FIOS: Lost Connectivity, Replaced ONT, Now Only Verizon Router Works?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Went to bed one night, Internet Access working.

Woke up the next morning, no Internet Access.

Thunderstorms overnight.... lights on the ONT said
"A-OK", but Verizon's Help Desk said they could not even get
to the ONT box.

A few days later, Verizon came and replaced the ONT box.

Now the Verizon-supplied ActionTech MI24WR router works, but my "real"
router (Tomato on a LinkSys E3000 cannot connect.

I also tried plugging a laptop directly into the port on the ONT box,
but no luck there either. (And that was one of the tests suggested
by Verizon Help Desk when I made the original trouble call)

I'd bite the bullet and transfer all my StaticIPs and Port Forwardings
to the Verizon box, but now I see that:

- It's only 10/100 and not gigabit

- It does not allow me to change my subnet from
192.168.1 to 10.0.0..... Beeeeeg convenience/typing
factor there.... I *could* learn to live with it, but
after typing about the 200th IP addr I don't think I
would be a happy camper...\

I also have a gut feeling that if I try to go over to the Verizon
router besides it's dragging my LAN speed down and making me type
those irritating subnet addrs, there will be other little gotchas that
I never dreamed of....


Going back to the E3000:

- I noticed that it was set to PPOe, but the Verizon box
is using DHCP..... and the Verizon tech did not ask for
either my Verizon ID or PW.

- I changed the E3000 to DHCP, but no joy.

- I have to come back to the fact that the E3000 was getting
thorough when I went to bed and not getting through after
the ONT replacement.


The totally-ignorant paranoid in me says that maybe there was no problem
with the ONT box and maybe Verizon did something that night to force
people to use their routers. But that would beg the question of why
the Help Desk did not mention anything about that (they *did* know about
the EU3000) and why connecting directly to the ONT box's WAN port did
not work with the laptop before the ONT replacement.

OTOH, the laptop connecting direct to the ONT box does not work now
either - and I did to an ipconfig /renew....

Anybody got any ideas?

[Mike Easter]

Post by (PeteCresswell)
Now the Verizon-supplied ActionTech MI24WR router works, but my
"real" router (Tomato on a LinkSys E3000 cannot connect.
I also tried plugging a laptop directly into the port on the ONT
box, but no luck there either. (And that was one of the tests
suggested by Verizon Help Desk when I made the original trouble call)

This article^1 says that the ONT ethernet port is disabled in favor of
the MoCA cable. The article is 2011, but the named Verizon router is
the same MI424WR.


^1 http://www.marco.org/2011/01/15/how-to-use-your-own-router-with-fios
How to use your own router with FiOS
// The ONT shoves your internet connection through the coaxial (coax)
cable line using MoCA. Then, wherever the router is set up, the
technician just plugs it into a cable jack.

The ONT has an Ethernet port that’s disabled in installations using
coax. Usually, the installer won’t even ask you whether you’d rather
have Ethernet run to the router instead — they’ll just use coax. But you
may want to use it and connect your own router directly, like I did. //


The strategy depends on whether or not you also have TV in addition to
internet. One method calls Verizon to ask them to please route the
signal to the ethernet instead of the MoCA; naturally that's no good if
you need the TV.

The instructions for using the Verizon router as a bridge instead are on
this page
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17679150-How-to-make-ActionTec-MI424-WR-a-network-bridge
How-to: make ActionTec MI424-WR a network bridge

[(PeteCresswell)]

The ONT has an Ethernet port that’s disabled in installations using
coax. Usually, the installer won’t even ask you whether you’d rather
have Ethernet run to the router instead — they’ll just use coax. But you
may want to use it and connect your own router directly, like I did. //
The strategy depends on whether or not you also have TV in addition to
internet.

No coax here - being probably the only house within 10 miles that has no
cable TV... just OTA.... and I watched the tech plug in the Ethernet
connector... and it's connected to a cable that the routers connect to.


FWIW, I finally stumbled on how to set my local address space to
10.0.0.x.... so things are looking up in that respect.

Now I'm down to the 10/100 thing plus the expected gotchas...

I think I will just go heads-down for a few hours and replicate all my
Port Forwarding and Static IP assignments in the Verizon box and see
what happens over the next few days.

Maybe I will not notice the degraded LAN performance....

I will miss Tomato... but the world moves on....

[Mike Easter]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Mike Easter
The ONT has an Ethernet port that’s disabled in installations using
coax. Usually, the installer won’t even ask you whether you’d rather
have Ethernet run to the router instead — they’ll just use coax. But you
may want to use it and connect your own router directly, like I did. //
The strategy depends on whether or not you also have TV in addition to
internet.

No coax here - being probably the only house within 10 miles that has no
cable TV... just OTA.... and I watched the tech plug in the Ethernet
connector... and it's connected to a cable that the routers connect to.
FWIW, I finally stumbled on how to set my local address space to
10.0.0.x.... so things are looking up in that respect.
Now I'm down to the 10/100 thing plus the expected gotchas...
I think I will just go heads-down for a few hours and replicate all my
Port Forwarding and Static IP assignments in the Verizon box and see
what happens over the next few days.
Maybe I will not notice the degraded LAN performance....
I will miss Tomato... but the world moves on....

The article says that if you don't need the TV, you can call Verizon and
ask them to please remotely change the ONT's output from the MoCA to the
ethernet and then you can connect your router to the ONT and not use the
MI424-WR.

The datasheet on the MI424-WR says that it is upgradable to gigabit.
http://www.actiontec.com/products/datasheets/MI424WR%20Verizon%20FiOS%20Router%20Datasheet.pdf

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Mike Easter
The datasheet on the MI424-WR says that it is upgradable to gigabit.
http://www.actiontec.com/products/datasheets/MI424WR%20Verizon%20FiOS%20Router%20Datasheet.pdf

I'm trying to figure out whether that's a add-on to my current box or a
new box altogether.

http://www.actiontec.com/41.html says "This Wireless Broadband Router
breaks previous industry performance benchmarks, increasing in-home
networking speeds up to 1000 Mbps wired (with the Gigabit Ethernet
interface) and 300 Mbps wireless."

The photo they have has a red bar on the router - suggesting that it is
just a newer model and not some sort of add-on.

But, adding to the confusion, names seem the same at first glance
("MI424WR").... but the web page qualifies their model name as "MI424WR
(GigE)"...

[Paul]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Mike Easter
The datasheet on the MI424-WR says that it is upgradable to gigabit.
http://www.actiontec.com/products/datasheets/MI424WR%20Verizon%20FiOS%20Router%20Datasheet.pdf

I'm trying to figure out whether that's a add-on to my current box or a
new box altogether.
http://www.actiontec.com/41.html says "This Wireless Broadband Router
breaks previous industry performance benchmarks, increasing in-home
networking speeds up to 1000 Mbps wired (with the Gigabit Ethernet
interface) and 300 Mbps wireless."
The photo they have has a red bar on the router - suggesting that it is
just a newer model and not some sort of add-on.
But, adding to the confusion, names seem the same at first glance
("MI424WR").... but the web page qualifies their model name as "MI424WR
(GigE)"...

A little background reading for you. By using the Actiontec
site to get background on the router.

http://www.actiontec.com/products/faqs.php?pid=189#q1

"Can I Bridge the Actiontec MI424WR router that Verizon provided,
when I signed up for FiOS service?

The MI424WR does not have a bridging option, and neither Verizon
nor Actiontec support attempting to bridge it.

The desire to bridge the MI424WR is based on a misunderstanding
that it is a modem as well as a router. Actiontec does produce
DSL Modems/Router that have a Transparent-Bridging option, which
bypasses or disables the router function and allows the Modems/Router
to act simply as a DSL modem, when it is enabled. Many consumers do
not realize that with FiOS, the ONT (typically outside the home)
is the device that handles changing the FiOS signal from Fiber
to either Ethernet or Coax, and that the Router is just a Router,
and if it was bridged or bypassed, it would be a device without
a function. For most Verizon FiOS customers their service would
completely stop if the MI424WR was bridged, because the
Video on Demand service is dependent on it to work.

If your ONT is connected to the Actiontec MI424WR router via Coax,
the MI424WR is required due to the Coax connection. But if the ONT
is connected to the MI424WR via Ethernet, then in most cases some
other router can be substituted for the MI424WR, and it can be
removed."

And I wasn't able to get any hint as to what the "optional GbE" was
all about. On modern equipment, the circuits all go on one circuit
board. The days of $300 routers with multiple circuit boards are
behind us. These days, the main chip with the CPU in it, also
has five PHY interfaces for wired switching. So how an "option"
can be made available, escapes me. They would have to purposely
lock the PHY and prevent GbE negotiation, to do what they
are describing (have GbE in place of 10/100BT). There's nothing
to suggest something unplugs to make it happen. There is also no
mention of two different router models, with the second one having
GbE.

Paul

[Char Jackson]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

The ONT has an Ethernet port that’s disabled in installations using
coax. Usually, the installer won’t even ask you whether you’d rather
have Ethernet run to the router instead — they’ll just use coax. But you
may want to use it and connect your own router directly, like I did. //
The strategy depends on whether or not you also have TV in addition to
internet.

No coax here - being probably the only house within 10 miles that has no
cable TV... just OTA.... and I watched the tech plug in the Ethernet
connector... and it's connected to a cable that the routers connect to.
FWIW, I finally stumbled on how to set my local address space to
10.0.0.x.... so things are looking up in that respect.
Now I'm down to the 10/100 thing plus the expected gotchas...
I think I will just go heads-down for a few hours and replicate all my
Port Forwarding and Static IP assignments in the Verizon box and see
what happens over the next few days.
Maybe I will not notice the degraded LAN performance....
I will miss Tomato... but the world moves on....

You're dealing with a lot of related things, so I'll focus on just one of
them. Your LAN speed doesn't need to be affected by your router.

Most likely, you currently have several Ethernet cables connected to your
router, so whatever is on the other end of those cables is dependent upon
the speed of the switch that lives in your router. If that switch is too
slow for you, simply plug those Ethernet cables into a faster switch! Then
connect a single Ethernet cable between the fast switch and a LAN port on
your router.

Presto, your LAN runs at the faster speed, completely unaware and unaffected
by the presence of the slower router (switch) on the path to the Internet.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Char Jackson
You're dealing with a lot of related things, so I'll focus on just one of
them. Your LAN speed doesn't need to be affected by your router.
Most likely, you currently have several Ethernet cables connected to your
router, so whatever is on the other end of those cables is dependent upon
the speed of the switch that lives in your router. If that switch is too
slow for you, simply plug those Ethernet cables into a faster switch! Then
connect a single Ethernet cable between the fast switch and a LAN port on
your router.
Presto, your LAN runs at the faster speed, completely unaware and unaffected
by the presence of the slower router (switch) on the path to the Internet.

Thanks!... After re-plugging things a dozen-or-so times, I have LAN
Speed Test telling me that things are much, much better between my
desktop PC and the NAS box. It started out with single-digits
Read/Write and, after following your advice, wound up at 297/100....

Unless somebody tells me I am making a mistake, I will buy the
gigabit-switch version of that router (about $80 on Amazon) with the
expectation that the stuff plugged directly into the router will run a
bit better and that Verizon Support will be more inclined to look deeper
if/when I have to call them again.

I am still clueless as to why the Cisco E3000 would not connect anymore.
For awhile I was thinking that it got fried - along with one of my
gigabit switches; but I think that was unlikely because after running
for a day or so on an old 10/100 switch; I swapped the supposedly-fried
gigabit switch back in and it's working just fine.

[Char Jackson]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Char Jackson
You're dealing with a lot of related things, so I'll focus on just one of
them. Your LAN speed doesn't need to be affected by your router.
Most likely, you currently have several Ethernet cables connected to your
router, so whatever is on the other end of those cables is dependent upon
the speed of the switch that lives in your router. If that switch is too
slow for you, simply plug those Ethernet cables into a faster switch! Then
connect a single Ethernet cable between the fast switch and a LAN port on
your router.
Presto, your LAN runs at the faster speed, completely unaware and unaffected
by the presence of the slower router (switch) on the path to the Internet.

Thanks!... After re-plugging things a dozen-or-so times, I have LAN
Speed Test telling me that things are much, much better between my
desktop PC and the NAS box. It started out with single-digits
Read/Write and, after following your advice, wound up at 297/100....

That's a nice improvement, but I'd expect better. Using iperf or jperf, I
routinely see 988-996 Mbps on my Gigabit LAN. Using Windows to transfer
files back and forth, I routinely see between 760-940 Mbps. Windows has more
overhead than the *perf brothers. More specifically, the *perf boys are
dumping the transferred bits onto the floor, while Windows is writing them
to disk. It's no wonder that Windows is slower.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
Unless somebody tells me I am making a mistake, I will buy the
gigabit-switch version of that router (about $80 on Amazon) with the
expectation that the stuff plugged directly into the router will run a
bit better and that Verizon Support will be more inclined to look deeper
if/when I have to call them again.

When is spending money a mistake? :-) Seriously, there's no functional or
performance difference between a router with an internal gig switch and a
router connected to an external gig switch. What you do gain, though, is one
less box, one less power supply, and one less Ethernet cable, by going to a
router with an embedded gig switch. As long as you don't expect things to
run a bit better, you'll be happy. They'll run the same either way, but your
desktop will be neater.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Char Jackson
When is spending money a mistake? :-) Seriously, there's no functional or
performance difference between a router with an internal gig switch and a
router connected to an external gig switch. What you do gain, though, is one
less box, one less power supply, and one less Ethernet cable, by going to a
router with an embedded gig switch. As long as you don't expect things to
run a bit better, you'll be happy. They'll run the same either way, but your
desktop will be neater.

This seems to point to misunderstanding on my part.

My image of the LAN was that *everything* has to go through the router
(in order to be "routed"....).

The prior advice about hanging faster switches on below the level of the
router also seems to suggest that everything does *not* have to go
through the router.

The only reason I would buy the gigabit-switch version of the Verizon
router would be to open up the bottleneck I imagined the 10/100 switch
in the router created.

??


As to the new, improved speeds: I think my LAN has to be cut some slack.

To Wit:

- The wires/connectors are 90% Cat5e

- My wiring skills are, shall we say, less than
perfect.... For instance, it took a couple years
for it to sink in about preserving as many twists
as possible before terminating to a punchdown block...
and I haven't had the heart or OCD levels needed to
re-do all my punchdown connections.

[Char Jackson]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Char Jackson
When is spending money a mistake? :-) Seriously, there's no functional or
performance difference between a router with an internal gig switch and a
router connected to an external gig switch. What you do gain, though, is one
less box, one less power supply, and one less Ethernet cable, by going to a
router with an embedded gig switch. As long as you don't expect things to
run a bit better, you'll be happy. They'll run the same either way, but your
desktop will be neater.

This seems to point to misunderstanding on my part.
My image of the LAN was that *everything* has to go through the router
(in order to be "routed"....).

A typical LAN is 'switched' (OSI Layer 2), not 'routed' (OSI Layer 3).

A router is needed to connect two *different* networks, while a switch is
used to connect multiple hosts on the *same* network. A typical LAN consists
of a single network, sometimes called a subnet, so a router isn't needed for
the different hosts to be able to talk to each other. A switch is needed,
though, or the old style passive hubs of yester-year, but those have long
ago fallen out of favor, generally.

It helps to understand that the thing which everyone calls a 'router' is
actually several things in one box. It certainly starts with a router, but
it also contains a switch, usually an access point, a DHCP server, sometimes
a SAMBA file server, FTP server, print server, and so on. Oh, and a bridge
to connect the LAN side of the router to the switch.

You can take any common NAT router and turn it into just a switch, or just
an access point, or just a DHCP server, or even just a router, (among other
things), by disabling the unneeded parts. I guess that's not really
relevant, but I'm tossing it in for completeness. Sometimes people who need
an access point will merrily go buy an access point when they have a
perfectly good wireless router on hand, for example.

In your case, and in nearly everyone's case, intraLAN communications don't
go "through" the router. They only go through the switch, but the switch is
packaged inside the router case so it sort of seems like the router is
involved. The router portion of the 'router device' only comes into play
when LAN traffic needs to hit the WAN, or when WAN traffic needs to hit the
LAN. The WAN (which includes the Internet) and the LAN are on two different
networks, so that's why a router is needed.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
The prior advice about hanging faster switches on below the level of the
router also seems to suggest that everything does *not* have to go
through the router.

Correct. LAN traffic only goes through the switch, not through the router
portion of the "router device". So whether you use a standalone switch or a
switch embedded inside a "router device", it's all the same. In both cases,
LAN traffic is switched, not routed.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
The only reason I would buy the gigabit-switch version of the Verizon
router would be to open up the bottleneck I imagined the 10/100 switch
in the router created.

If your external switch is gigabit, then your LAN can run at gigabit. The
10/100 switch in the "router device" is only a bottleneck if your Internet
service can exceed 100 Mbps, which is slowly becoming more common. So it's
not completely unreasonable to pay attention, but it depends on your local
situation as to whether there is an actual bottleneck or not.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
As to the new, improved speeds: I think my LAN has to be cut some slack.
- The wires/connectors are 90% Cat5e
- My wiring skills are, shall we say, less than
perfect.... For instance, it took a couple years
for it to sink in about preserving as many twists
as possible before terminating to a punchdown block...
and I haven't had the heart or OCD levels needed to
re-do all my punchdown connections.

Understood. There could be some transmission issues in that case. I make my
own patch cables, as well.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Char Jackson
If your external switch is gigabit, then your LAN can run at gigabit. The
10/100 switch in the "router device" is only a bottleneck if your Internet
service can exceed 100 Mbps, which is slowly becoming more common. So it's
not completely unreasonable to pay attention, but it depends on your local
situation as to whether there is an actual bottleneck or not.

First off: thanks for the two great replies. My consciousness has been
significantly upgraded.

Two more noob questions:

- How about switches within switches? Has to be slower for the
device at the bottom, but is there a penalty that I
would perceive? The case in point is my main switch (connected
to the router and to which everything is attached one-way-or another
except for my workstation and a spare PC next to it) feeding that
switch at my workstation. i.e. PC ==> Switch ==> Switch

"One-way-or-another" because the tiered switch thing is repeated
two more times: once for 4 IP cams in the garden shed, and again
for 3 IP cams outside the house.

I've tried a few LAN Speed Tests with the two switches and then
with the work station connected directly to the topmost/main switch,
but LAN Speed Test's numbers vary quite a bit. I suppose I could
run a hundred tests each way and average the results... but it's
easier to ask... -)

- Why are LAN Speed Test's numbers all over the place? I can run
three tests back-to-back and get numbers that differ by 70+ Mbps.
e.g. Write: 96, 188, 159, and 180.... Read: 192, 211, 280, 258.

My kneejerk reaction is that they are against my NAS box and other
things are probably happening.... but I can't think of what they
would be and each of those tests were begun within 4 seconds
of the prior test. ??

[Char Jackson]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Char Jackson
If your external switch is gigabit, then your LAN can run at gigabit. The
10/100 switch in the "router device" is only a bottleneck if your Internet
service can exceed 100 Mbps, which is slowly becoming more common. So it's
not completely unreasonable to pay attention, but it depends on your local
situation as to whether there is an actual bottleneck or not.

First off: thanks for the two great replies. My consciousness has been
significantly upgraded.

Cool beans.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
- How about switches within switches? Has to be slower for the
device at the bottom, but is there a penalty that I
would perceive?

I checked a few random (but highly rated) switches at Newegg but none
published latency specs. Despite optimistic claims of "wire speed"
switching, there's almost certainly some latency, but I'm guessing it's in
the microsecond range and not human noticeable.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
I've tried a few LAN Speed Tests with the two switches and then
with the work station connected directly to the topmost/main switch,
but LAN Speed Test's numbers vary quite a bit. I suppose I could
run a hundred tests each way and average the results... but it's
easier to ask... -)
- Why are LAN Speed Test's numbers all over the place? I can run
three tests back-to-back and get numbers that differ by 70+ Mbps.
e.g. Write: 96, 188, 159, and 180.... Read: 192, 211, 280, 258.

Those are strange numbers. They're faster than 100, so you obviously have
Gigabit capable network devices under test, but they're significantly less
than 1000 so something's not quite right. My guess is network congestion.
More below.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
My kneejerk reaction is that they are against my NAS box and other
things are probably happening.... but I can't think of what they
would be and each of those tests were begun within 4 seconds
of the prior test. ??

I don't have experience with anything called LAN Speed Test, so I'm not sure
what it's doing. I've used iperf and jperf, though, and both require you to
designate a target for the test so you always know exactly which network
links are being tested.

One testing approach is to connect two Gigabit-capable PCs directly to each
other and run a speed test with all network-aware applications shut down.
You want to see what the best case is. Then add a switch between those two
PCs and run the test again. The difference, if any, is due to the switch.
Next, daisy chain a second switch into the path and run the test again. By
directly connecting two PCs like that, you remove all of the network chatter
to/from the other devices on the network, including Internet traffic. In
your case, with all of those cameras possibly running, who knows what's on
the network during the test. That's why you have to isolate the two PCs
under test.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Char Jackson
One testing approach is to connect two Gigabit-capable PCs directly to each
other and run a speed test with all network-aware applications shut down.
You want to see what the best case is. Then add a switch between those two
PCs and run the test again. The difference, if any, is due to the switch.
Next, daisy chain a second switch into the path and run the test again. By
directly connecting two PCs like that, you remove all of the network chatter
to/from the other devices on the network, including Internet traffic. In
your case, with all of those cameras possibly running, who knows what's on
the network during the test. That's why you have to isolate the two PCs
under test.

"Divide and Conquer".... the application developer in me likes that.

As soon as my new 16-port switch arrives, I will get on with it.

[(PeteCresswell)]

One testing approach is to connect two Gigabit-capable PCs....

Switch arrived today, been working that approach.

One more question: Assuming a gigabit switch with all devices
connected to it capable of gigabit except one device that only does
10/100; is that device dragging everybody else's speed down?

If so, would replacing it with another gigabit switch and then plugging
the 10/100 device into that second gigabit switch mitigate the
situation?

[Char Jackson]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

One testing approach is to connect two Gigabit-capable PCs....

Switch arrived today, been working that approach.
One more question: Assuming a gigabit switch with all devices
connected to it capable of gigabit except one device that only does
10/100; is that device dragging everybody else's speed down?

No, not quite. When any two devices talk to each other through a switch,
they should talk at the lowest common speed that both of them support. So
two gig devices should talk gig, while two 10/100 devices should talk 100,
and a gig device and 10/100 device should talk 100.

Multiple conversations can be going on simultaneously through the switch,
and the slower speed of one conversation doesn't affect the faster speed of
another.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
If so, would replacing it with another gigabit switch and then plugging
the 10/100 device into that second gigabit switch mitigate the
situation?

Not necessary.

[Char Jackson]

Post by Char Jackson

Post by (PeteCresswell)

One testing approach is to connect two Gigabit-capable PCs....

Switch arrived today, been working that approach.
One more question: Assuming a gigabit switch with all devices
connected to it capable of gigabit except one device that only does
10/100; is that device dragging everybody else's speed down?

No, not quite. When any two devices talk to each other through a switch,
they should talk at the lowest common speed that both of them support.

Correcting myself, they talk at the _highest_ common speed, not the lowest.

Post by Char Jackson
So
two gig devices should talk gig, while two 10/100 devices should talk 100,
and a gig device and 10/100 device should talk 100.
Multiple conversations can be going on simultaneously through the switch,
and the slower speed of one conversation doesn't affect the faster speed of
another.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
If so, would replacing it with another gigabit switch and then plugging
the 10/100 device into that second gigabit switch mitigate the
situation?

Not necessary.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Char Jackson
Those are strange numbers. They're faster than 100, so you obviously have
Gigabit capable network devices under test, but they're significantly less
than 1000 so something's not quite right. My guess is network congestion.
More below.

I think your guess is correct.

For ease of testing, I combined all my IP cams into one little switch
and then plugged that switch into the main switch.

After disconnecting/re-connecting the little switch over-and-over it
started to dawn on me that it was the traffic from the IP cams that was
pulling me down to those 200 Mbps speeds. Without the cams speeds were
around 450.... replicable over-and-over....

Makes me think of one of the System Programmers where I used to work
back in the mainframe days: he used to get all bent out of shape because
all those people logged in were dragging down his performance
numbers....

But, speaking of numbers, my IP cam server claims that the total
bandwidth for all seven of those IP cams is only 5.8 Mbps.
OTOH maybe I am misreading it and there is more going on than just it's
numbers per camera....

[Char Jackson]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Char Jackson
Those are strange numbers. They're faster than 100, so you obviously have
Gigabit capable network devices under test, but they're significantly less
than 1000 so something's not quite right. My guess is network congestion.
More below.

I think your guess is correct.
For ease of testing, I combined all my IP cams into one little switch
and then plugged that switch into the main switch.
After disconnecting/re-connecting the little switch over-and-over it
started to dawn on me that it was the traffic from the IP cams that was
pulling me down to those 200 Mbps speeds. Without the cams speeds were
around 450.... replicable over-and-over....

Years ago, I remember having a no name brand NIC that supposedly did gig,
but I was lucky to get 450 Mbps out of it. Yours reminds me of that.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
Makes me think of one of the System Programmers where I used to work
back in the mainframe days: he used to get all bent out of shape because
all those people logged in were dragging down his performance
numbers....

I resemble that remark. :-)

Post by (PeteCresswell)
But, speaking of numbers, my IP cam server claims that the total
bandwidth for all seven of those IP cams is only 5.8 Mbps.
OTOH maybe I am misreading it and there is more going on than just it's
numbers per camera....

There's a formula for calculating what the required bandwidth should be, but
I'm not enough of a geek to remember the details. I only remember that it's
based on the resolution times the frame rate, and then I forgot.

[Paul]

Post by Char Jackson
Years ago, I remember having a no name brand NIC that supposedly did gig,
but I was lucky to get 450 Mbps out of it. Yours reminds me of that.

RealTek makes a PCI bus GbE chip like that.

I have four PCI cards like that, I can sell you
real cheap. I'm sorry I bought them. They're not
even fit to be used as door-stops.

To get that RealTek to run at full link rate, by extrapolation,
it would take a 4GHz Core2 processor to make it happen.
So something like a 4790K combined with one of those
stinkers, you'd just barely make it to full link rate.
The chip has some sort of "excess interrupt" problem.
About five interrupts per packet. Not only is it slow,
it chews up CPU as well when you use it.

Paul

[Stormin' Norman]

Post by (PeteCresswell)
But, speaking of numbers, my IP cam server claims that the total
bandwidth for all seven of those IP cams is only 5.8 Mbps.
OTOH maybe I am misreading it and there is more going on than just it's
numbers per camera....

Have you tried adjusting the frame rate of each camera? Have you previously
mentioned the make and model or at least the resolution and frame rate of each
device, if so, I didn't see it.

If you are using the cameras for security and surveillance, in typical
situations setting the frame rate to 1 or 2 fps should be more than adequate.
You might also take a look at your resolution, the higher the setting the
greater the amount of data per frame.

There are more than a few considerations with IP cameras which determine the
amount of bandwidth required by each.

One last note, with most IP cameras, each will have a management interface that
will allow you to adjust the settings I mentioned above. You would access each
camera the same way you might access a router on your network, i.e.
http://10.10.1.45:8000

If you post the make and model of the cameras, I might be able to look them up
and peruse the specifications for you.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Stormin' Norman
Have you tried adjusting the frame rate of each camera? Have you previously
mentioned the make and model or at least the resolution and frame rate of each
device, if so, I didn't see it.
If you are using the cameras for security and surveillance, in typical
situations setting the frame rate to 1 or 2 fps should be more than adequate.
You might also take a look at your resolution, the higher the setting the
greater the amount of data per frame.

I am just trying to get a handle on the "What" and "Why" of my network's
speeds.... I can live with 200 Mbps, no problem... just want some idea
of what is going on.

My cams are all set up to be bandwidth-intensive - set to 30 FPS (mostly
HikVision DS-2CD2032-I's and one higher-end Sony. My cam server
defines each camera twice:

- In one definition, a cam takes contiguous 5-minute Clips back-to-back
24-7.

- In the other definition, a cam takes no Clips, just motion-sensor
Alert .JPGs. These occur once per second while motion is being
sensed. Frankly, for my money, I could totally live without clips
if the use was only security. The one-second .JPGs are plenty.
And they have the additional attraction of being quickly FTB-able
so if something happens on-site to disable the connection at least
some of the .JPGs will get through - as opposed to Clips that take
so long to transmit and which are not playable unless the entire
file is present.

I guess the cams serve some security purpose, but their main purpose for
me has been as learning vehicles and entertainment.

- Learning vehicles because the owner of the windsurfing shop where I
sail wanted an IP cam so people could check on conditions and not call
him every five minutes on windy days. But he was behind a 44k DSL
connection.

It turned out to be quite a little adventure for me - knowing nothing
at the start (and still not knowing much...but, at least it
works...)... http://ExtremeSurfCam.DynDNS.org.

- Entertainment because I use the cams at home mainly to see what's
going down in the back yard at night. Foxes, 'possums, raccoons,
neighbors' cats, and the occasional escapee dog.... they all interact
and it's quite a show sometimes.
e.g.

Haven't seen any coyotes yet, but I think it is just a matter of
time. Guy about 3/4 mile away who keeps chickens locks them up now
since coming face-to-face with a coyote in his driveway.

[mike]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Mike Easter
The ONT has an Ethernet port that’s disabled in installations using
coax. Usually, the installer won’t even ask you whether you’d rather
have Ethernet run to the router instead — they’ll just use coax. But you
may want to use it and connect your own router directly, like I did. //

I had the same problem. I had to insist that they use ethernet to the ONT.
The installer FLATLY REFUSED to run both LAN and coax wires.
Even so, I got a call from the home office confirming that I'd requested
TV service be added to the bill.

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Mike Easter
The strategy depends on whether or not you also have TV in addition to
internet.

No coax here - being probably the only house within 10 miles that has no
cable TV... just OTA.... and I watched the tech plug in the Ethernet
connector... and it's connected to a cable that the routers connect to.
FWIW, I finally stumbled on how to set my local address space to
10.0.0.x.... so things are looking up in that respect.

Should be able to fix that easily in the DHCP server settings of the
router. I run all my systems in DHCP mode. Use address reservation
in the router to get all the benefits of fixed IP addresses.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
Now I'm down to the 10/100 thing plus the expected gotchas...
I think I will just go heads-down for a few hours and replicate all my
Port Forwarding and Static IP assignments in the Verizon box and see
what happens over the next few days.
Maybe I will not notice the degraded LAN performance....
I will miss Tomato... but the world moves on....

Assume that your tomato router is in DHCP mode on the WAN side?

Assume you've tried plugging the WAN port of your router into a
LAN port of the new fios router???
That should at least verify that your router wasn't killed by the
same thing that killed the ONT.
It's typically not recommended, but I ran a double-natted system
for a while with no obvious consequences.

Don't rule out a bad cable. I've chased my tail only to find
that a cable that worked for years failed when unplugged from the old
configuration.

I have zero experience with the FIOS router because it only ran for a few
minutes while we verified the speed. Replaced it with my router
and it just worked.