mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
Premium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON
| reply to dslpartner
Re: Zyxel wireless router with FIOS 5meg/2meg
said by dslpartner  :[A} Then I am sure you will be happy to know that the ZyXEL ZyWALL's uses Intel IXP processors and by your statements should be better than the airgo solution. [B] Then again I tought airgo only did WLAN. {A] Your creative extrapolation of my statements is certainly an embellishment of fact ... but, you are being creative. How IXP tech is exploited I assume escapes your insightful review as does you cursory knowledge of the work that Airgo Networks is advancing in the field of networking technologies.
[B] Review [A] and that certainly is That.
You are most welcome to your extrapolations. 
--
David Mozer
IT-Expert on Call
Information Technology for Home and Business |
|
Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA
| In all your post you still give NO explanation of how this FTTH service is any different from a normal ethernet connection and just how the Buffalo product and Airgo work better with FTTH then ANY OTHER make or model router. If a router can handle the throughput of the higher speed WAN connection just what makes the Buffalo and Airgo system better.
I think it is you that is extrapolating. And we're NOT talking wireless here.
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ******** |
|
Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA
| reply to bbarrera
said by bbarrera :Wow, did I toss a grenade into this thread? Allow me to remove "wireless" from my original question and rephrase as "What is a good Zyxel consumer router that can handle 20M/20M speed" and all it needs is Ethernet WAN interface (standard DHCP client or static IP). I'm not interested in a discussion on wireless. I'm interested in a relatively low cost Zyxel router capable of handling high WAN speeds. No not really. I think the grenade was tossed by mozerd .
To be honest I don't think anyone that has and can afford a 20M/20M connection would be using a lower end home style router. So you may not get a solid answer to that question. Just my thoughts, oh no there I go again with my unbridled enthusiasm for speculation. Please forgive me.
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ******** |
|
dslpartner
join:2005-02-18
| reply to mozerd
I was just trying to debat the same way as you do.
I would still very much like to know what you think that buffalo device does that is better than any other device for FTTH.
In regards to my knowledge about Airgo, I just posted what I knew, I never claimed to know anything about Airgo. Which you claim to do, so I would really like to know why you think its the superior solution.
For the sage of argument if I had a 20M/20M internet connection, I would use a Cisco 3750 or something as my router, expensive yes, but I could write it of as a company expense.
--
The real downside of GIT may be that _my_ way of doing things is quite possibly very rare. But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong. -Linus |
|
Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
| reply to bassetts
Most interesting thread, you sheet disturber BB!
To answer your question, the P334WT or P334W with firewall off will do ya fine LOL. I am truly waiting for a P3XX router that will handle higher throughput with FIREWALL ON, and perhaps even a dual wan model. I believe my input to the Gods above is mostly ignored though. I do note incremental progress such as the
ZyXEL USA
P330W - move towards linux and untold possibilities
X-550 - innovative combination of unique technologies from others in a market timely manner (at least more so than in the past)
ZyXEL Global
P320W - doubled current NAT total to 4096 for zynos home fireware (x-550 has 16000)
P320W - port restricted cone nat more suited for VoIP
Looking for more info on MIMO stuff led me to these URLs
»80211n.wifinetnews.com/
»wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_80211n.html
Seems like while the more known stakeholders corner the committees AIRGO is alreadly putting bacon on the table, via belkin, samsung and 3rd generation products......
Guess it depends on which side of the bread you put your mozerd mustard On...
--
Ain't nuthin but the blues! "Albert Collins". Leave your troubles at the door! "Pepe Peregil" De Sevilla. Just Don't Wifi without WPA, "Yul Brenner"LlamaWorks Equipment |
|
bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | reply to dslpartner
Yes, comparing Intel IXP processors with Airgo WLAN chips is comparing apples to oranges. David should consider a career in marketing. |
|
bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
 ·SureWest Internet
| reply to mozerd
said by mozerd :I am not sure that any of the ZyXEL Router products -- regardless of class -- actually provide support for High-Speed Routing throughput using Fiber Optic service for the home ---- or as it is properly know --- Fiber To The Home service [ FTTH] ... it would be worth while to get ZyXEL to clarify this specific type of service as being properly supported in its product line. The only Router that I am familiar with that does specifically provide support for FIOS [FTTH] is made by Buffalo called the WZR-G108 Router which Router incorporates Airgo Networks True MIMO technology. Wow, are you saying that my successful use of a Zywall 70 as an interior router, where it delivers 40Mbps firewall throughput and bandwidth management, isn't enough to handle the lower speed 20M/20M FTTH service offered in my area? I couldn't find a single datasheet or technical review on the Buffalo product that showed firewall throughput. The Buffalo page focuses on MIMO with a quick unsubstantiated marketing blurb on FTTH. MIMO is unrelated to routing/firewall performance.
I know the Zywall 5/35/70 series is capable of handling the routing/firewall performance needed for FTTH. |
|
bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·SureWest Internet
| reply to Shootist
said by Shootist :To be honest I don't think anyone that has and can afford a 20M/20M connection would be using a lower end home style router. So you may not get a solid answer to that question. Just my thoughts, oh no there I go again with my unbridled enthusiasm for speculation. Please forgive me. The FTTH service in this area is priced same as DSL and Comcast cable modem service. The Surewest 20M/20M service is $49.99/month (1 year contract) and you have to buy in conjunction with either phone ($28/month) or digital TV ($47/month). My neighbors have 20M/20M and it is the real deal. |
|
Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA | Man send them to Georgia, $49.99 for 20M/20M + $28.00 phone is about the same as what I pay for 3M/384K from BS. But I ain't moven to the left coast.
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ******** |
|
bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | My biz class DSL is $70/month 2M/256K on a 3 year contract (biz class service, running servers).
Surewest offers 20M/20M ala carte (w/o phone or TV) for $90/month. |
|
maxusa
Premium
join:2004-05-05
USA
| reply to Anav
ZyXEL's recent foray in the "timely delivery" of modern technologies is predicated on outsourcing 3rd party gear. As such, I do not consider the P-330W et al., as ZyXEL own, and these flukes definitely do not add to ZyXEL competencies in any way.
I said it before... ZyXEL needs a residential router capable of FiOS speeds. Also, ZyXEL needs a SME router with GbE interfaces, allowing speeds above 100Mbps. The commotion has begun, and a major wave of router replacements is about to hit the nation. A router manufacturer that makes products to answer this demand will cash in on this. Hope ZyXEL realizes these opportunities and is going to address them soon.
For now, those loyal to ZyXEL must splurge on Z5/35/70 to use fiber broadband. These are good units, but an overkill for most residential purposes. |
|
Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS | reply to bassetts
Not sure but ASUS may have some high throughput units? |
|
bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·SureWest Internet
| TomsNeworking review of Linksys wrt54gx on this page »www.tomsnetworking.com/Reviews-1···GX-5.php also lists other high throughput routers (not listed is a Netgear routers in the 40M+ club). |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| wow, that router really takes a hit on udp performance.. 2 orders of magnitude off of other protocol performance?
Gb lan interfaces would be nice... but even very expensive industrial strength firewalls use 100Mb. i won't fault them for that choice.
it's true that zyxel has some holes in their residential lineup, performance and features wise. does the 550 have throughput as high as the Linksys wrt54gx? if so, are they similar in price?
finally, how many consumers are going to be able to buy into fios speeds? i'm not sure zyxel thinks they will make enough money off that group to support a new line. however, cable speeds seem to be also ramping up... though are they ramping up enough to outstrip the current products? |
|
bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | Around here 10M/10M is $49.95/month without a contract, and $89.95/month for 20M/20M without a contract. Street prices are better. I'd expect same pricing for FTTH in other areas as it must compete against DSL and Cable. |
|
janderso1
Jim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-15
Saint Petersburg, FL
| reply to jig
jig
The Verizon 15Mbps/2Mbps FIOS offering is $50 per month which is $20 per month more than I am currently paying for 1.5Mbps/384Kbps Verizon DSL (my phone line doesn’t qualify for the 3Mbps DSL tier which is the same price).
»www22.verizon.com/FiOSforhome/ch···age.aspx
As far as I know, none of the Zyxel consumer grade support 15Mbps with the firewall on (so far no one has measured the 550). All Zyxel needs to do to support these speeds is to use a faster processor (and possibly faster memory) in the consumer grade products. However, it appears to me that they are using slow processors to protect the sales of the Zywall 5/35/70. I am currently using a Zywall 5 for reasons other than speed.
I use a eight port Netgear gigabit switch (less than $90) so gigabit LAN interface isn’t very important unless it comes at a very low cost.
--
Jim Anderson |
|
maxusa
Premium
join:2004-05-05
USA
| reply to jig
The residential broadband ramp-up is/will be fueled by entertainment. All telcos and cable operators have this in their sights. Each HDTV-quality stream will take 6~10Mbps. If they promise PIP and/or several viewers in the house--you get the idea. FTTH, FTTN, or cable must provide minimum 15 Mbps to be suitable for the content delivery. More like 20+ Mbps.
The broadband as we know today (for Internet access) is transforming into a utility-type service. Internet and computer usage will be secondary in bandwidth utilization. However, the need for security only becomes more pertinent. So this is the context for the discussion.
Pure broadband prices ($20, $40, $60) will soon become irrelevant--will drown in the provider's bill for added services. Those who argue that the market share for residential routers capable of 20+ Mbps firewall throughput is/will be insignificant, most likely do not realize the direction. This kind of throughput is needed today, let alone tomorrow. I believe this case is very strong. |
|
maxusa
Premium
join:2004-05-05
USA
4 edits | reply to janderso1
Jim, ZyXEL procrastination baffles me. It does not appear like they try to protect the Z5/35/70 line, as this line is positioned for security, granularity of features, and reliability. Consumer routers are fighting on price, all-in-one (wireless), ease of use, and tech support. ZyXEL does not and shall not sell ZyWALLs to consumers (retail), as it won't sell Prestiges to SOHO/SMB (except, maybe, for VPN telecommuters). Suppose there is a Prestige that does 50+ Mbps, MIMO, etc., for $50. This won't outweigh the appeal of slower ZyWALLs for SMB.
Regarding the Gigabit interfaces. Your situation with an extra switch is not common in the segment. Power users needing lotsa ports account for much smaller group. If built-in switches were useless, most consumer routers would have had a single LAN port. They all have switches.
Also, Gigabit is more relevant when talking about ZyWALLs. Factors like internal deployment (departmental), tiered topology, fiber speeds suggest going Gigabit. It won't cost them a fortune to make the move, however, ZyWALL real problem appears to be the fabric throughput. Remember, anything above 100Mbps is the Gigabit territory. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| sorry, when i asked "finally, how many consumers are going to be able to buy into fios speeds?" i wasn't talking about ability to pay for it, but availability. i know i don't have fiber available to me, or to any of my various friends and clients, yet (not counting you guys).
as far as providing the bandwidth for the video offerings, it is my belief that the video will be offered on a separate segment, one that physically splits off at the box they bolt onto the side of your house. my guess is that all the equipment required for that will be rented out (like cable boxes or sat STBs) and i'll be very surprised if they expect the house owner to have an installed, routed network that would work with their hardware. imagine the support costs of trying to work with every tom dick and eve who couldn't get their specific firewall to pass the right ports, let alone the bandwidth. if you are sure that everything (both video and data) is supposed to travel through a user supplied firewall to the home, then i'll need a link.
anyway, how useless would it be if all the traffic was on the same segment? since i can't really control my download speed, i'd hose my video every time i updated, right? and p2p would be impossible.
i agree that we bleeding edgers need the throughput, but i'm not so sure about the majority of people who just want something better than dialup. they seem to be a much larger group, in my experience.
as far as the extra switch... well, i have to disagree. anyone who has a wired system typically has more than 4 port needs (one for each room, one for each current pc, one for each printer). and everyone else usually tries to get by with wireless, and that's not yet over 100Mb, especially between computers on the lan.
and as far as using department tiered topology... i thought that was all done with managed switches and such so that only the specialized routing and routing to the wan went through the actual "routers"/firewalls. also, having some experience with setting up internet 2 connections (not hands on, just getting all the ducks in a row), there are lots of points all along the line where 10 and 100Mb bottlenecks have to be bypassed... and those bottlenecks serve the majority of a campus of more than 60,000 (staff, undergrad, grad, wireless, wired). now i'm sure that the campus backplane is huge and solid fiber (at least it has been for a couple years now) but, i mean, come on. how is that similar to the needs of an smb or home? |
|
maxusa
Premium
join:2004-05-05
USA
| Regarding the extra switch:
•Most residential have 1 to 3 network devices at home. (Not in each room, toilet, and kitchen!)•One or more of those 3 is using wireless. Wired homes are rarity and waste of money. Wireless is cheap. So not all switch ports are occupied.•One or 2 printers. To the most part are dirt-cheap ink jets, so USB plugs to a host computer. If the router is equipped with a USB print-server, fine, maybe. Very few buy a print server.•NAS is super rare, backups are done on CD-Rs if ever.•Gaming consoles are stand-alone, newer ones with NICs are just coming out.•Media extenders are very rare to none. So this is the typical residential setup eyewitnessed first hand by yours truly in various U.S. cities, big and small. Rarely have I seen the need for another switch... unless kids are learning computers or SOHO. |
|
