NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
New AX12[RAX120] Firmware Version 1.0.0.84
New Features and Enhancements:
Supports DFS channels and the 160 MHz mode for the United States.
Bug Fixes:
Fixes the router web interface issues that might occur when setting the Multi-G...
That's the firmware I was alluding to...
Have you given it a whirl yet? DFS support was expected, but support for all DFS channels wasn't :)
It's imperative that they add WAN aggregation support for this model. They seem to have added the option to use the multi-gig LAN port for WAN duties, but LACP link aggregation of the WAN and LAN port(s) for multi-gig Internet is way more important. Especially since the CM1100 is out, and the CM1200 will be available very soon (if not already).
kc6108 wrote:
It's imperative that they add WAN aggregation support for this model.
Only for the el-cheepo CPE makers not investing in nowadays inexpensive MultiGig technology. And no, LAG/port trunking/binding is not a substitution nor named MultiGig or Multi-Gig . only Netgear does abuse the designation in this context What is Multi-Gig Internet? - for techs and the press MultiGig is 2.5GbE, 5 GbE, ...
One thing I'm wondering: Everyone having tested e.g. NAS with LAG/port trunking/binding knows that the complete aggregated speed can only be reached if multiple clients (resp. MAC addresses) - between the same MAC (and that's what we have in my understanding between a cable modem and a router) the speed can't exceed the available bandwidth on one link.
kc6108 wrote:
It's imperative that they add WAN aggregation support for this model.
They seem to have added the option to use the multi-gig LAN port for WAN duties, but LACP link aggregation of the WAN and LAN port(s) for multi-gig Internet is way more important.
Cable Modems are a dying species here in Switzerland (leaving alone that virtually no cable TV provider worldwide - North America seems to be almost unique allowing user supplied CPEs) - my friends at local cable companies stopped any investment in this technology - focus is on fiber, where not available G.fast.
- Here in the US, we have a VERY long way to go. We have thousands of (large and small) rural areas.
AT&T fiber sucks because of the lack of ability to turn off NAT completely (only limited, passthru mode available). Google Fiber is awesome but not in many areas. Cable asymmetrical gigabit is just came to my town in the last few months.
There are basically NO modems with multi-gig ports here.
You are correct, LAG is different than multi-gig. It does take more than one connection to saturate a two gigabit connection. There are some cities with fiber and cable options for two gigabit here. Mostly business class, but for a one-time, $1k connection charge, some “lucky” residents can get it.
We have ~6 cable modems now with LACP LAG capabilities. So here in the US, my statement stands.- Also, when the latest DOCSIS certifications/proposals are finalized and start getting implemented (in 1-2 years), cable will finally have the capability to achieve <1 ms pings, whereas fiber will still have the ~10ms initial overhead. Not to mention 10 gigabit symmetrical capabilities, etc. Cable has always been faster than fiber in theory, but soon cable will rein in regards to gaming, etc.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32281954-Connectivity-DOCSIS-3-1-Real-Life-Ping~start=60
Also, with AQM, DOCSIS 3.1 modems almost eliminate bufferbloat on the upload side. It’s built in. QoS in consumer routers can’t handle gig speeds so this is huge.
