beersykins

Why are you trying to tag VLAN2 ? If nothing else tags on VLAN2 upstream, that's why you can't communicate outside of the box.

He means more that 'business' lines are sold at throughput targets and SLA. At least for enterprise, your loop and port speeds are determined literally months before you're handed off any inkling of a usable circuit. Can't really just phone them up and be like 'I'd like 5x the throughput, chief', usually there's other dependencies inherited via the design such as 'we cant provide you 10 gigabit access when our backhaul is less than that', as a single example. That's a reasonable productivity target. I've seen an office of 300 share a 100 mbit line. There's not really a single thing limited by that throughput target unless you have a specific use case like trying to real-time edit 4K footage from remote storage. At that point you're acutely aware of how much throughput you actually need.

Only a couple models of the 2960S had 10gig ports, most of them contained 4x1 GbE SFP cages or combo ports. The stacking ports are 10g/ea at least though. Pretty inexpensive to obtain second hand though, my stack of two 2960S-24PS were like $40 shipped in total. @ruxikdanub what is the 10 gig PFsense NIC? Seems like it would be easiest to swap it with a mgig SFP but that assumes it has a SFP cage instead of a 8P8C connector. I dunno fam, he could route at the access layer and ECMP between the switch and PFsense, then you could at least scale out single flows across additional active/active links. . 2960S has some basic L3 forwarding that isn't 'officially' supported. I remember doing that with a ERPro-8 and 3560-E via OSPFv3, fun times.

Gotta rep those mgig fiber people

If you get full speed directly connected to the modem then you can at least isolate the router as a slowly-forwarding-component. 23 isn't very much, I have 37 on my home network, although I would try to isolate IoT devices onto a separate wifi band than your main 'performance client' 5GHz SSID.

That doesn't really make any sense unless you're using an ancient relic like a WRT54G

Most of the concern is interference, the ISM (2.4 GHz) band only has three non-overlapping channels. If you have wifi neighbors then it gets congested quick. The UNII bands (5 GHz) have a lot more space for 20/40 MHz channels do you can have a more dense environment without being interfered with. There's also other non-wifi devices that contribute to interference in the 2.4GHz band. 5 GHz usually offers higher transfer rates, if there's no other wifi traffic around you, you probably won't notice a latency difference, although the throughput at 'normal' RSSI signal strength values will be higher on the 5 GHz band.

I assume it's some issue with your DNS service on the router, try statically assigning that to 1.1.1.1 or similar and see if that helps. Usually the 'no internet' notice is a failure to resolve DNS records. If you're just using the ISP ones sometimes they are pretty flaky.

As above you can't forward the same port to multiple destinations. UPNP usually resolves this by dynamically opening different ports for each PC but it largely depends on the game. You'd also want to make sure UPNP doesn't listen on the WAN interface by doing something similar to the 'GRC ShieldsUp UPNP Exposure Test'

You should be able to add your PPPoE credentials to the config of the device for the WAN side. After that it's all relatively synonymous with what you had before. The ATT box may have some weird dot1X features it's trying to use to join the network as well, as that provider forces client certificates on its devices.

What router and wireless NICs do you have? If you're on single band N gear then dual band or powerline would perform better from a latency perspective. AC wifi usually beats out powerline pretty easily from a bandwidth perspective, but it depends on a variety of factors (interference from neighboring APs, signal loss through walls, the standard you're using, powerline wise the circuitry of the outlets you're communicating between plays a large factor, as well as the standard of powerline adapters you're using).

The two eth0 entries are for different things. One is a next hop route to your ISP, and one contains the WAN subnet that interfaces with your ISP. If you're using the WAN interface of your second router then that's why you can't directly access it (also you're rolling double NAT behind router #2). The best solution is to assign it a static LAN address in the 192.168.1.0/24 space, disable DHCP specifically on router #2 and then connect to the LAN port instead on router #2.

You can change the route on the route table manually in command prompt, you'd just give the wired side a lesser-preferred value.

Those are all private addresses before the ICMP filter segments, totally an ISP problem from the results you're posting.

He's adding extra interference to his environment which will decrease performance. The OG PS4 only had a 2.4g adapter, your best bet is either wired or a 5ghz wifi bridge to wire your PS4 into that integrates into the rest of your network.

Ah I was half expecting this to be like most threads where they are still using a WRT54G Do you have QoS enabled on the router? Usually that tanks any sort of performance on ARM style CPUs (such as inside the router).

Whip out Wifi Analyzer on your phone and take a look at 2.4 g SSIDs from your neighbors. There's a very high probability it's just interference from another network or multiple networks

1) The vast majority of setups are/should-be modem-router-switch. Some more advanced setups with managed switches place the router on an outside vlan, so physically you'd modem-switch-router but logically it's still modem-router-switch. You need the router in front to be able to NAT the rest of your network behind the single IP the ISP gives you. 2) Anything unmanaged are pretty synonymous. You just would pick how many ports you want and if you need PoE. 3) For workloads or transfers that you want >125 MB/sec. Usually NAS or backup/bulk-data oriented. 4) They're all basically the same from an unmanaged and home use perspective. Unmanaged gigabit are pretty inexpensive. 5) 6a would probably be best for 10g and mGig (those weird 2.5/5 speeds) from a cost perspective. The premium over 5e is outweighed by not having to do it again for 10 gig in the future. 6) As above, probably an underpowered router.

Wired or wifi? The original PS4 only had a 2.4g adapter.

Depends on your signal strength, but 65 mbit over AC is easily doable. I have a couple Trendnet 1200 powerline adapters which top out at around 90 mbps in my house, but a wireless Ubiquiti uplink that ties together the same physical locations pushes about 200 through a floor and some garage concrete.

I think you'll usually hear two sides of the story. Those who have ran a small environment for a little bit who haven't run into corruption type of issues. Those who have been in the game a while and have had issues where features such as ECC would have prevented corruption. I have had some RAM issues in the past with bit flips on sticks that passed memtest86+, but was noticing some of my files changed hashes and had weird artifacts in documents. After running hours of tests there was a specific pattern in memtester on Linux that indicated a discrepancy, after replacing the modules all was fine. Personally the cost premium is less than the troubleshooting effort and data restoration/integrity factors, so it ends up being less expensive to 'do it properly'.

1) Probably not, most of those units aren't tagging/VLAN aware or capable. Most consumer things just expect untagged traffic. 2) Sure bro, you can do that. 3) If you had them in separate VLANs you would need something that can route at 10gb. If they're in the same VLAN then you would use the switch ASIC to forward traffic instead.

Can you explain in technical terms what this actually means?

What's his plan to provide service to each AP, or does he honestly expect a mesh across over 3,000 hops? At 50m between stations and at least $1k per unit between AP cost and licensing costs you're already at 3.5m without any physical labor installation fees, which would be multiplicatively higher than that. There's no situation where this is viable or cost effective, when there are clearly better options for a couple hundred bucks a month.

Getting LTE hotspots for each vehicle would be millions of dollars less expensive.