion) we do try to design our tests as meaningful as possible and most importantly unbiased. And no, we cannot keep the devices or accept any gifts from vendors that exceed the usual t-shirt or ballpen contributions 
[[RP114 is basically the same as RT314 plus some rudimentary content filtering.]]
Yes
[[Finally, the reviews did not consider the stability of firmware. Also, the reviews did not note that Linksys is not properly translating the port numbers as the packet goes through NAT and solely relying on randomness of packets. If two PC uses the same fixed source port it does not work with Linksys router. Linksys routers do not support UDP based traceroute of Unix like systems either. These are just two examples that demonstrate corners cut in the design of the router. Of course, when you implement less you have more CPU cycles to move data.]]
Firmware stability, please see above. As far as packet translation and UDP traceroute capabilities go, you might very well be correct. You have to keep in mind though that our tests were primarily targeted at the home consumer and very simple small business applications. This audience will most likely not care about the depth of problem we discuss here at the geek-fest. In any case, if you do have more sophisticated applications that you wish to run, I would not recommend any of the tested devices anyway and point to more powerful routers from Cisco & Co.
I hope that you don't feel like I am picking apart your post, but you have to understand that this is the fruits of my agonizing labs life that we are talking about here  )
Oliver Kaven
----------------------------------------
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs
oliver_kaven@ziffdavis.com
-------------------- | |
| | | | |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: Linksys vs. Netgear... said by okaven:
We did run the tests over an extended period of time to see if we run into any problems. As a matter of fact, the Netgear router was one of the routers I let run for over 8 hours.
My point was based on the article that claimed the tests are based on 10sec of data passing. Anyway, 8 hours indicates Netgear router tested is pretty stable. I wished you did the same with Linksys as well but I understand time constraints in such large scale tests. As far as I remember, you could actually test several devices in parallel using Ixia or Smartbits.
quote:
There are lots of additional tests that I would like to have done, which was largely impossible because of our relatively short testing cycles that are dictated by editorial deadlines.
I understand. Perhaps, the objectives of the tests and their real life applicability needs to be explained. Given a lot of users will base their purchasing decisions solely based on the tests without understanding what the numbers really mean. Even the techy types have trouble interpreting the results.
quote:
In any case, if you do have more sophisticated applications that you wish to run, I would not recommend any of the tested devices anyway and point to more powerful routers from Cisco & Co.
There is no excuse for crippled NAT implementation. SOHO users deserve better designed equipment as well.
quote:
I hope that you don't feel like I am picking apart your post, but you have to understand that this is the fruits of my agonizing labs life that we are talking about here )
No problem. It was a nice chat! I see there exists agreement in most points I've raised.
My main concern is that as the review results results stands in current form, the user is given somewhat wrong messages in terms of performance.
Also, the advanced features of Netgear routers (well basically RT311/314/RP114) are often ignored by the reviewers.
ZyXEL which supply the design for Netgear routers is completely ignored. ZyXEL Prestige 310/314/316, Z1, Z10 all have significant extras that speak to power users (or as the needs of the user become more advanced) | |
| | | | | | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Linksys vs. Netgear... DrTCP:
I enjoyed the chat myself. You raised some really good points. Besides, this is the stuff that I am (and many of the guys here at the labs)living and breathing. And I am sure that everyone here has more than just an "interest" in networking and broadband related issues.
I am also glad that you guys question everything. After all, nobody wants to get false information-- of which there is plenty out there.
Great talking to you and great job on the site, too! I think this is a great resource for all broadband and cable related issues.
Oliver | |
| | | | | | | | | | | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Overall... Thank you! I appreciate it and I am glad that you found the info valuable. And, of course, everyone here at my end will always try to do their best when we work on a story.
We have some wireless stuff coming up in issue 10, so keep your eyes open! (just had to do a little advertising )
Oliver | |
| | 
mattman
join:1999-10-25
Lafayette Hill, PA
| Yeah me too. I tried 3 differant Linksys (same model) routers/switches and they all kept on locking up here. i went and bought a rp114 (netgear) and its been up 24/7 since. i know lots of ppl don't have problems with linksys, but i sure did. one thing though, i love my rp114, its tiny, and its metal ! | |
| |
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| But who cares about 64 byte packets? Look at the stats for the 1500 byte packets, and you'll see that the Netgear RP114 is faster than the Linksys.
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7200/900 kbps | |
| | | 
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: Linksys vs. Netgear... said by Bobcat:
But who cares about 64 byte packets? Look at the stats for the 1500 byte packets, and you'll see that the Netgear RP114 is faster than the Linksys.
Bingo! and overall throughput vs. BEFSR41, it still won anyway, even the RP114 killed it...... | |
| |
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| List sorted by performance, 1518-byte frames per second, highest to lowest:
800 Asante FriendlyNET FR3004C
798 SMC Barricade 7008BR
796 Netgear RP114
792 Asante FriendlyNET FR3004LC
788 D-Link DI-704P
788 Netgear FR314
760 Netgear MR314
752 SnapGear LITE+
704 Siemens SpeedStream SS2614
692 SMC Barricade 7004ABR
660 Belkin F5D52304
620 Linksys Etherfast BEFVP41
608 Proxim Netline PN8541-1
597 Siemens SpeedStream SS2623
591 SMC Barricade 7004AWBR
588 Linksys Etherfast BEFSRU31
572 D-Link DI-714
560 Proxim Skyline PN8584-1
552 Linksys Etherfast BEFN2PS4
540 Linksys Etherfast BEFW11S4
516 Linksys Etherfast BEFSR41
406 Netgear FR318
406 Proxim Netline PN8571-1
328 Netgear RO318
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7200/900 kbps | |
| | | | | | | | 
g0nepostal
I Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA
clubs:
·DSL EXTREME
 ·Astound Broadband
·magicjack.com
|  Why does Linksys suck?
What is being forgotten however is that unless the machines connected to the router are constantly moving MaxMTU-sized packets through all wires connected to each router port, the fact that a router isn't exactly the fastest at moving 1518-byte size frames is irrelevant.
Yes, the tech types that haunt DSL Reports download a lot of large files. Yes, people who have broadband are probably running Morpheus and downloading MP3s and movies are a constant clip. And yes, slow MaxMTU performance can and does affect performance when a file is being uploaded. But tell me: Realistically, what percentage of users running a router are putting it through that kind of performance stress?
I own a Linksys BEFSR41, and think very highly of it. Over a year now of constant, reliable service. Not a single reboot. It protects my network from the hackers and CodeRed-infected machines that haunt AT&T Broadband Internet's network. And it provides solid switch performance on the LAN side of the network. What more could I ask for?
PC Magazine (in my opinion) wrote the article to help computer users make a solid decision, with home and SOHO users in mind. Those of us who run business networks wouldn't trust our demarc-point connection to one of these routers, would we? We'd use gear from Cisco or the other major vendors. So the fact that Linksys isn't the fastest at switching MaxMTU packets to me is irrelevant, when a home or SOHO user - the people at whom this article is targeted - will want equipment that can be setup with a minimum amount of hassle and will work as advertised.
I have used Netgear equipment too, when someone I am working on the side for purchases it to set up a home network. Netgear makes good equipment and as far as I am concerned it performs as well as Linksys gear.
Why or even how this thread degenerated into a Linksys Vs. Netgear flame war is beyond me. As for the grief okaven took for PC Mag's testing methodology, that's all well and good. It was interesting to read, since it made for good intelligent discourse.
g0nepostal | |
| | | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Why does Linksys suck? g0nepostal:
You are making some good points there. I think it makes no sense to let this escalate to a Linksys vs. Netgear battle. Besides, I posted a new message all the way at the bottom of the thread which outlines that common traffic does not at all consist of only 1518-byte packets.
Besides, by this time next year all vendors will have a totally new gamet of products available
Oliver Kaven | |
| | | | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Let's get something straight... ----------------------------------------
(Sorry..replied to the wrong message. This is meant as a reply to Mike):
There are a couple of companies that are unfortunately not in the review. However, it takes great effort and alot of coordination to get over 20 vendors rounded up to participate. Besides that, sometimes the vendors are not willing to play because their products are in-between revisions or because they fear that their product does not exactly fit the filter that we set for a given story.
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs
oliver_kaven@ziffdavis.com
[text was edited by author 2002-02-05 19:34:36] | |
| | |
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Let's get something straight... said by okaven:
it takes great effort and alot of coordination to get over 20 vendors rounded up to participate.
So you get the products directly from the vendors instead of buying them yourselves? How do you know a vendor didn't crank-up the clock rate in the box they gave to you?
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7200/900 kbps | |
| | | | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Let's get something straight... In certain areas of product testing with do double check things like clock-speed and other possible areas of optimization, such as custom written drivers, etc. This mostly applies to newest graphics cards, CPU's, etc. However, there must be room for a little trust here, too. You cannot go out and say by default every vendor tries to cheat. In Network Infrastructure this is not too much of an issue anyway because vendors rarely know what tests we are running exactly. Besides, it would be fairly detrimental for a vendor if we caught them cheating and published this. Although times are bad economically, PC Magazine still reaches about 3-4 million readers out there (which for the vendors translates into customers). So, I don't think that vendors would like to take the risk of cheating and paying for the consequences. Besides that, to accomplish buying all the equipment we would probably have to sell the magazine for $300 an issue. Especially when you start looking at stories such as the Ethernet switch story with products that are in the thousands of dollars.
Most importantly, most of the products we test are generally not available in stores by the time we start testing. Although most of the products are available when the magazine ships to subscribers, our testing is done way ahead of that date.
Oliver Kaven
----------------------------------------
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs
oliver_kaven@ziffdavis.com
-------------------- | |
| | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Daniel:
The layer 3 speeds of all routers tested is generally sufficient if you look at common DLS speeds available. It becomes more critical when you have a relatively well working cable connection (with few people on your segment). When you start hitting > 1,000 Kbps download speeds your router will become your bottleneck. Granted, this does not apply to most of us (unfortunately) but how boring would our testing become when we just stop at some point and don't try to find the limits of a device.
-ok
----------------------------------------
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs | |
| lennya
join:2000-09-28
Windsor, NY | Where is the Dlink DI-804? It's been out a while now. You would think it would be in the review. It seems no one likes to review it. Even practicallynetworked.com didn't review it. Strange. | |
| | 
Darkflight
3G Stitch626
join:2001-03-03
Rowland Heights, CA
| Re: Where is the Dlink DI-804? Dlink in some circles are consider "Secondary" quality when it compares to the likes of Linksys or NetGear. The Dlinks have good prices, but aren't considered as realiable in overall performance. Kinda like comparing a Dell to an Emachine.
--
Darkflight | |
| | | lennya
join:2000-09-28
Windsor, NY | Re: Where is the Dlink DI-804? Yeh, I got my 804 for something like $45 after rebates a while back from Amazon. The firmware is just getting good. Overall it's working well for me but sometimes I wish I had bought the Linksys. Maybe I will someday. | |
| | | 
Jeff_B
Premium
join:2000-09-24
Brick, NJ | Re: Guess what? Netgear wins... Yes, and why didn't they include Zyxel? I guess Linksys gave them the most free stuff. | |
| | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Daniel:
The reason for using the 3 packet sizes that we used in this test is that this seems to be the industry-standard applied by hardware manufacturers to measure throughput.
-ok
----------------------------------------
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs
oliver_kaven@ziffdavis.com | |
| | | 
Daniel
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-26
Pleasanton, CA
clubs:
|  Re: Guess what? Netgear wins...
said by okaven:
Daniel:
The reason for using the 3 packet sizes that we used in this test is that this seems to be the industry-standard applied by hardware manufacturers to measure throughput.
-ok
----------------------------------------
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs
oliver_kaven@ziffdavis.com
Ok, that is fair enough, but you have to admit that to many people who don't pay attention properly (like me and countless others) your report is going to look heavily in favor of the Linksys. When you do a bar chart like that and you have one product categorically trouncing another product you are inclined to look no further.
I mean, it is just a bit misleading. I accept that you had a perfectly good reason for doing it that way, but some sort of side note maybe would be a good idea. Something like, "Note: The only frames that users of these products will be seeing will be represented by the light blue bar." ... or whatever...
I don't mean to be critical, I liked the report, it's just that one tends to go by the bars when presented with a bar chart, and unless you look carefully at packet sizes you are going to come away from that report with bad information.
--
"While we are postponing, life speeds by." - Seneca (3BC - 65AD) | |
| youngmoore
join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| PC Mag on Crack I have to wonder what they where really on when these test were done. I would use "and do" a linksys any day before ever buying a netgear. I spent 6 months testing the the netgear and the linksys for a large Telcom for our telecommuters and was very disappointed in its performace. I also wonder why in the world they didn't test a Nexland router which is pretty much the best router out there just alittle pricey. Oh and just so you netgear guys don't get to whinny I highly reccomend netgears switches over the linksys or any other non managed hub/switch. FYI if you guys haven't heard of Nexland »www.nexland.com/products/product.cfm?id=4
Later
ym | |
| |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: PC Mag on Crack apparently , you didn't test uploading of large files, since the linksys "inherently" has a problem with this (regardless of firmware), and it is has been documented in the linksys forum in great detail..... (see some of Bill in Michigan's thorough posts).... | |
| | | youngmoore
join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: PC Mag on Crack actully I upload alot, and usually when I do its very large somewhere from 512meg to 1gig. I have only once had an issue with the linksys. Netgear is hole different story. When you have 20 of both you get a better Idea of what makes them tick. I'm not say the netgear is a trash router, however again I'm saying I would never own another one or use there router in the field.
ym | |
| | | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: PC Mag on Crack As I said, it has been documented in the linksys forum that large packets will cause the linksys buffer to saturate, lockup, crash, whatever..... then the unit will reset, dropping the connection. I tested BEFSR41 for several months, 20 minutes into uploading a large file, it crashed, every single time. I didn't realize it wasn't just my linky, until I read Bill (in Michigan) thorough analysis of what happens to large packets with the linksys. Btw, he doesn't not recommend the linksys at all for ftping....
So far, none of those issues, so far, with the Netgear... | |
| 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | router magic I wish I understood how this could help me. you youngsters, I'm an old cowhand. down by the Rio Grande. I will try to get through the accompanying literature. | |
| okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
|  Frame sizes
To show that I am not pulling this out of my hat check out this URL for a Sprint evaluation of over 7 TB of broadband customer data.
»www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/interne···fic.html
Quote:
- - - - - - - -Quote- - - - - -
Packet Size Distribution
All numbers are percentages
Downstream Upstream
---------- --------
0 - 64 14.68 58.49
65 - 127 13.87 29.73
128 - 255 7.25 1.72
256 - 511 6.44 3.98
512 - 1023 13.59 3.37
1024 - 1518 44.17 2.70
- - - - - END Quote - - - - - -
VoIP and HTTP acknowledgements (syns and acks) are typical examples for traffic under 512-byte in size.
I am not denying that larger packet sizes make a good chunk of the traffic, but especially looking at upstream traffic things look a little different.
So, since Internet traffic is so diverse, I think it does not make sense to base any evaluation on one single packet size.
Oliver Kaven
----------------------------------------
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine Labs
oliver_kaven@ziffdavis.com
-------------------- | |
| 
jmo9
join:2001-11-17
West Bloomfield, MI
|  Packet size distribution
I just put the numbers you supplied in a graphic form - makes it clear that 64 & 128 byte size packets are most common for uploads (mostly syns & acks), but 512 byte & up consist of the majority of [aggregate Sprint broadband user] download traffic.
Given that most broadband ISP's cap upload bandwidth at 128K, maybe the router performance of the smaller size packets will be more critical to overall speed??? I've seen comments that saturating an upload channel with traffic can adversely affect the download speed. Or in this case, does upload "saturation" have no relation to upload speed? | |
| | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Packet size distribution JMO:
Nice work there Yes, I think that it really depends on what you are trying to do. If all you do is download mpg, jpg and large files, yes you might not care about smaller packets, but as the graph shows, there is enough traffic below even 512-byte packet sizes.
In any case, I think the horse is beaten to death now
Thanks for the graph though!
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine | |
| 
WildShovel
@65.212.x.x
| Ok, so which wireless router has the best RANGE? Whew! Great discussion!
So then, it's settled: NetGear does better with big frames, which occur most frequently on downloads (TRANSLATION: downloading my mp3s will be faster with a Netgear router than with one made by LinkSys).
Now, is there any data about the effective range for comparable wireless routers? Specifically, which wireless router is best at sending and receiving 802.11b traffic through walls, etc (TRANSLATION: will I have a better chance with Linksys or with Netgear to kick back in the hammock?) ?
Thanks! | |
| | okaven
join:2001-12-02
New York, NY
| Re: Ok, so which wireless router has the best RANGE? WildShovel:
Here is a link of what we have found in one of our latest reviews (No, I am not here to promote PC Mag, though I would like to, but this is just info that I have at my fingertips since I was in charge of the technical aspects and testing in that story).
»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,4230,00.asp
Oliver Kaven
Project Leader, Network Infrastructure
PC Magazine | |
| | | |
|
Simply put...
·
Flawed review as they left out Zyxel