Broadband Tech > Virtual Private Networking > Good BEFVP41 replacement?

Good BEFVP41 replacement?

Cisco RV042 should do well for you.
»www.amazon.com/Cisco-Small-Busin···1&sr=8-5 This is the new one, the grey case is the old one.

»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···pk=rv042 Shows both new and old pictures, not sure what you are buying
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.

reply to Walfredo
If your concern is upload, why did you opt for a 5 up vice a 30 -30 type connection.

Thanks guys. I will try out that RV042. Hopefully I can just mimic the settings of our current setup, because this is all over my head.

I'm not opposed to a different connection. I just went with the 35/5 because that is the cheapest that TWC offered that was above 3mb (the magic number the s/w vendor gave us). It went from 10/2 to 35/5, so there was no option in between.

reply to Walfredo
Do a print screen of what works now.

reply to jimbopalmer
I am using a setup similar to this:
»www6.nohold.net/Cisco2/ukp.aspx?···eid=4222
I guess it's called gateway-gateway or router-router?
Is that RV042 my best bet for duplicating this setup? Is there perhaps a more recent model that would be better? I am not opposed to spending a few hundred on each router. Thanks again for the suggestions.

reply to Walfredo

Thanks! I took some screenshots that I'll upload later. So I should go with the version 3? Is that what you have here? I ordered the grey one because it was $150, but I would rather a new version if it is better

reply to Walfredo
I only have older RV042s, which I am happy with, but I worried about 'selling' you an older one.

Here is the latest firmware (4.x is for the new ones, 1.x is for the old ones) I use 1.3.13.2 and am happy with it.
»www.cisco.com/cisco/software/rel···e=latest
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.

Forgive me for bumping this old thread. I have been using 2 RV042's since Jim's recommendation. I am experiencing a slowdown on both networks. I pretty much mimicked Jim's screenshot above. What part would I change to back down the security a little to rule that out being the problem?

reply to Walfredo
I see these posts all too often. BY FAR telnet is the most bandwidth-light protocol out there - it's just simple unencrypted text end-to-end.

One thing that WILL affect this protocol and the overall usability of it is latency and packet loss.

Here's the low-down:

a 1mb connection with 15ms latency will perform noticeably faster using telnet than a 100mb connection with 500ms latency. That being said, bandwidth does not necessarily affect latency -- HOWEVER *IF* you're over utilizing your up/downstream portion of your internet connection, it will increase your latency and cause packets to be dropped/re-transmitted.... why? Because if you have a 5mb upload capacity, and are using all 5mb, the next packet of data will be delayed until there is bandwidth available to transmit the packet (called FIFO - first in, first out).

Now that you have a little insight into transport, it is VERY important (especially for latency-sensitive protocols) that you properly manage your bandwidth in order to avoid over-utilization, which in turn will keep latency and packet loss down.

What I'd recommend is to cap your upload-intensive application to a MAX of 4mb upload, and reserving 1mb upload speed for other internet traffic - this will keep your utilization in check.

At any rate - a good understanding of connectivity, transport and network management will make any piece of equipment (old or new) perform as best possible.
--
Thanks,
Sean Brown
»www.sleepyshark.com

One major thing:

You need to figure out what port/method your scanning software is using to transfer data between your local computer and the remote computer.

Typically, web posts using 80/443 are used for text/small files... if you're upload LARGE files, it's probably using FTP/SFTP/SSH to get the files there..

You CAN limit 80/443, but the problem with this is that you'll also limit other people on your network sending stuff out of your network....

I would contact your firewall vendor and see if they can give you a way to rate limit ONLY the fax server's internal IP address, so that it cannot use more than xxxx k/sec..... that would be the easiest method for what you're doing....
--
Thanks,
Sean Brown
»www.sleepyshark.com

Well, I don't really have anything besides the firewall in the router and the one that is on the fax server. Is this something that can be achieved thru windows firewall?

Sorry for the silly questions. I inherited this messy network which was fine to begin with, but it's probably getting to the point where I need outside help. I'd like to figure out whatever I can myself without bringing in someone to poke around.

Do this...

Start | Run | CMD
type IPCONFIG (note your IP address)
close the window

visit speedtest.net from your fax server AND another PC, run a speedtest.... note the upload/download results for both computers....

In the firewall, add your fax server's IP address to the IP: ___ to ___ area (add it in both spaces)

rate limit the maximum bandwidth to 20% of your upload speed results....

re-run the speedtest on both computers, HOPEFULLY if your firewall works like I think it will, your fax server should have 80% less upload speed than your other computers.... If that works you should be good to go!
--
Thanks,
Sean Brown
»www.sleepyshark.com

Thanks again. I'll try that out. Tomorrow though... I called TWC about 2 hours ago, for the 1st time after them installing a ping logger (?). This time they admitted to there being a problem, and they are sending out a tech. I was going to try what you said anyways, but since the call, our speed has dropped from 35/5 to 10/1. So I called them back, and they said that is to be expected with the kinds of problems I'm having.

Edit: I tried it on our gimpy connection. Set the minimum as 1Kbps and the maximum as 400Kbps, and it kept the upload test on the fax server down at ~0.5Mbps. So it does work! So hopefully that will help once TWC is done with their troubleshooting.

reply to Walfredo
D-oh!!! Wish I'd caught this thread earlier; I would have suggesed a CISCO RV220W Gigabit Security VPN Router over the aging RV042's:

»www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps1···dex.html

Jay