Netgear AX12 and CM1100 Port Aggregation

[jimlenz]

Hello,

I just received my new AX12 and so far find it an excellent upgrade.  I also have the CM11100 modem and see that both have Ethernet Port Aggregation.  I have 1 gig service with comcast.  Is there a benefit to using the port aggregation on the 2 devices if I only have 1 gig service?  Thanks,

[kc6108 · Accepted solution]

I'll dumb it down a bit more for you.

Running a speed test, on a single device, directly connected to your RAX120 can only yield a max speed throughput of ~960Mbps (1Gbps minus overhead).

Running another speed test, on another device, at the same time, directly connected to your RAX120, can yet again, only yield a max speed throughput of ~960Mbps (again 1Gbps minus overhead).

Add the two results together and you should at least achieve 1000Mbps (full 1Gbps Internet connection). If your Internet has been over provisioned, you could see aggregated (pun intended) speeds in excess of 1Gbps. I would expect you'd achieve 1100-1200Mbps.

No matter the results above, if LACP LAG has been optimally implemented in both the RAX120 and CM1100, I'd continue to use LAG between them. You never know if your ISP overprovisions in the future, LAG provides load balancing, failover, etc, etc, etc.

Hopes this helps.

[plemans]

some area's do get a bit of overprovisioning. You could run a before speedtest and an after speedtest. If you're seeing a speed increase, leave it. If you don't, I'd run it regular to free up that extra port. The only difference would be if they over provisioned you. Some people have reported they see up to 1.2gbps and some report zero change in speeds. 

[avtella]

Link aggregation won’t boost speeds for single clients or streams. It’s cumulative as in multiple streams/devices or connections can take adavantage of the total available bandwidth. So if you are just doing a speed test on a single device you won’t see any gains.

[jimlenz]

Thanks so much for the responses.  

I have 1 gig and it isnt over-provisioned.  The best I can get on ethernet connected directly to the modem is 968mb.  

Since I cannot get over 1 gig is there a benefit to doing this?  Honestly, I dont understand link aggregation and if there is even a slight benefit would use it.  Thanks.

[avtella]

Basically link aggregation allows total bandwidth to increase to 2 Gbps. But each client individually can only get 1 Gbps max. But for example let’s say two clients connected to the router want 1 Gbps each then they can each get 1 Gbps individually for 2 Gbps total but neither can get 2 Gbps alone.

[jimlenz]

Apprecitae the response.  I am still having trouble completley understanding this.  It sounds like it is worth doing.  is that correct?  Previously, I had my NAS connected to the R8500 with link aggregation.  Not sure that is the best use as I only use it to backup. What would you say is the best use of this?

[kc6108 · Accepted solution]

I'll dumb it down a bit more for you.

Running a speed test, on a single device, directly connected to your RAX120 can only yield a max speed throughput of ~960Mbps (1Gbps minus overhead).

Running another speed test, on another device, at the same time, directly connected to your RAX120, can yet again, only yield a max speed throughput of ~960Mbps (again 1Gbps minus overhead).

Add the two results together and you should at least achieve 1000Mbps (full 1Gbps Internet connection). If your Internet has been over provisioned, you could see aggregated (pun intended) speeds in excess of 1Gbps. I would expect you'd achieve 1100-1200Mbps.

No matter the results above, if LACP LAG has been optimally implemented in both the RAX120 and CM1100, I'd continue to use LAG between them. You never know if your ISP overprovisions in the future, LAG provides load balancing, failover, etc, etc, etc.

Hopes this helps.

[jimlenz]

Thanks for dumbing it down, now I understand.  Thanks.  

[kc6108]

You're most welcome

-kc6108

[kc6108]

Also, please mark this post as answered so others know your questions have been satisfactorily answered for future reference.

[jimlenz]

I did get the additional cables and tried to connect the AX12 to the CM1100.  I followed the directions for the AX8 as there are none online for the AX12.  After connecting the cables to wan and lan i made the changes in the router to wan aggregation and in the modem and in the router it said that it could not connect wan aggregation.  Maybe it is the lan port I connected to?  Is there anyone else that has done this on the AX 12?  Any directions for the connections?  Thanks.  

[kc6108]

Which LAN port did you try to aggregation with the WAN port?

If WAN aggregation is truly implemented in this router, try these configurations:

1. WAN & LAN1 (removes possibility for LAN LAG, IOW, WAN and LAN aggregation are mutually exclusive)
2. WAN & LAN4 (keeps possibility for LAN LAG, please, please, please be the case)
3. LAN1 & LAN2 (removes possibility for LAN LAG, IOW, WAN and LAN aggregation are mutually exclusive)

[jimlenz]

I tried it on WAN and LAN 4 and it would not work.  I have LAN 1 and 2 going to my QNAP and the router shows they are to be used for aggregation which is why I tried LAN 4.  

Later this evening I will try the other combinations you suggest.  

If I use LAN 1 and LAN 2 to connect to the modem, what do I put in the WAN?

[kc6108]

Good question, lol.

I recommend you getting WAN aggregation working first. Then work on getting LAN aggregation to work if LAN & WAN aggregation end out not being mutually exclusive that is...

[jimlenz]

Okay, I tried this on WAN and LAN 1 and it is now active.  So, this is good news.  I did not try on LAN 1 and LAN 2 as I wasnt sure what to do with the WAN port.

Now for my QNAP, I had it in LAN 1 and LAN 2 and moved to LAN 2 and LAN 3 but not sure I will have port aggregation now?  Not sure how to verify this?  I do not have an errors on my QNAP and am able to access.

Thoughts?

[kc6108]

How did you know LAN port aggregation was working before?

At any rate, if I had to guess, I'd think the WAN port aggregation status would show up under Internet, WAN Setup, or the ADVANCED overview screen.

I assume the LAN port aggregation status would still show up under Advanced->Ethernet Port Aggregation. You should see something like:

     Ethernet Port Aggregation Status: Active

[jimlenz]

I didnt know if lan port aggregation was working before but assumed it was as I was not getting errors.  

For the Wan aggregation, under internet, Wan Aggregation and then there is a message that says "Wan aggregation is active.  

For the lan aggregation, I looked through all settings on the router and do not see any setting for ethernet port aggregation.  I had this setting for my Netgear X8, but dont see it here.  

[kc6108]

Try this:

http://192.168.1.1/debug.htm

or

http://192.168.1.1/hidden_info.htm

-kc6108

[jimlenz]

I ran both, not sure what I am looking for.

On debug, it has an option to enable lan/wan packet capture and one for Wan port mirror to lan port 1.  Not sure either of these matter?

on the hidden info, interesting all if shows.  Doesnt really say anything about wan or lan aggrregatioon.

Appreciate the time and info you are providing.  

[kc6108]

...or get one of these:

Netgear MS510TX 8-port Multi-Gigabit Ethernet Smart Managed Pro Switch with 10G Copper / 10G SFP+ Fi...

Then you can connect your RAX120 to the MS510TX via their 5Gbe LAN ports. Your QNAP would easily connect to the MS510TX via 2-port Link Aggregation (LACP LAG).

This would be a sweet setup 

[kc6108]

The MS510TX was on sale for $209 a few weeks ago on Amazon and Newegg... price matching eachother.

[jimlenz]

This is the switch I am using

https://www.netgear.com/landings/s8000/default.aspx

Tge issue with this and the other is that that there is no option in the router settings forcethernet port aggregation, only wan aggregation.  Maybe they will add this later?

[kc6108]

Try this:

http://192.168.1.1/LACP_setting.htm

or this...

http://192.168.1.1/PortTrunking_setting.htm

[kc6108]

I would take the S8000 back if you can...

The R9000 and XR700 have 1G/10G ports so it play well with the SX10. The S8000 only has 1G ports, but all support LAN Link Aggregation. That's why your X8 and S8000 were a good fit.

And, actually, you should not have had your QNAP connected to the LAG ports on the router... the router LAG ports should have been connected to the S8000, then the QNAP connected to the S8000. The S8000 supports multiple LAGs.

Anyway, you have a Multi-Gig router now... with a port that supports up to 5Gb. That puppy would fit perfectly in the MS510TX!

[kc6108]

...and then your QNAP would connect to the MS510TX.