Spark Fibre 200/20 Plan

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Spark Fibre 200/20 Plan

1 | 2 | 3

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1310727 24-May-2015 11:50

The 659b is AC, Gbit WAN and LAN, 2.4/5Ghz, so its quite an up to date device

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1310777 24-May-2015 12:59

tdgeek: The 659b is AC, Gbit WAN and LAN, 2.4/5Ghz, so its quite an up to date device

What you have to look into is any limitations of the device you have .

A Mikrotik RB 2011 will max out about 230Mb/s running NAT.
A Ubiquity Edge Router will do 1Gb/s of NAT quite easily.

Each has their + and -'s and can different things. Best for people to investigate any limitations before they think just as it has a Gig Port it can do up to a Gig of NAT.

clayton

342 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1310783 24-May-2015 13:50

If Gigabit's theoretical maximum throughput is 125 MB/s, how can you push more through it? Spark's 200 MB plan would only be good on a 10 Gigabit Ethernet network, to obtain maximum speeds right? so my CISCO is reading the true port speeds of around 117 MB/s so with the CISCO connected I am up to around max of 10.5 MB/s (downloading) and the same with the Huawei.
So who is getting download speeds of 20 MB/s?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1310789 24-May-2015 14:21

clayton: If Gigabit's theoretical maximum throughput is 125 MB/s, how can you push more through it? Spark's 200 MB plan would only be good on a 10 Gigabit Ethernet network, to obtain maximum speeds right? so my CISCO is reading the true port speeds of around 117 MB/s so with the CISCO connected I am up to around max of 10.5 MB/s (downloading) and the same with the Huawei.
So who is getting download speeds of 20 MB/s?

You have completely lost me here, and I'm sure everybody else in this thread who has offered advice.

Based on what you have already posted in this thread there is nothing wrong with your connection, Spark, UFB, or the Spark supplied hardware. Your problem lies solely with your choice of Cisco hardware that's a) not capable of routing 200Mbps from WAN to LAN, and b) Only has 100Mbps FE ports.

As for download speeds do you understand how the TCP protocol works?

RunningMan

8953 posts

Uber Geek

#1310791 24-May-2015 14:22

As has been stated several times, you are getting your units confused.

Spark do not have a 200MB (megabyte) plan. It is 200Mb/s (megabits per second). This is about 25MB/s (megabytes per second). The supplied router is capable of this, but your Cisco is not.

Your Cisco is maxed out at about 117Mb/s (megabits per second), so isn't up to the task of a 200Mb/s connection in it's current config.

A gigabit connection is 1Gb/s (one gigabit per second). This is five times more throughput than a 200Mb/s connection, so would require a higher spec router to achive max throughput.

EDIT: There is nothing wrong with the Chorus supplied connection - it is perfoming well, but you are crippling it by trying to use a router than cannot sustain that througput (your Cisco). Use the ISP supplied router, or buy something else than will handle the throughput.

clayton

342 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1310809 24-May-2015 14:56

Actually my CISCO 867VAE-W has 1 x 1GE WAN, 2 x 1GE LAN and 3x 100Mbps FE ports, you need to update your source information
My ISP supplied modem and the CISCO performs the same, not interested in what the online speed tests reports as you can not achieve those speeds anyway on the average computer.
Thanks for your help guys, happy 200Mb/s downloading!!

michaelmurfy

meow
13240 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1310816 24-May-2015 15:05

clayton: Actually my CISCO 867VAE-W has 1 x 1GE WAN, 2 x 1GE LAN and 3x 100Mbps FE ports, you need to update your source information
My ISP supplied modem and the CISCO performs the same, not interested in what the online speed tests reports as you can not achieve those speeds anyway on the average computer.
Thanks for your help guys, happy 200Mb/s downloading!!

Wow. I don't know if trolling or simply ignorant. It doesn't matter if it has gigabit. I have a 200/200 Mbit plan and can get those speeds.

200mbit is around 25mb/s and not 200mb/s.

One thing that often gives people confusion is the difference between a Megabyte (used for file size) and a Megabit (used for download speeds). People often assume that a download speed of 1 Megabit per second (1 Mbps) will allow them to download a 1 Megabyte file in one second. This is not the case, a Megabit is 1/8 as big as a Megabyte, meaning that to download a 1MB file in 1 second you would need a connection of 8Mbps. The difference between a Gigabyte (GB) and a Gigabit (Gb) is the same, with a Gigabyte being 8 times larger than a Gigabit.

Your Cisco router WILL NOT route 200mbit.

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1310820 24-May-2015 15:27

clayton: Actually my CISCO 867VAE-W has 1 x 1GE WAN, 2 x 1GE LAN and 3x 100Mbps FE ports, you need to update your source information
My ISP supplied modem and the CISCO performs the same, not interested in what the online speed tests reports as you can not achieve those speeds anyway on the average computer.
Thanks for your help guys, happy 200Mb/s downloading!!

I don't think anybody can help you if you're not willing to accept the fundamental issue with your Cisco gear - it is underspec for a 200Mbps connection, and more importantly only has 100Mbps FE ports. It is physiucally impossible to get more than roughly 93Mbps via a LAN port on this device.

If you're only getting 125Mbps download from a using the Spark router site and wondering why you can't get any faster you need to look at the bigger picture, and the most obvious part of that being the way the TCP protocol works. You haven't answered above whether you understand that. There are also many, many, many, many, many, many, many reasons why you're not going to get 200Mbps in the real world.

As I've already explained above the fact you can get 200Mbps to a speed test shows there is nothing wrong with your UFB connection, Spark connection, or the Spark supplied router.

RunningMan

8953 posts

Uber Geek

#1310822 24-May-2015 15:44

clayton: [snip]Actually my CISCO 867VAE-W has 1 x 1GE WAN, 2 x 1GE LAN and 3x 100Mbps FE ports, you need to update your source information

Just because a router has an ethernet port of whatever throughput (in this case Gigabit/s) doesn't mean that the CPU can keep up with that port at full line speed under all conditions. Assuming the router is NATing the connection and running some sort of firewall config then that is a significant CPU load on the router.

As a (rather extreme) example, a Cisco SPA122 ATA has a router function built in with 2 100Mb/s ports. If you use it as a router with NAT enabled, it can only manage about 20Mb/s, not even close to line speed.

lxsw20

3552 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1310826 24-May-2015 16:19

tdgeek: The 659b is AC, Gbit WAN and LAN, 2.4/5Ghz, so its quite an up to date device

Speedtest on a Snap Gigabit connection was getting about 900Mbit down on one of these, they are a very capable router for the $$$.

quickymart

13924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1310841 24-May-2015 16:37

clayton: Actually my CISCO 867VAE-W has 1 x 1GE WAN, 2 x 1GE LAN and 3x 100Mbps FE ports, you need to update your source information
My ISP supplied modem and the CISCO performs the same, not interested in what the online speed tests reports as you can not achieve those speeds anyway on the average computer.
Thanks for your help guys, happy 200Mb/s downloading!!

Thanks for wasting the time of everyone here who tried to help you. You enjoy those "slow" downloads with your sub-par equipment then.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1310854 24-May-2015 17:13

lxsw20:
tdgeek: The 659b is AC, Gbit WAN and LAN, 2.4/5Ghz, so its quite an up to date device

Speedtest on a Snap Gigabit connection was getting about 900Mbit down on one of these, they are a very capable router for the $$$.

Go and have a good read about how speedtest.net calculates the speeds it shows you. It is NOT doing a simple data transfer over time calculation so it's largely irrelevant to the discussion here.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

clayton

342 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1311582 25-May-2015 20:33

I would just like to apologize to anyone I offended in this forum, I realise now that my CISCO can only throughput 12.80 Mbps. A CISCO rep told me my Router has GE WAN and 2 x GE LAN and clearly states that on the rear of the unit.

I have under estimated a few of you which are no doubt very talented with networking. thanks to those of you who have put up with my ignorance.

I had been mislead on a number of issues and should have respected your answers and sorry for the confusing posts,

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1311620 25-May-2015 21:16

it wont be 12.8Mbps as thats only 1.6MB/s which is no where even close to fast ethernet , it will be 12.8MB/s which is about 100Mbps

you keep getting your units mixed up

RunningMan

8953 posts

Uber Geek

#1311628 25-May-2015 21:31

clayton: I would just like to apologize to anyone I offended in this forum, I realise now that my CISCO can only throughput 12.80 Mbps. A CISCO rep told me my Router has GE WAN and 2 x GE LAN and clearly states that on the rear of the unit.

I have under estimated a few of you which are no doubt very talented with networking. thanks to those of you who have put up with my ignorance.

I had been mislead on a number of issues and should have respected your answers and sorry for the confusing posts,

Hey, we're all here to learn - noone gets it right every time :-)

If you're looking at specing a router for a task, make sure the rated throughput is good enough for what you need, rather than just relying on the speed of the ports it has. I haven't looked very hard at the specs of that particular router, but had they put 100Mb ports on instead, they would have been the bottleneck, rather than CPU, so by going to the next fastest speed (Gb) you get a bit more performance, but still not enough to saturate a 1Gb/s link. You'll often find routers will quote different throughputs for different tasks and packet sizes, so worth having a look before deciding on a model.

1 | 2 | 3