dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
26905
canehdian
join:2009-10-05

canehdian to LYuan

Member

to LYuan

Re: [Modem/Router] :: Hitron CGN3 v4.2.4.3 ::

Mine finally installed this morning. However now I'm seeing an issue where the only way to get the advertised connection speeds is to use it in Gateway mode

As soon as I bridge it to my Netgear 3500Lv2 running tomato 1.28 shibby 116 max DL speed I can get is 100Mb/s (11MB/s) :S

Anyone on the 250/20 plan that is bridged and running tomato and getting full spread? If so what router are you using?

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

damir

Member

try Victek's firmware.

I never was able to use 150\10 on shibby's (full speed), running RT-N66U, but, with Victek's (latest beta) it was just fine.
canehdian
join:2009-10-05

canehdian

Member

Ok upgraded to victek and still can only hit 118

How bad is the CGN in gateway no wireless mode?

AOD
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
M9B

AOD

Premium Member

said by damir:

try Victek's firmware.

I never was able to use 150\10 on shibby's (full speed), running RT-N66U, but, with Victek's (latest beta) it was just fine.

I have a cgn3 with shibby's tomato on my n66u i get 160/16 constantly on speedtests
said by canehdian:

Ok upgraded to victek and still can only hit 118

How bad is the CGN in gateway no wireless mode?

Idk, the bridge mode for me so far isnt pleasing i returned a hitron today for crapping out at 12+ Hours just unresponsive.
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr to canehdian

Member

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

Ok upgraded to victek and still can only hit 118

How bad is the CGN in gateway no wireless mode?

Have you run a speedtest with your computer plugged directly into the CGN3 without the router at all?

Also your router's WAN to LAN tops out at about 250mbps, so perhaps your router is having trouble keeping up. Other users here are using routers that have 700+mbps WAN to LAN throughput.
canehdian
join:2009-10-05

canehdian

Member

said by yyzlhr:

Have you run a speedtest with your computer plugged directly into the CGN3 without the router at all?

Direct to CGN3 in gateway mode was 350Mb/s D and 23 Mb/s U so no issues with my NIC. Danged router May have to cave and use the CGN3. Anyone know of a wired only router with decent WAN to LAN that supports tomato?
JAC70
join:2008-10-20
canada

JAC70 to canehdian

Member

to canehdian
Tomato is not capable of 250/10. No hardware NAT.
canehdian
join:2009-10-05

canehdian

Member

Any router recommendations with features as close to tomato as possible?

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

damir to JAC70

Member

to JAC70
said by JAC70:

Tomato is not capable of 250/10. No hardware NAT.

true

most u can get with Victek's is:

Tomato RAF is ready for FTTH (VLAN's, VoIP, IPTV) Movistar.
BW 193Mbps Download, 135Mbps Upload with up to 3.000 concurrent connections.

»victek.is-a-geek.com/

tblog
@rogers.com

tblog

Anon

hate to say but don't trust speedtest. try testmy.net and do the below real life tests

- upload your personal video to youtube and download view keepvid
- upload your personal video to facebook and download
- Try a legal linux download via torrents
- try download .Net via MS site.

i am on 150/10 plan but both CGN3 and E3200 running shibby is maxing out at 11MS/s ( 88 Mbps) for all the real life tests
tblog

tblog to canehdian

Anon

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

Any router recommendations with features as close to tomato as possible?

Dont know if this is going to help but try enabling jumbo frames and then do speed test ..

Also With QoS disabled you can try enabling CTF / HW Acceleration mode ON

GI Suck
I Got Mail Yay
join:2004-01-14
Oshawa, ON

GI Suck

Member

Jumbo frames doesn't work unless the participating devices have Jumbo Frames enabled. The default action can vary from router to router including the packets just getting dropped.

I would not enable Jumbo Frames unless you have a clear idea on what you are doing.
wayner92
join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

wayner92 to canehdian

Member

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

Any router recommendations with features as close to tomato as possible?

I have the Asus RT-N66U. It doesn't seem like there are too many routers available these days that are wired only - but you can always disable wireless. The only downside is that I imagine you are paying a bit for the wireless capabilities.

For these Asus routers there are lots of third party options, including Merlin, dd-wrt, etc. And the stock Asus firware isn't so bad either. And this router supports WAN-LAN throughput of something like 740Mbps.

AOD
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
M9B

AOD

Premium Member

I got my update to the CGN3 today at 6:30pm. I'm going to complain and see if they can credit my internet services for two days being unreliable.
technocar2
join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON

2 edits

technocar2 to canehdian

Member

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

Mine finally installed this morning. However now I'm seeing an issue where the only way to get the advertised connection speeds is to use it in Gateway mode

As soon as I bridge it to my Netgear 3500Lv2 running tomato 1.28 shibby 116 max DL speed I can get is 100Mb/s (11MB/s) :S

Anyone on the 250/20 plan that is bridged and running tomato and getting full spread? If so what router are you using?

What is with you people...you have money to burn on the rogers 250/20 but yet you feel the need to cheapout on a router?

I've said it before on this forum and I will say it again, if you are on a top tier plan then do yourself a favor and buy a x86(or even a 64bit) machine and slam that bad boy with pfsense and never look back at consumer grade routers ever again.

I've been running pfsense on a core 2 extreme chip for quite some time now and its killer. I can do 200mbps with everything running from VPN to QoS to captive portal and not to mention I can actually achieve +150mbps on a encrypted VPN tunnel (private internet access) running on pfsense itself.
LYuan
join:2014-01-24
Canada

LYuan

Member

said by technocar2:

What is with you people...you have money to burn on the Rogers 250/20 but yet you feel the need to cheapout on a router?

I agree with people not buying sufficient hardware for tier of Internet, but running a separate computer for the sole purposes of routing Internet is gratuitous on many levels for many people; from the amount of time needed to get comfortable with a new interface, to power consumption, to even physical space requirements. You may see it as a black and white issue, but it is far from.

On the flip side of the coin, there are products out there that can handle 200+ mbps, and they don't have to cost an arm and a leg. You can grab a Netgear R7000 for $200 bucks - It will do almost 1 gbps internally. If you want to "cheap out, a Linksys EA2700 for $55 dollars will do just as well in terms of routing speed. In fact, most N600 rated routers will be sufficient.

So, I wouldn't go so far as to say "everyone should go build a system and run pfsense", but I can reasonably say that you're running 250mbps Internet, there is no excuse for you not to be running a decent router that is able to handle the bandwidth.
technocar2
join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON

technocar2

Member

said by LYuan:

So, I wouldn't go so far as to say "everyone should go build a system and run pfsense", but I can reasonably say that you're running 250mbps Internet, there is no excuse for you not to be running a decent router that is able to handle the bandwidth.

Clearly I said if you're on the top tier plan then build a pfsense machine. I didn't say "everyone."
said by LYuan:

I agree with people not buying sufficient hardware for tier of Internet, but running a separate computer for the sole purposes of routing Internet is gratuitous on many levels for many people; from the amount of time needed to get comfortable with a new interface, to power consumption, to even physical space requirements. You may see it as a black and white issue, but it is far from.

But couple of things to note if you can afford 250/20 then you are not poor and so probably have space in your place to put one extra computer and can obviously afford the couple extra cents per month on electricity bill. Having said that only issue is technical know how which is understandable but there are people who can set up pfsense exactly as you want in exchange for your hard earned $$. Again if you can pony up $$ for 250/20 then that shouldn't be a problem I don't think or just learn pfsense in your free time.
said by LYuan:

On the flip side of the coin, there are products out there that can handle 200+ mbps, and they don't have to cost an arm and a leg. You can grab a Netgear R7000 for $200 bucks - It will do almost 1 gbps internally. If you want to "cheap out, a Linksys EA2700 for $55 dollars will do just as well in terms of routing speed. In fact, most N600 rated routers will be sufficient.

Again with the consumer grade router crap. Just because it can do 1gbps when nothing else on it is runing like VPN, QoS means nothing in reality because that's not a real world test. Try getting 1gbps on those routers with QoS, VPN, wifi and other bunch of stuff running.

The botton line is that if you are on the top tier plan then no consumer grade router will cut it unless you are willing to forgo many things like QoS/VPN. It comes back to the same argument, you are paying top $$ for internet but not getting all the benefits of it, useless. Therefore, the only option is to get proper x86 hardware and go from there.

Not to mention the security flaw in consumer grade routers. When you access the router to change its setting you are not in HTTPS but rather in normal HTTP. Why? Because the router will come to an absolute crawl if it used HTTPS to encrypt your connection to its settings interface. No problem for pfsence on decent hardware. No need to announce your router password in clear HTTP.

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

SimplePanda

Premium Member

said by technocar2:

Not to mention the security flaw in consumer grade routers. When you access the router to change its setting you are not in HTTPS but rather in normal HTTP. Why? Because the router will come to an absolute crawl if it used HTTPS to encrypt your connection to its settings interface. No problem for pfsence on decent hardware. No need to announce your router password in clear HTTP.

This is a reach...

HTTPS interface works without issue on most modern consumer routers.

Of course, there's little point to an HTTPS administration interface on a home router unless you're managing it remotely for some reason.

pfSense is good; no doubt. But it's probably not useful or necessary for the vast majority of users, 250/20 tier users included.
Expand your moderator at work
technocar2
join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON

technocar2 to SimplePanda

Member

to SimplePanda

Re: [Modem/Router] :: Hitron CGN3 v4.2.4.3 ::

said by SimplePanda:

HTTPS interface works without issue on most modern consumer routers.

No, it doesn't! Try it and watch how long it takes it to process each request.

The last time I check was years a go on a 680mhz router with openWRT and it was useless to say the least. I don't know how fast these new routers are but if there anything around the 680mhz mark then its useless.

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 edit

SimplePanda

Premium Member

I just turned it on. Looks fine on my router (ASUS NT66u) running Tomato. No real performance slowdown managing over HTTPS.

I also recall a Linksys I was managing a short while ago being HTTPS enabled and not having any issues with it.

Likely the version of OpenWRT you were using wasn't using hardware acceleration for OpenSSL / encryption functionality. Not indicative of the hardware itself. OpenWRT in general has some known performance problems depending on configuration and hardware it's installed on.

Incidentally my smartphone has a ~1.3ghz dual core ARM in it. It basically matches the performance of the 1.6ghz notebook computer I had years ago at single thread (1 core) tasks. It's much faster when you add a second thread.

Likewise the 2.3ghz notebook I'm using right now (Ivy Bridge i7) demolishes the 3.0 ghz CBE in a PS3 at general compute tasks (non SPU optimized).

Clock speed is more or less irrelevant for determining compute performance unless comparing CPU's with identical architectures. Even then system factors can make a huge difference.

Incidentally some of the first "busy" web servers I managed were Sun SPARC5's. 70mhz sun4m based machines running SunOS 4.x iirc. They handled the SSL traffic they received just fine. Wasn't huge compared to non-SSL traffic but certainly far more than a home router would be subjected to. Oranges to Apples for sure but as I said, so is comparing the clock speeds of unrelated CPU's.
LYuan
join:2014-01-24
Canada

4 edits

LYuan to technocar2

Member

to technocar2
said by technocar2:

Clearly I said if you're on the top tier plan then build a pfsense machine. I didn't say "everyone."

I have a top tier Internet package. Are you telling me that I should use your solution? You are crazy. What you are telling me is that what I am doing every single day on my on top-tier Rogers Hi-Speed plan is actually impossible. What you are suggesting is that at any point now, I will be waking up from this unbelievable dream and be devastated by the realization that everything that I have been with my CONSUMER GRADE router has been a figment of my imagination.
said by technocar2:

But couple of things to note if you can afford 250/20 then you are not poor and so probably have space in your place to put one extra computer and can obviously afford the couple extra cents per month on electricity bill. Having said that only issue is technical know how which is understandable but there are people who can set up pfsense exactly as you want in exchange for your hard earned $$. Again if you can pony up $$ for 250/20 then that shouldn't be a problem I don't think or just learn pfsense in your free time.

It's not a question of BEING able to afford something. It's a question of WANTING to afford it. Afford is not just monetary. There is a investment of time and effort as well. Your solution, although functional is not practical. Again, your elitist view is fine if you value pure functionality, but there are much more variables at play than simple cost. Don't get me wrong - I love pfsense. I have set many up, and it is always one of my suggestions for small to medium businesses that have outgrown their current Internet infrastructure, but don't want to spend their cash on a proper appliance. It's fine, and I am very familiar with it. It's just not for residential users regardless of their Internet tier.

Actually, come to think of it, basing any type of gateway solution solely on someone's Internet tier and what they are able to afford is probably not a good idea and most likely not a 'best practice'.
said by technocar2:

The botton line is that if you are on the top tier plan then no consumer grade router will cut it unless you are willing to forgo many things like QoS/VPN. It comes back to the same argument, you are paying top $$ for internet but not getting all the benefits of it, useless. Therefore, the only option is to get proper x86 hardware and go from there.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. This is IT. There is no "bottom line". And if there ever is one, it is temporal. Your statement may have been true 5-10 years ago, but 250/20 wasn't even available at that time.

I run a Netgear Nighthawk R7000 CONSUMER GRADE router. I run DD-WRT on it. I have QoS enabled. I VPN to it, actually have a point-to-point with it and another identical router. Additionally, I host a Plex server for my friends and families, and I do it without the router actually breaking a sweat. So given this, tell me what pfsense actually provides me, that my current setup doesn't. Actually, tell me something that you think "all financially proficient people with 250/20 Internet" NEEDS above and beyond what your definition of "consumer grade crap" will provide. I'll attempt to start you off with points that you've already made...

1) In terms of over-all throughput, because a pfsense machine can have a more powerful processor, it'll probably have the edge.

True, but my internet is 'only' 250mbps download, this point is actually moot.

2) The performance disparity is exasperated even more once you throw VPN and QoS into the mix. Most consumer grade devices can't even do any of this.

Out of the box, hard to argue, but there is a huge community of users and developers support 3rd party firmwares such as DD-WRT and Tomato. These custom firmwares have very mature support for both VPN, QoS, and also have lots of other fun features such as link aggregation and v-lans. My current setup even has my router doubling up as a DLNA host/media server, can become a download agent with 'Transmission' installed, and supports DDNS so I can access my network using a hostname instead of an IP address. That's all on my CONSUMER GRADE router! Blasphemous!

... Please feel free to add your other points, as I will surely feel free to rebut each and every one.

My point of course, is that you are assuming that people who CAN afford what you are suggesting actually need it. That's a hilariously shallow assumption. That's like saying people who can afford an RV should get rid of their regular cars because an RV has everything including a kitchen sink. Silly.

At the end of the day, Rogers is providing CONSUMER GRADE Internet to people's homes, and for what people use them for, a consumer grade router is sufficient. Does everyone who has 250/20 even know what QoS is? No. Does everyone who has 250/20 Internet need to host a VPN service, or have a persistent IPSEC connection to a co-location? No. Many of today's modern day routers are perfectly capable of handling the tasks and-then-some. This is technology. Consumer grade stuff will catch up as the market demands it, and there is always something more capable just around the corner.

There is no bottom line. PFsense is A solution, not THE solution.

L.
LYuan

LYuan to technocar2

Member

to technocar2
said by technocar2:

No, it doesn't! Try it and watch how long it takes it to process each request.

I just tried mine - If I REALLY, REALLY try and notice, it may take a fraction of a second longer then http. Then again, If people have enough free time to go and learn PFsense to configure their own gateway from scratch, then I'm sure waiting a split second longer than regular HTTP for their router configuration screen to load up isn't going to figure too much into their day.
LYuan

1 edit

LYuan to canehdian

Member

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

Direct to CGN3 in gateway mode was 350Mb/s D and 23 Mb/s U so no issues with my NIC. Danged router May have to cave and use the CGN3. Anyone know of a wired only router with decent WAN to LAN that supports tomato?

As I have stated with my previous post, I'm using DD-WRT on a Netgear R7000. I prefer DD-WRT over tomato, but that's my personal preference. I can easily pull 350mbps on average in bridged mode with it connected to my CGN3. With regards to a router, what's your budget, and would you consider using DD-WRT instead of Tomato? It would give you a lot more selection.

L.

mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON

mozerd to canehdian

MVM

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

Anyone know of a wired only router with decent WAN to LAN that supports tomato?

I'll give you 2 choices but in either case you must be tech savvy and neither runs 3rd party firmware but booth have superb performance.

First choice: EdgeRouterLite approximately CDN $150
Second choice: ZyXEL 110 CDN$ 448.75
canehdian
join:2009-10-05

canehdian to technocar2

Member

to technocar2
said by technocar2:

...

Umm my net is at 70% off so why not top tier? Besides I want the DL limit and UL speed, not necessarily the DL speed.
canehdian

canehdian to LYuan

Member

to LYuan
said by LYuan:

As I have stated with my previous post, I'm using DD-WRT on a Netgear R7000. I prefer DD-WRT over tomato, but that's my personal preference. I can easily pull 350mbps on average in bridged mode with it connected to my CGN3. With regards to a router, what's your budget, and would you consider using DD-WRT instead of Tomato? It would give you a lot more selection.

WRT is fine as long as I have the control and features (WAN up scripts, dnsmasq, logging, site restriction etc). I actually have a TP-LINK with WRT that I solely use to handle Wireless access and act as a switch for 3 PCs the kids use.

Only reason I mention tomato is because I'm comfortable with it, and have used it since the Linksys WG54 (i think that's the model number) days.
technocar2
join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON

technocar2 to LYuan

Member

to LYuan
said by LYuan:

I run a Netgear Nighthawk R7000 CONSUMER GRADE router. I run DD-WRT on it. I have QoS enabled. I VPN to it, actually have a point-to-point with it and another identical router. Additionally, I host a Plex server for my friends and families, and I do it without the router actually breaking a sweat. So given this, tell me what pfsense actually provides me, that my current setup doesn't. Actually, tell me something that you think "all financially proficient people with 250/20 Internet" NEEDS above and beyond what your definition of "consumer grade crap" will provide. I'll attempt to start you off with points that you've already made...

You are using a $200 1GHz dual core CPU to do all that. Isn't that that exactly the point I'm trying to make. You need to invest in decent hardware instead of cheaping out.

I'll give you routers have come a long way in term of performance (1GHz dual core is no joke, you could easily run pfsence on it) but when I got rogers top tier plan that wasn't the case. There was nothing on the market that could do anything close to that. Today there are probably only a handful that could but the problem is people don't buy these and then come here complaining about bottle-necking their speed.

I don't know when this router came out but it must be pretty recent.
technocar2

technocar2 to canehdian

Member

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

said by technocar2:

...

Umm my net is at 70% off so why not top tier? Besides I want the DL limit and UL speed, not necessarily the DL speed.

I never questioned you having top tier. I have a discount on top tier as well. But my point is that there is no logic to cheaping out on a router when you're on the top tier plan.

BTW how are you getting 70% with 250/20 I thought the highest you could get was 55%
LYuan
join:2014-01-24
Canada

LYuan to canehdian

Member

to canehdian
said by canehdian:

WRT is fine as long as I have the control and features (WAN up scripts, dnsmasq, logging, site restriction etc). I actually have a TP-LINK with WRT that I solely use to handle Wireless access and act as a switch for 3 PCs the kids use.

Only reason I mention tomato is because I'm comfortable with it, and have used it since the Linksys WG54 (i think that's the model number) days.

In that case, you have a myriad of options to choose from - You don't have to spend too much money either. previous to my R7000, I had the netgear WNDR3700, which ran great, but I ended up giving it to a friend and upgraded.

Check this link out: »www.smallnetbuilder.com/ ··· rts/view

It is by no means definitive, but it gives you a good general comparison with what to expect with WAN -> LAN speeds. If you're aiming to use it on a 250/20 service, then I would probably aim for something that has 500mbps or greater. Pick out a few in your budget, and then take those to www.dd-wrt.com and see if they are compatible.

As you can see, to get decent performance that will accommodate your service tier doesn't have to be expensive.