Cree340

10GE connectivity in Vancouver

Nope, that's a legitimate speedtest result. It isn't from my home though.

Apparently Speedtest.net now actually saves the result on speedtests that go beyond several gbps in speed. And I've found a speedtest server that can handle more than 10Gbps (AT&T in Seattle). All the other servers in the region are capped right below 10Gbps at best. So here's a result with a download speed of 17.8Gbps and 4.8Gbps for upload. https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/7a2916bd-73ef-4ac7-ab1d-7726c72fb1c0

The value (mbps per $) of DIA connections are pretty bad at low bandwidth commits, but it gets a lot cheaper per mbps as you purchase more bandwidth (pricing also becomes more negotiable). Plus, they'll offer speeds that aren't available at consumer tiers. At low bandwidth commits, DIA connections are noticeably more expensive because of the SLA that's offered. It's basically just as difficult (or easy) for an ISP to meet its advertised SLA for a 50mbps connection as it is for a 5gbps connection. Support is also the other reason; you might have a dedicated account manager that you communicate with when paying for a DIA, versus dealing with the normal call centers that SMB grade cable/fiber internet provides. Although you did mention that you spoke with people who weren't very knowledgeable, but maybe it would be even worse with SMB grade internet. I did mention that some people have more advanced requirements. Such has needing a lot of IPv4 address space or advertising your own PI IPv4 space (IPs that you own outright, or lease from someone else). Or accepting customer BGP advertisements so it can be used in tandem with another connection from another ISP for redundancy and more optimized internet routing. Just because the advantages of a DIA connection aren't important to you doesn't mean there aren't companies out there that rely those features/advantages and are whiling to pay a lot more for them. If those differences don't seem useful or necessary for you, that's why ISPs still offer SMB grade internet, go for that.

My gigabit internet at home is finally symmetrical. Now I'm waiting for multigigabit to become available for a reasonable price (probably when NG-PON2 rolls out).

Yes, those prices are normal for DIA (Dedicated Internet Access) connections. The cost is significantly more because the ISP expects you to utilize the bandwidth you pay for (so it can't oversubscribe to the extent it does for residential or small business connections). In addition, you probably get better customer support, more included IPs, an SLA, flexible billing and plan options (such as being billed by 95th percentile, unmetered or pay as you go), and support for customer BGP advertisements (so you can multi-home with connections from other ISPs and/or use your own provider independent IP space). You will probably notice that DIA connections will commonly use metro Ethernet over fiber instead of the PON based fiber that you get with residential and small business grade fiber (such as AT&T Gigapower, Verizon FiOS, and Google Fiber) which means that your connection to the ISP shouldn't be contended (however, after it reaches the ISP, speeds are no longer guaranteed). For reference, here's AT&T's list prices (actual prices may vary depending on location): https://www.business.att.com/products/dedicated-internet.html

They still probably rely on 3rd party recursive DNS servers such as Google, OpenDNS/Cisco Umbrella, Cloudflare/1.1.1.1, Quad9, or their ISP's resolver. It's that they also have a local resolver that will cache frequently used DNS queries, allow them to create DNS records for internal uses (like assigning servers with FQDNs or assigning PTR records to RFC1918 IP addresses), and blackhole certain DNS queries for security or ad-blocking purposes (like in the case of Pi-Hole). Other reasons why you won't directly point to external recursive DNS servers might be due to requirements from other network services/applications like Active Directory. Just so you know, even 3rd party DNS resolvers need to query other DNS servers on the internet when it receives a query that doesn't exist in its cache, having a local DNS server just adds another layer.

What were they thinking with that data cap, you can use it all up in just a little over an hour. I remember having a 500GB data cap back in 2012 (with 100mbps down, 5mbps up internet). What's the name of your ISP?

Where in Australia are those speeds available? (without a metroE connection)

Try pinging your default gateway (192.168.123.1) to see if its an issue with your router / the wireless connection or an ISP / internet routing issue. Also an MTR would be better than a traceroute in this case. On Windows, try the utility http://winmtr.net/. On Linux distros, you can just install MTR from the apt package manager with apt install mtr and then you can run the command mtr google.com and run it for like a minute (by default it goes through one cycle per second)

500 GB per month is basically unlimited if your internet speeds are around 1.5mbps up/down. 1.5mbps ~ 0.19 MB/s 0.19MB/s * 3600 secs (in an hour) * 720 hours (in a month) = 492480 MB ~ 492 GB per month (unidirectional) If you saturate your internet connection both ways at greater than 55% for the entire month, then yes, you could exceed your cap. But with a connection that slow it doesn't seem like a good idea to do that, even with QoS.

Unless you have G-Sync or Freesync, 30fps is better because frame-rate drops to 40fps will cause noticeable tearing. I would recommend you try lowering your graphics quality first, and if that's not enough, to lock frame rate at 30. Also, frame-rates that are a factor of your display refresh rate are usually preferred (unless you have G-Sync or Freesync).

Finally got gigabit speeds at home! The plan is 950/300, but I think Telus provisioned my upload speeds incorrectly [my old plan (300/300) had faster uploads]. The downloads are now fast enough that I'm able to notice congestion between my ISP and other ISPs here in Vancouver [if traffic goes via transit instead of peering (either at an IXP or privately)]. I'm paying basically 50% more for internet though. CA$237 per month for this internet connection alone. However, it is a (smb) business connection with "static" IPs. My biggest frustration (aside from the botched upload speeds and transit congestion) is the lack of IPv6 support even though customers with dynamic IPs are getting IPv6 via DHCPv6-PD.

That's the highest upload speed I've seen from cable internet. Are the speeds stable/reliable?

I've never encountered an ISP that would throttle, especially all kinds of traffic (including speedtest?), and I have used 4.5TB on my internet at home this month. Although I'm over in western Canada, so I can't comment on Rogers. If your 'throttled' speeds are inconsistent, I bet that it's a line quality issue or a congestion issue. The congestion issue may be upstream, and not at the local CMTS (HFC node) which is why Rogers technical support is claiming that there are no issues.

Your high pings may also be due to un-optimal routing from your ISP or Valve. You might get better results by just switching to a different ISP (one with better peering and less congested transit links). On a related note, I have access to fiber internet connections from three different ISPs (two are enterprise class and the other is small business internet) and I'm getting really bad performance to eat.valve.net (192.69.96.1). And I'm in Vancouver, which is really close to Seattle. Usually pings to Seattle are 4-7ms for me (pings to Google are just 4ms). Right now, eat.valve.net is getting me between 12ms to 200ms (averages are 30ms, 56ms and 82ms across the three connections). So it looks like Valve is having network performance issues in Seattle (or at least to eat.valve.net). Two of the connections I tested from are with ISPs that have peering with Valve in Seattle, and I'm seeing normal performance of 4.5ms to the Valve's IX border router in Seattle (six1.sea.valve.net), so it could be an internal routing issue with Valve. Maybe try a different server, like Singapore.

Yes, it will reduce the amount of impact to latency heavy bandwidth consumption has. This is because it, for instance, will artificially limit the amount of upload speed a single device can get, reserving some bandwidth so that you aren't clogging your internet pipe. However, it will not improve your pings if you are the only person using the internet (on a single device).

If you're allowed to broadcast your own WiFi, the Ubquiti Unifi nanoHD has pretty decent 5 GHz performance (I don't think you'll use 2.4 GHz in a dorm environment). And then you should get a separate router, something like the Ubiquiti Edgerouter-X will do just fine. More importantly, you'll probably need figure out what the best WiFi channels are to use. In dense WiFi environments, narrower channels may do better (like 20MHz and 40MHz), and choose channels that are less occupied by interfering wireless APs/routers.

Just got my home internet upgraded today. I used to be on a 150mbps plan (and getting around 175), now it's double. Still waiting for gigabit though. Paying $167/mo (Canadian rupees) for this connection (with no contract). And this is the backup connection at home (gotta have that redundancy ). It's HFC (DOCSIS 3 cable) so the upload speed is slow. Paying $175/mo for this one (also with no contract). I should probably ask for better pricing for this one. Both connections are technically small business internet connections so there's no CGNAT or port blocking going on and I'm getting static IP addresses from both ISPs.

I made a number of changes since my last post... [diagram redacted] For the most part, connections are 1GbE over copper (however many connections use link aggregation/etherchannel). Except for one of the storage servers, which is connected at 10GbE to the Cisco 3650 using fiber, and most of IOT devices (such as the speakers and bridge devices) and surveillance cameras are on 100mbps links. The network has 3 primary VLANs; one for management, one for most devices and a third one for guest. It also has another isolated VLAN for testing purposes. I do plan on adding a couple more VLANs in the near future for security purposes. Like a VLAN for the cameras that has no internet access and a VLAN for the phones that is prioritized over the network. Also, the Cisco 3750-X may be a layer 3 switch and has an IP Base license, but it is currently only used as a layer 2 access switch (no routing) for devices powered via POE. There are also 3 WiFi SSIDs being broadcasted, a (WPA2 Enterprise) SSID for most devices (such as mobiles devices and laptops), a (WPA2 PSK) SSID for IOT devices and a (Open) SSID for Guests. I used to use Cisco ISE as a RADIUS server, NAC and as a captive portal for the guest WiFi, but now I just use Windows NPS and the built in captive portal in the Cisco WLC cause I corrupted the ISE installation by abruptly disconnecting the ESXi host from the NFS share (where the ISE VM was running from). I only have one relatively small ESXi host at home (E3-1231v3 32GB RAM) because I run the majority of my VMs offsite and use site-to-site VPN tunnels to have those VMs virtually present on my network. The local ESXi host mainly runs a Windows server with active directory replication and a bunch of other random small VMs. The only services that are hosted in my home that are accessible publicly is my Plex server and my OpenVPN server. Network monitoring is currently only done using PRTG, the Meraki Dashboard, and the Palo Alto Networks firewall WebGUI (and also ssh-ing directly into network switches). I plan on adding others in the future, such as InfluxDB or Prometheus with Grafana and ELK stack. Maybe also an IDS, such as Bro or Suricata. Cisco Stealthwatch would be cool to add but it costs way way too much. There are also a few network devices in my diagram (like a number of the surveillance cameras and the surveillance server) that have not been set up yet and are just sitting on a desk right now. I plan on having those up soon.

Is that from a datacenter using IP Transit from Cogent or dedicated internet access from Cogent to an office building?

It seems like after you pass 3gbps on speedtest, the result ID doesn't exist. Here's another speedtest that was nearly 3gbps: http://www.speedtest.net/result/7039959693

Your mac has a 10GbE network connection? Are you using an iMac Pro at Nvidia. Quite odd since it uses a AMD Vega Pro GPU. Or is it a thunderbolt to 10Gb ethernet adapter?

If you can, always try to use ethernet as the backhaul between the current main router and the, to be added, wifi router/access point. MoCA would also be a decent alternative seeing that you have coax throughout the house. Take the Linksys EA9200 and you'll need to disable all of its routing / NAT / DHCP features, since we want it to be as transparent as possible. This way, your devices will mostly automatically connect to it without any extra configuration. You want to place that Linksys in an area where the existing WiFi router has a weak signal. This way you'll have the best speeds, upstairs and downstairs (your device will just connect to what's strongest [most of the time]). After just configure the WiFi name/SSID to be exactly the same as what you're using right now (its case-sensitive) and also its password and security settings (i.e. WPA2 Personal, WPA/WPA2 Personal [AES + TKIP], etc). I can't really explain every step because I personally have last fiddled with consumer class routers many years ago and am completely unfamiliar with whatever Linksys' current web interface is like to be honest. But I assume there should be an option within the web interface of the Linksys where you can disable the features I've listed above. After that, just plug an ethernet cable, either directly between the WAN port of the Linksys ea9200 and one of the LAN ports on the existing WiFi Router, or plug an ethernet cable between a LAN port of the existing WiFi Router to the MoCA adapter, plug that into a coax outlet in the house and do that same thing with the Linksys ea9200 but with plugging it into the WAN port instead. It shouldn't be too complicated to accomplish, it'll definitely take way less time and effort that building a PC. Hopefully the Linksys router allows you to use it essentially as an AP + switch.