Sponsored Links

3000Mb service

Got impatient and needed to know before sleeping.

Thank you, Father. Sadly didn't sort it for me but appreciate your pinging me.

ONU port facing switch only: https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/d/77aeb6b4-e79d-4b7d-8037-77e6edb2abd2
ONU and router-facing switch port: https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/d/7ce2f3bf-9a5b-4358-988a-ce28c5594004
ONU, router and router-facing switch port: https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/d/191adf8a-c76a-4b55-9351-3f7c0db93025
Ping 10ms with YouFibre. Seems a lot higher than Community Fibre, I get 1-2ms usually...
 
I think it depends on your kit, but I have seen Flow Control mentioned in many scenarios where you can't achieve full bandwidth. Are you on a 10gb/3gb business plan?
Flow control is gack for pretty much anything where the traffic flowing over the top is TCP/IP or QUIC/UDP/IP - the transport and, depending, application layers are more than capable of handling flow control and do it far more elegantly than an 'I'm full, stop transmitting for a millisecond' message produced by an Ethernet interface. The Ethernet interface is likely to keep hitting capacity due to microbursting and cause TCP or QUIC/UDP/IP to overreact.

The upstream devices are buffering this stuff and are going to want to drain their buffers ASAP in turn hitting the bottleneck again and causing flow control to clamp down, with the end result being far more impactful on the flow than just starting to drop traffic and allowing the transport to find its own sweet spot.

iPerf, either in TCP or UDP mode, shouldn't be dependent on flow control. Ookla speed tests shouldn't unless the TCP stack is kinda broken.

Of course 'shouldn't' is a quite different thing from 'aren't' and evidently Adtran really like it on that piece of kit.

Real-Time Ethernet extensions are cool for their respective applications, though.

I'm on the uncapped plan, yes.

I'm actually having a support nightmare with Netgear over this very issue. Their use of flow control, and that the button to turn it off doesn't work, destroys downstream throughput. Over WiFi 6E if I place my phone next to the AP I get about 300 Mbit/s downstream, 1.4+ Gbit/s upstream. The AP is blasting flow control like crazy as its uplink is 2.5 Gbit/s and the wireless link is slower, rather than allowing TCP to handle congestion control. For whatever reason they're unable to find the configuration that disables flow control on the switch chip.
 
Just to further pollute the thread, latency: 2nd hop is a router in the exchange:

traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 sfp4-lan-study2116 (192.168.1.2) 1.998 ms 0.225 ms 0.141 ms
2 youfibre-wakefield.wan (45.92.47.33) 0.950 ms 0.970 ms 0.741 ms
3 172.16.1.117 (172.16.1.117) 5.744 ms 5.652 ms 5.844 ms
4 172.16.2.17 (172.16.2.17) 6.061 ms 6.603 ms 5.795 ms
5 162.158.32.40 (162.158.32.40) 7.859 ms 6.251 ms 6.300 ms
6 162.158.32.11 (162.158.32.11) 7.487 ms
162.158.72.3 (162.158.72.3) 6.901 ms
162.158.32.11 (162.158.32.11) 7.451 ms
7 one.one.one.one (1.1.1.1) 7.218 ms 5.844 ms 5.887 ms
 
Just to further pollute the thread, latency: 2nd hop is a router in the exchange:

traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 sfp4-lan-study2116 (192.168.1.2) 1.998 ms 0.225 ms 0.141 ms
2 youfibre-wakefield.wan (45.92.47.33) 0.950 ms 0.970 ms 0.741 ms
3 172.16.1.117 (172.16.1.117) 5.744 ms 5.652 ms 5.844 ms
4 172.16.2.17 (172.16.2.17) 6.061 ms 6.603 ms 5.795 ms
5 162.158.32.40 (162.158.32.40) 7.859 ms 6.251 ms 6.300 ms
6 162.158.32.11 (162.158.32.11) 7.487 ms
162.158.72.3 (162.158.72.3) 6.901 ms
162.158.32.11 (162.158.32.11) 7.451 ms
7 one.one.one.one (1.1.1.1) 7.218 ms 5.844 ms 5.887 ms
Here is mine. I think these regionally balanced services with nodes in the edge can't be used for trateroute checks as the traffic might go different paths depending on the destination. The way traceroute works is that uses TTL to get each of the hops one by one and then pings them.

traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 149.34.146.1 (149.34.146.1) 4.930 ms 2.075 ms 1.809 ms
2 lag-1.acc1.new.lon.network.as201838.net (94.247.86.100) 3.001 ms 2.303 ms 2.245 ms
3 94.177.139.147 (94.177.139.147) 3.571 ms 2.412 ms 2.343 ms
4 94.177.139.182 (94.177.139.182) 2.759 ms 2.254 ms 2.466 ms
5 * * lag-19.edge1.thn.lon.network.as201838.net (94.177.138.220) 6.534 ms
6 * * *
7 172.71.240.2 (172.71.240.2) 4.894 ms
172.71.176.2 (172.71.176.2) 4.352 ms
141.101.71.2 (141.101.71.2) 4.068 ms
8 * one.one.one.one (1.1.1.1) 2.592 ms 2.845 ms

Doing 10 pings gets me an average of 3ms ping time:

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=4.899 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=2.831 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=2.928 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=2.787 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=2.765 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=2.738 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=2.911 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=2.792 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=2.940 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=2.986 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.738/3.058/4.899/0.619 ms
 
Here is mine. I think these regionally balanced services with nodes in the edge can't be used for trateroute checks as the traffic might go different paths depending on the destination. The way traceroute works is that uses TTL to get each of the hops one by one and then pings them.

Traceroute attempts to ping the end destination using increasing TTLs until it reaches that destination. The responses that come back for the intermediate nodes are not responses to pings they're ICMP TTL expired messages. There are 3 of them because traceroute implementations usually send out three pings per TTL value.
 
Here is mine. I think these regionally balanced services with nodes in the edge can't be used for trateroute checks as the traffic might go different paths depending on the destination. The way traceroute works is that uses TTL to get each of the hops one by one and then pings them.

traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 149.34.146.1 (149.34.146.1) 4.930 ms 2.075 ms 1.809 ms
2 lag-1.acc1.new.lon.network.as201838.net (94.247.86.100) 3.001 ms 2.303 ms 2.245 ms
3 94.177.139.147 (94.177.139.147) 3.571 ms 2.412 ms 2.343 ms
4 94.177.139.182 (94.177.139.182) 2.759 ms 2.254 ms 2.466 ms
5 * * lag-19.edge1.thn.lon.network.as201838.net (94.177.138.220) 6.534 ms
6 * * *
7 172.71.240.2 (172.71.240.2) 4.894 ms
172.71.176.2 (172.71.176.2) 4.352 ms
141.101.71.2 (141.101.71.2) 4.068 ms
8 * one.one.one.one (1.1.1.1) 2.592 ms 2.845 ms

Doing 10 pings gets me an average of 3ms ping time:

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=4.899 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=2.831 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=2.928 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=2.787 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=2.765 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=2.738 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=2.911 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=2.792 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=2.940 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=2.986 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.738/3.058/4.899/0.619 ms
I found Quad9 DNS (9.9.9.9) has a lower average latency compared to Cloudflare (1.1.1.1) and Google DNS (8.8.8.8)
 
Yes, when I had mine installed last year mid-Nov, they said they did not have the correct equipment and temporarily gave me one of their standard 1GB capable routers same as you have mentioned I believe, about 2 weeks later, I got a visit again with another specialist and installed a capable router, ended up with an ASUS T-AX89X for free unbranded and unregistered in their system, I don't know what you'll get, I think they stopped providing the ASUS to customers now, I might have been one of the lucky few to get it.
Hi, sorry to revive this thread. I have just ordered CF 3Gbps and it’s due to be installed in a couple weeks.

I can see from your reply that CF gave you the Asus RT-AX89X, which seems to be an amazing router! Does this connect to the ONT module via SFP or Ethernet? Depending on the answer, is there also a 10G RJ-45 LAN port free on the router, which I would need to connect my PC (w 10G NIC)?

I pray that I also will get the ASUS but knowing my luck, I doubt it. Would be interested to know whether the other models they provide are decent and have a spare 10G Ethernet port, otherwise I’d have to get a switch, just to use my only 10G capable device.

Thanks!
 
I assume this is a joke?
There are always people that say you don't need this or you don't need that. Their first mistake is that they look at it from THEIR needs point of view hence why they can't see a need for it. Second mistake is that they fail to see that people get most things because they CAN / WANT them not because they NEED them. So it's irrelevant if you NEED it. Most cars sold in the UK have top speeds WELL above the the 70mph allowed in motorways so by definition you don't NEED THAT!
 
3gb is hard to utilise. I run my own server racks on three london based locations (ok, I haven’t upgraded them to 10gbe yet) and 3gb at home
Is hard to fully push. Even a full truenas replication of 5-10tb is easy now.

More than a gigabit is usually for once a month situation I believe. (And my datasets are huge..)

But.. 3gb on CF is the only one with an ipv4, so for me this is the reason.

(I did flex to my friends with one screenshot too! 24hours later I told them the line is dead and I went back to VM…heheheh)
 
3gb is hard to utilise. I run my own server racks on three london based locations (ok, I haven’t upgraded them to 10gbe yet) and 3gb at home
Is hard to fully push. Even a full truenas replication of 5-10tb is easy now.

More than a gigabit is usually for once a month situation I believe. (And my datasets are huge..)

But.. 3gb on CF is the only one with an ipv4, so for me this is the reason.

(I did flex to my friends with one screenshot too! 24hours later I told them the line is dead and I went back to VM…heheheh)
And yet again who said they need to utilise it to get it? Do you drive your car at top speed? You most likely don't It really is pointless to make all these arguments. If people want to get 3Gb let them be, it's up to them how they spend their money. Now if someone is asking "what service should I get?" go ahead and give advice on what you think will be right.
 
My point is simple, if you get a 3Gb service either you know what you are doing and hence you know it's probably oversized for what you need (in which case you don't care what others think) or you just want the top plan because you can/want it (in which case you also don't care what others think). Either way it's pointless to argue. I have a feeling most of the people that argue you don't need would get it they had the money.
 
My point is simple, if you get a 3Gb service either you know what you are doing and hence you know it's probably oversized for what you need (in which case you don't care what others think) or you just want the top plan because you can/want it (in which case you also don't care what others think). Either way it's pointless to argue. I have a feeling most of the people that argue you don't need would get it they had the money.
Agree 100%. All I see is people questioning why 3G is necessary but I fail to see how it bothers them in the first place! Plus I’m paying less than I did for 1G at Virgin!

All I wanted to ask was a router related question, not to justify to others what internet package I have chosen.. (not sure why people care so much anyway!).

But anyway, I’ve been doing a relentless amount of research regarding CF’s 3Gbps package and what router’s people are pairing with it. So far from what I can see; for my PC to make use of 10G, I need a router that has 2x10G Eth ports (for example, ASUS RT-AX89X). However these aren’t very common and are very expensive and I’m sure I could spend the money more wisely on maybe a VM etc.

So I think for now, I’ll go with a dual 2.5G Router (ASUS TUF AX6000), be capped at 2.5G and upgrade to 10G when the price drops slightly.
There also is the issue of not knowing which model of ONT I will receive, so I don’t know whether it will be an RJ-45 or SFP+ connector.

If there are any other routes I can go down, to get 10G to my PC (with 10G NIC) I’d be grateful to hear them!
 
My point is simple, if you get a 3Gb service either you know what you are doing and hence you know it's probably oversized for what you need (in which case you don't care what others think) or you just want the top plan because you can/want it (in which case you also don't care what others think). Either way it's pointless to argue. I have a feeling most of the people that argue you don't need would get it they had the money.
Completely agree. Let’s face it, if you’re on this forum, you probably have quite an interest in technology, especially internet connectivity.

The other important thing about packages like 3gbps from community fibre is that they stop the market from stagnating and push other operators to advance their offerings. Nobody wins the ISP race by being the slowest in town do they?

There’s also the knock on advancements of things like 2.5-10Gbps ethernet in the consumer space. Sure, the consumer space is playing catch up but without the services there to make use of higher speed LAN equipment, there won’t be a push beyond 1gbps ethernet.

Never criticise someone else’s choice, when in reality, it pushes the goal posts and encourages advancements in the technology we’re all interested in.
 
What the point of ordering 3Gbps for? You don't need that for home!
You don't need 330 for home, you were able to do everything you needed on 80, but you purchased it.

Are you jealous he's getting symmetrical 3 Gb for less than you're paying for 330/50 G.fast? I suspect you are and that's why you posted.

Whether needed or not it's a choice. We own an electric BMW. Do we need it? No! Of course not! However it's a great car to drive, comfortable, and has many safety features which is important as I'm a pretty poor driver. 😂
 
Top
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £17.99
    Speed 33Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • UtilityWarehouse £19.99
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited (FUP)
    Gift: None
  • NOW £23.00
    Speed 63Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £24.00
    Speed 73 - 82Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £24.99
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Gigaclear £17.00
    Speed: 200Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Zzoomm £19.95
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • YouFibre £19.99
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Community Fibre £20.00
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • BeFibre £21.00
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £25 Love2Shop Card
Large Availability | View All
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored Links
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (5384)
  2. BT (3489)
  3. Politics (2494)
  4. Openreach (2275)
  5. Business (2221)
  6. Building Digital UK (2215)
  7. FTTC (2038)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1940)
  9. Statistics (1763)
  10. 4G (1639)
  11. Virgin Media (1589)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1438)
  13. FTTH (1379)
  14. Wireless Internet (1377)
  15. Fibre Optic (1375)
  16. 5G (1215)
  17. Vodafone (1126)
  18. EE (1110)
  19. TalkTalk (927)
  20. O2 (914)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules