KenAF
join:2006-01-23
Arlington, VA | reply to rev I
Re: Actiontec MI424WR FIOS N Router REV. I Has anyone tried bridging two Rev I (or Rev G) routers over coax? If so, what throughput are you able to achieve between rooms?
I currently have a pair of Westells bridged over coax, but MoCA throughput between rooms is limited by the 100Mbps ethernet port. I am curious as to the network throughput I would see with a pair of revision G's or I's. |
|
| said by KenAF:Has anyone tried bridging two Rev I (or Rev G) routers over coax? If so, what throughput are you able to achieve between rooms?
I currently have a pair of Westells bridged over coax, but MoCA throughput between rooms is limited by the 100Mbps ethernet port. I am curious as to the network throughput I would see with a pair of revision G's or I's.
I have a several Rev I routers installed for exactly this reason. (And to give local gigabit enabled devices a faster path to each other and eliminate gigabit switches.)
Dragging a file from a remote Windows share to my local computer reported an average file transfer speed of 17MB/second.
So yes, if you have multiple routers in your home the gigabit ports will improve your MoCA performance. |
|
| reply to rev I
Ok so this is just to put this out there... As my problem with logging in to my new FiOS router.... The username is admin and the password is whatever is on the sticker on the side **BUT** (I did not know this nor did the tech installing) when typing the password the SHIFT button was counting as a input and making the password wrong so to successfully login I had to toggle CAPS LOCK on/off for the capital letters in the password....
Don't know if this has been stated before but my numerous searches did not show anything. So I just wanted to pass this around as general public knowledge for other people like me. |
|
 JackarinoPremium
join:2006-12-28
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to KenAF
My friend has done it, I'll ask him what he thinks |
|
|
|
 ThinkdiffPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:6 | reply to irock1985
said by irock1985:Ok so this is just to put this out there... As my problem with logging in to my new FiOS router.... The username is admin and the password is whatever is on the sticker on the side **BUT** (I did not know this nor did the tech installing) when typing the password the SHIFT button was counting as a input and making the password wrong so to successfully login I had to toggle CAPS LOCK on/off for the capital letters in the password....
Don't know if this has been stated before but my numerous searches did not show anything. So I just wanted to pass this around as general public knowledge for other people like me.
Just FYI - the password box adds a number of bullets as your typing so even though pressing the shift key made it look like a new character was entered, nothing was actually registered. I have no idea why they designed it this way (pretty lame security measure), but that's how it is.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On! |
|
 nycdavePremium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:10 | How is it a lame security measure? It is done to prevent shoulder surfing.... |
|
 More FiberPremium,MVM
join:2005-09-26
West Chester, PA
kudos:28 | said by nycdave:How is it a lame security measure? How many calls does it generate?
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
nycdavePremium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:10 | How many non-technical customers log into their routers? Verizon felt this increased security measure would outweigh the customer confusion. |
|
 rtcyFACTS only pleasePremium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA
1 edit | reply to Marty999
you may want to consider a cheaper alternative,get one of these »www.dlink.com/products/?pid=494
hook it up to the new rev I router and all the other house cables to the switch. you will have 9600byte jumbo frames in your house for full speed file sharing and when it's time to go out to the net it will drop down to 1500 anyways. here's a small snipet of it's specs
• Number of Ports: Five 10/100/1000BASE-T
• MAC Address Table: 8k
• Switch Fabric: 10Gbps
• Packet Buffer Memory:112KB per Device
• Transmission Method: Store-and-forward
• Jumbo Frames: Up to 9600 Bytes
• Cable Diagnostic LEDs
this means it has 112 thousand byte buffer per transciever port in case there's a slow down in one of your computers responding to incoming traffic.
this rev I router is no faster or better than new routers you can buy anywhere. the only unique thing is the 2 MOCA chips and it's ability and that too can be bought outside Verizon's influenece. you may want to consider keeping it.
me I'm more impressed with a gigabit router( DIR-825) that has IPV6 functioning now with a 2.4 and a 5GHZ radios and separate antennas to provide true high speed wireless throughout your house, of course you will need 5GHZ cards or plug ins for your laptops in case they do not have 5ghz. with native IPV6 as the edge router all your Linux and windows machines would work much nicer in v6 and the Homegroup feature of windows would be much faster in a native IPV6 implementation as it has to convert each packet back and forth
me I'm still using the Westell 9100 that Verizon has discontinued as it's the ONLY one so far that has true large NAT table, so that my 2 sons and grandkids can do their gaming to different networks and I still have plenty of bandwidth to do my thing and my wife to battle Facebook and the SLOW farm from hell  |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by rtcy:me I'm still using the Westell 9100 that Verizon has discontinued as it's the ONLY one so far that has true large NAT table,
Not entirely true. I had the Actiontec rev. D(incredibly inferior) and replaced it with the Westell 9100, which does have a large NAT table. I recently received the Actiontec rev. G which trumps the 9100 in NAT table size, which left me pleasantly surprised. Rev G or I are kings in NAT size in Verizon's router lineup as of today  |
|
rtcyFACTS only pleasePremium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA | reply to birdy
said by birdy :Forgot this bit of info as well...
wifi0: Atheros 9287: mem=0xf3000000, irq=25 hw_base=0xc8860000
Looks like the I will once again be able to run DD-WRT with a ARM processor and Atheros radios |
|
1 edit | reply to rtcy
I had one of those D-links, but it was the 8-port version. After about a year, it started needing a power-cycle every other day, so I replaced it with one of these »www.trendnet.com/products/prodde···tus=view
Similar Specs:
8 x 10/100/1000Mbps Auto-Negotiation, Auto-MDIX Gigabit Ethernet ports
GREENnet technology reduces power consumption when:
Ethernet port is not in use
Connected device is turned off
Connected device is in power-saving mode
Based on Ethernet cable length
Store-and-Forward switching architecture with non-blocking wire-speed performance
IEEE 802.3x Flow Control for full-duplex mode
Back pressure Flow Control for half-duplex mode
Integrated address look-up engine with 4K absolute MAC address table and 128KBytes RAM data buffering
Operates and maximizes packet filtering and forwarding rate
Jumbo Frame support up to 9612Bytes
Sturdy metal housing
Diagnostic LEDs and Plug & Play
3-year limited warranty
NOTE: My issue was probably related to the fact that the switch was placed in a very small enclosed space (a wire cabinet thing) and the metal enclosure of the trendnet probably dissipates heat better than the plastic one of the D-link. I've since moved the d-link to another location with better ventilation where it's worked fine for the past few weeks. |
|
KenAF
join:2006-01-23
Arlington, VA | reply to serge87
said by serge87:said by rtcy:me I'm still using the Westell 9100 that Verizon has discontinued as it's the ONLY one so far that has true large NAT table,
Not entirely true. I had the Actiontec rev. D(incredibly inferior) and replaced it with the Westell 9100, which does have a large NAT table. I recently received the Actiontec rev. G which trumps the 9100 in NAT table size, which left me pleasantly surprised. Rev G or I are kings in NAT size in Verizon's router lineup as of today In your experience, how does the Actiontec rev. G compare to the Westell 9100? For example, how do the two compare in NAT table size? |
|
| Go back a page and you'll see a chart for the Actiontec F, G, and I.
The Westell Rev A is approx 150,000; Revs B and C are approx 162,000. |
|
1 edit | I just updated the chart with Actiontec Rev E, plus Westell info. Some Westell info is missing because I can't verify it myself.
Edit -- I had 150k NAT entries stuck in my head on the Westell Rev A, but I just noticed the FAQ says 130k. I'll update the chart later with the correct info. |
|
 MrKal_El
join:2003-01-19
Franklin Square, NY | reply to nothing00
said by nothing00:said by KenAF:Has anyone tried bridging two Rev I (or Rev G) routers over coax? If so, what throughput are you able to achieve between rooms?
I currently have a pair of Westells bridged over coax, but MoCA throughput between rooms is limited by the 100Mbps ethernet port. I am curious as to the network throughput I would see with a pair of revision G's or I's.
I have a several Rev I routers installed for exactly this reason. (And to give local gigabit enabled devices a faster path to each other and eliminate gigabit switches.) Dragging a file from a remote Windows share to my local computer reported an average file transfer speed of 17MB/second. So yes, if you have multiple routers in your home the gigabit ports will improve your MoCA performance. I have yet to test that specifically...but my I bridged achives pretty much full 150Mb d/l speed through the ethernet ports...
--
Twitter: MrKal_El |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to KenAF
said by KenAF:said by serge87:Not entirely true. I had the Actiontec rev. D(incredibly inferior) and replaced it with the Westell 9100, which does have a large NAT table. I recently received the Actiontec rev. G which trumps the 9100 in NAT table size, which left me pleasantly surprised. Rev G or I are kings in NAT size in Verizon's router lineup as of today
In your experience, how does the Actiontec rev. G compare to the Westell 9100? For example, how do the two compare in NAT table size? With the same test conditions the Westell 9100EM consistently ran out of NAT entries way before the rev G did. The Westell(rev. B) claims a 160K NAT table but in my experience it runs out before 100K(closer to ~70-80K, hurray marketing?). The Actiontec rev G doesn't have an "official" spec listed for its NAT table size but will easily handle 100-175K connections(can also do 200K+ , but with some noticeable slowdown in performance). However, don't use the NAT table size as a primary factor in choosing between the two routers. For my purposes they both equally performed more than well enough, excluding the NAT table size difference. The Westell should be able to handle anything an average home user will throw at it NAT table-wise. |
|
| reply to rev I
I am considering trying to upgrade to the Rev I router. I am trying to use port forwarding to enable an inbound VPN without disabling the On screen Caller ID, and remote access to the DVR.
Currently with my Rev F, whenever I set up the port forward for the VPN protocols it disables the Caller ID and Remote DVR.
A verizon support tech wasn't sure if the Rev I improved on this problem or not. Has anybody successfully setup Inbound VPN without killing the other services? |
|
| reply to rev I
wallybabes2nes has lowered his Rev I price:
»www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-2012-ACTION···c2792893
However, he's charging $15 for shipping (used to be free), so you can now save a grand total of $4.99 over his original price. |
|
| reply to rev I
had a service call for constant outages...FiOS tech switched out my Rev F for a Rev I (on 35/35)
|
|
