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...
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.
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. Hey, I understand that part. The fiber and G.fast services here (along with the pretty good cable TV services) are typically triple.play, so the ISP provided CPE replace the no longer existing ISDN and any POTS which is phased out here in favour of a full IP solution. No way to replace a ISP CPE, and consumer CPEs don't allow IP passthrough - only business contract CPEs do. Replacing these would mean no POTS-like local telephone service (with emergency services et all). For IP-Internet only connections, there are no restrictions on fiber. By the end of 2019, there is no more POTS, all phone/Internet connections (and must allow to offer 3Mb/s / 300 Mb/s Internet) will be migrated to an all-IP solution. Welcome to the new world.
Oh and we have one ISP offering symmetric 10 Gb Internet (TV and free national telephony) for about USD 55 per month - on fiber of course, too.
The crucial question is how these LAG are working in reality. On the Nighthawks like the R9000/XR700, the aggregation is implemented by Linux bonding btw. - suspect it's very similar on these AX devices as there are no capable switch chips in place.
10 ms? No GPON here, too. We get some 1.2 ... 1.8 ms on the fiber links (while multiple IGMP multicast UHD streams up, and some average Internet usage by four people, over ISP CPE NAT), popular ISP performance test site are in the 2.x ms range, about double over local WiFi (figure...).. Real world numbers - not hypothetical numbers.Even in next-gen DOCSIS, the had-ends will (again) move much nearer to the customers, very similar to the move from DSL to G.fast - everything else is fiber. The only point of pushing DOCSIS again is to protect the investment in the last mile and the in-house distribution.
Your president should invest in technology for the citizens (and their social security btw.) instead of walls - look to China: The wall didn't help. First-mover counties in technologies communications, autonomous driving trucks, and autonomous individual transport will and will gain a huge economical (and ecological) momentum.
Nuff politics, sorry for the diversion.First off nice to see NG starts adding most needed features in the Router, thx to NG. I did update the FW last night, followed by reset to Factory default then manually enter setting as well as new HT160 but honestly didn't see any improvement over previous FW...
Redtulips7 wrote:
... but honestly didn't see any improvement over previous FW...
What other impreovement you expect, based on the release notes?
