Question Issues with upload speed with 2.5 Gbps connection ?

[bill001g]

Could still be the router, which relies on hardware NAT to achieve those speeds. If it has to use software NAT for any of the ports, then 300-500mbps is about right depending on which ARM processor it's using.

That's why I built my own x86 router. It's software NAT and software QOS, but it can move traffic well beyond 2.5gbps.

His last test he put a machine on the wan and another machine on the lan side and tested between them. Seems that router has no issues running 2.5 of nat.

 

[gggplaya]

His last test he put a machine on the wan and another machine on the lan side and tested between them. Seems that router has no issues running 2.5 of nat.

Perhaps I missed it, but I only see an IPERF between the 10G port, router and the 2.5g port, so no NAT involved to the internet.

 

[bill001g]

I think he did the test on the ax11000. That one has a 2.5g port that only run WAN and a 10gbit port that can be wan or lan.
I think his other router is 2.5g wan and 2.5g lan/wan also.
I don't know why you would ever set the 10gbit port to wan when you then you only have 1gbit ports on the lan.

Then again maybe it has other configuration options I was only going on the tech specs I did not read the manual. Other asus routers all have 1 port that is always wan and the only way to get it to be lan port is to set the router to bridge/ap mode.

But you are correct if he was testing between 2 lan ports it doesn't mean a lot.

What also makes the ONT suspect is he gets strange results when he plugs directly into it with no router in the path.

 

[gggplaya]

I think he did the test on the ax11000. That one has a 2.5g port that only run WAN and a 10gbit port that can be wan or lan.
I think his other router is 2.5g wan and 2.5g lan/wan also.
I don't know why you would ever set the 10gbit port to wan when you then you only have 1gbit ports on the lan.

Then again maybe it has other configuration options I was only going on the tech specs I did not read the manual. Other asus routers all have 1 port that is always wan and the only way to get it to be lan port is to set the router to bridge/ap mode.

But you are correct if he was testing between 2 lan ports it doesn't mean a lot.

What also makes the ONT suspect is he gets strange results when he plugs directly into it with no router in the path.

In my experience with Asus routers, those blue "wan" ports are self configuring. For example, they are used when connecting AiMesh Nodes together. AsusWRT is based on OpenWRT and all the ethernet connections in OpenWRT are configurable to be WAN or LAN.

For the OP, I would suggest also making sure QOS is turned completely off for your testing. The Adaptive QOS I think is based off of FQ_Codel or CAKE. It's hard to say with company continually rebranding open source software with their own names. But using either of those algorithms will limit you to the speeds you describe. I would also turn off the website filtering and things like that, I forget what Asus calls it. It uses TrendMicro databases to filter websites.

But you're right, the ONT is still suspect.

 

[winoni71]

Could still be the router, which relies on hardware NAT to achieve those speeds. If it has to use software NAT for any of the ports, then 300-500mbps is about right depending on which ARM processor it's using.

That's why I built my own x86 router. It's software NAT and software QOS, but it can move traffic well beyond 2.5gbps.

If that were the problem than the issue would affect both DL and UL speeds no matter the settings, would it not?
Why only UL speed and why only when the negotiation is "2.5 or 10 Gbps Full Duplex"?

 

[winoni71]

For the OP, I would suggest also making sure QOS is turned completely off for your testing. The Adaptive QOS I think is based off of FQ_Codel or CAKE. It's hard to say with company continually rebranding open source software with their own names. But using either of those algorithms will limit you to the speeds you describe. I would also turn off the website filtering and things like that, I forget what Asus calls it. It uses TrendMicro databases to filter websites.

Yes, I have disabled everything.
Anyway, I have contacted the ISP and we'll try another ONT.

 

[gggplaya]

If that were the problem than the issue would affect both DL and UL speeds no matter the settings, would it not?
Why only UL speed and why only when the negotiation is "2.5 or 10 Gbps Full Duplex"?

No, the QOS is independently settable and changeable for DL and UL for those algorithms. I know people with Ubiquiti routers that set DL to 0 which turns off QOS for download, but keep it enabled for UL. Ubiquiti uses FQ_Codel.

 

[nigelivey]

Could still be the router, which relies on hardware NAT to achieve those speeds. If it has to use software NAT for any of the ports, then 300-500mbps is about right depending on which ARM processor it's using.

That's why I built my own x86 router. It's software NAT and software QOS, but it can move traffic well beyond 2.5gbps.

If you have to use any QOS you need a bigger pipe

 

[gggplaya]

If you have to use any QOS you need a bigger pipe

I agree, but around here your choices are cable internet or ADSL. ADSL is only about 40mbps down and like 5-10mbps upload. Cable internet is 300mbps down and 10mbps up for the lower tier plan and 1gbps down and 40mbps for their highest tier plan. Download is not a problem, you can pay a little more and get gigabit down, but upload can be an issue for meetings and things like plex. Which is why alot of people turn off QOS on download, but use it for upload.

Fiber was coming in our direction from Verizon, but that was halted a few years ago due to land owners and comcast lobbyists getting involved.

 

[winoni71]

So they brought me a different ONT, supposedly of a better brand, a "ZTE ZXHN F60005", but the issue did not go away.
But I still wanted to try, so I stumbled upon a setting page I did not see previously in "Intel PROSet Adapter Configuration Utility" which allows me to "group" together different connections and use it as one.

I tried it and it seemed to work right away, but not all the time and only using a speed test.
When it does work it uses the faster card to download and the slower one to upload and so I get these results:

Idle Latency: 13.26 ms (jitter: 0.44ms, low: 11.86ms, high: 13.47ms)
Download: 2065.98 Mbps (data used: 3.0 GB)
53.32 ms (jitter: 51.71ms, low: 12.00ms, high: 970.99ms)
Upload: 948.34 Mbps (data used: 1.0 GB)
40.96 ms (jitter: 2.81ms, low: 12.70ms, high: 47.02ms)
Packet Loss: 0.0%

But if I run the test multiple times, one after the other, it sometimes gives me the same old results with capped upload speed.
And the upload speed is always capped with normal use.

 

[Ralston18]

Question regarding:

"When it does work it uses the faster card to download and the slower one to upload and so I get these results:"

Two network adapters enabled at the same time?

Run "ipconfig /all" (without quotes) via the Command Prompt.

Copy and post the results herein.

Also run "arp -a" and post the results.

 

[winoni71]

Two network adapters enabled at the same time?

Yes.

Run "ipconfig /all"

Windows IP Configuration

Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : DESKTOP-XXXXXX
Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . :
Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid
IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No

Ethernet adapter FTTH:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : GROUP: FTTH
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : XXX
DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : XXX(Preferred)
IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.104(Preferred)
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : 23 November 2023 16:50:30
Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : 24 November 2023 16:50:30
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1
DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1
DHCPv6 IAID . . . . . . . . . . . : XXX
DHCPv6 Client DUID. . . . . . . . : XXX
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1
NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled

Also run "arp -a"

Interface: 192.168.0.104 --- 0x15

Internet Address      Physical Address      Type

  192.168.0.1           XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     dynamic
  192.168.0.3           XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     dynamic
  192.168.0.36          XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     dynamic
  192.168.0.205         XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     dynamic
  192.168.0.255         XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     static
  224.0.0.22            XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     static
  224.0.0.251           XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     static
  224.0.0.252           XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     static
  239.255.102.18        XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     static
  239.255.255.250       XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     static
  255.255.255.255     ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff    static

 

[Ralston18]

Only one network adapter either wired or wireless as required (by you) should be enabled in the problem DESKTOP-XXXXXX.

Not two network adapters of any sort at the same. That can be done and is done but only for specific requirements (bridging).

The results from "ipconfig /all" do not appear to be complete.

The current posted results indicate that the DESKTOP is requesting and receiving a DHCP IP address from a router using 192.168.0.1 which is a commonly used router IP address.

And the DESKTOP at the time of the request received the DHCP IP address of 192.168.0.104 (leased for 24 hours).

Besides the DESKTOP there appear to be three other devices obtaining DHCP IP addresses from the router. Those IP addresses ending in .3, .36, and .205. Noted that the MACs were masked out - that is sometimes done for security reasons but not really necessary. At least ensure that the MACs are not identifical or only mask out the last couple of octets. The MACs can help identify a device that appears on the network.

FYI

https://dnschecker.org/mac-lookup.php

And to help with understanding Private and Public addressing:

https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-an... types of IP addresses,are assigned by an ISP.

Five immediate suggestions:

1) Reconfigure DESKTOP so only one of its' network adapters is enabled and configured for the router/network.

2) Should not really matter but I would increase the DHCP IP address lease time to the maximum supported lease time.

3) Disable IPv6

4) Verify that no two devices are using the same MAC. Usually some sort of end user configuration error.

5) Change the DNS Servers to Google at 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4

 

[winoni71]

Only one network adapter either wired or wireless as required (by you) should be enabled in the problem DESKTOP-XXXXXX.
Not two network adapters of any sort at the same. That can be done and is done but only for specific requirements (bridging).

Five immediate suggestions:
1) Reconfigure DESKTOP so only one of its' network adapters is enabled and configured for the router/network.
2) Should not really matter but I would increase the DHCP IP address lease time to the maximum supported lease time.
3) Disable IPv6
4) Verify that no two devices are using the same MAC. Usually some sort of end user configuration error.
5) Change the DNS Servers to Google at 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4

I spent weeks trying everything you listed before combining the 2 networks, which has been the only thing that achieved any good result.

Anyway I don't care anymore, I've wasted enough time with this, I'm done.
Maybe one day they'll issue a firmware update to the ONT or to the router and the problem will be solved.

Since I'm stuck with the problem, at least I would like to be able to do one of either two things, either via command line or in some other semi-automated way:

1) Change the negotiation settings from "2.5 Gbps Full Duplex" to "1.0 Gbps Full Duplex"
or
2) Disable network card #1 and enable network card #2

Any suggestions?

 

[Ralston18]

- Negotiation settings should be configured for "Auto".

- Disable network card #1 and try network card #2. However if the change is from wired to wireless, the network speed will likely decrease. Wired should be used as much as possible. Wireless being subject to much more interference from neighboring wireless networks or other wireless devices.

Caveat being a defective or substandard Ethernet cable causing the problems.

= = = =

You mention "combining the 2 networks". What two networks? What/how is that being done?

Are you able to provide a simple sketch of the current network? Show all devices, make and model, IP addresses, and connectivity (wired or wireless).

 

[winoni71]

- Negotiation settings should be configured for "Auto".

It should not be in my case, it should be set to either "2.5 Gbps Full Duplex" or "1.0 Gbps Full Duplex" depending on what my needs are in that moment.

- Disable network card #1 and try network card #2. However if the change is from wired to wireless, the network speed will likely decrease.
Wired should be used as much as possible. Wireless being subject to much more interference from neighboring wireless networks or other wireless devices.

Done over and over again with 4 different network cards, always wired.

Caveat being a defective or substandard Ethernet cable causing the problems.

Not a cable issue.

You mention "combining the 2 networks". What two networks? What/how is that being done?

I meant 2 network cards, connected to the same router, combined using "Intel PROSet Adapter Configuration Utility".

Are you able to provide a simple sketch of the current network? Show all devices, make and model, IP addresses, and connectivity (wired or wireless).

I truly don't care anymore, I don't want to spend any more time trying to figure this out, it's an ONT issue or a router issue, either way it's the way it is.

I just would like, if technically possible, to do one of those 2 things mentioned previously.

Thank you.

 

[Ralston18]

Two network cards in the same computer each with a wired connection to the same router at the same time?

= = = =

- Possible network loop:

https://kb.netgear.com/000060475/What-is-a-network-loop

There may be other loops as well - that is one reason a network diagram could prove helpful.

= = = =

- Referencing "Intel PROSet Adapter Configuration Utility ":

This utility?

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005667/ethernet-products.html

Are you attempting to Team adapters?

Going out of my comfort zone so will need to defer to those who may recognize an existing issue or some other possible configuration error of commission or omission regarding "technically possible".