Then you don't need it. We have 2 4K TVs streaming, 3 phones, 3 laptops, and 3 people working from home with large files that we don't want to wait longer than needed or where our/client's time is crucial. I regularly stream/RDP to at least 2 other PCs while I'm on mine during work as well and that's not including any other PCs that I or my roommate have to fix for work as well.
Anybody Running 1 GBPS At Home?
- Thread starter Zee09
- Start date
Then you don't need it. We have 2 4K TVs streaming, 3 phones, 3 laptops, and 3 people working from home with large files that we don't want to wait longer than needed or where our/client's time is crucial. I regularly stream/RDP to at least 2 other PCs while I'm on mine during work as well and that's not including any other PCs that I or my roommate have to fix for work as well.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
I have 150 mbps at my home and 1gb/s at my grandpa’s. Can’t tell the difference really.
True ... I've streamed on 2 TVS, a laptop and cell phone all at the same time to test it out, and had no issues with only 30 Mbps service.
xfinity offers up to 2 Gbps but I don't intend to download all content from the Library of Congress.
It would be cool if when we talked internet speed packages that people would post their results and what they pay for.
Most people unhappy with their speed upgrade and pay more when in many cases its not the speed they are paying for but poorly set up home/office systems.
There is a TON of information on the internet to improve your wifi signal and properly set up your router, one thing not mentioned often are snap on FERRIT NOISE filters for ALL power and data lines related to your modem and ANYTHING and ALL attached to your computer equipment and phone system.
These are cheap as heck, effective, I use two to three on everything related to electronics in my home. I think my speeds reflect part of that, plus proper placement of the router. Here is an example. I get them from anyplace, eBay, amazon, price wins, even in the mail from china ... I use at least TWO per line, sometimes 3 per line, yes, more is better in this case.
Here is this mornings speed tests with my 100Mbps service, Arris Modem, Motorola MR 2600 Router:
5 Ghz band
2.5 Ghz band
You can also do a speed test with "jitter" (google it) from Fusion. My values are typically around 5.
This is what the Fusionconnect.com test looks like on my 5ghz band
Most people unhappy with their speed upgrade and pay more when in many cases its not the speed they are paying for but poorly set up home/office systems.
There is a TON of information on the internet to improve your wifi signal and properly set up your router, one thing not mentioned often are snap on FERRIT NOISE filters for ALL power and data lines related to your modem and ANYTHING and ALL attached to your computer equipment and phone system.
These are cheap as heck, effective, I use two to three on everything related to electronics in my home. I think my speeds reflect part of that, plus proper placement of the router. Here is an example. I get them from anyplace, eBay, amazon, price wins, even in the mail from china ... I use at least TWO per line, sometimes 3 per line, yes, more is better in this case.
Here is this mornings speed tests with my 100Mbps service, Arris Modem, Motorola MR 2600 Router:
5 Ghz band
2.5 Ghz band
You can also do a speed test with "jitter" (google it) from Fusion. My values are typically around 5.
This is what the Fusionconnect.com test looks like on my 5ghz band
Last edited:
Good point
Agree if you wish to test your internet provider to make sure first, before applying my steps you are getting the speed you are paying for.
Once you do that, then the next step is to find out why you are not getting those speeds over your wifi and so my post above ... ^^^
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I know @Quattro Pete has shared this before, but I'm going to do this again. It's a more comprehensive speed test that's a better judge of your equipment:
Speed test - how fast is your internet? | DSLReports, ISP Information
Use our NEW speed test tool to test how fast your broadband or mobile internet connection really is. Read broadband news, information and join our community
www.dslreports.com
I suggest running it in a fresh browser window with no other tabs.
I pay for 120/10 cable.
This is a conventional speedtest result:
^^^^I’m just not sure what good buffering is if you have excellent ping times and jitter?
The main link wasn’t compatible on my Mac running Safari, I had to choose their alternative method and I cant believe that buffer bloat is relevant or maybe better said in this case accurate if I am getting 17% more speed then I am paying for.
Also on my wifi network have 20+ devices, including 3 security cameras and a door bell camera.
My internet is so fast, I literally take my finger off the mouse and "Im there" so I trust my results in post #25.
Its possible I guess that since the main link doesnt work with my Mac running Safari that the DSL report below has issues regarding Mac's running the latest IOS
The main link wasn’t compatible on my Mac running Safari, I had to choose their alternative method and I cant believe that buffer bloat is relevant or maybe better said in this case accurate if I am getting 17% more speed then I am paying for.
Also on my wifi network have 20+ devices, including 3 security cameras and a door bell camera.
My internet is so fast, I literally take my finger off the mouse and "Im there" so I trust my results in post #25.
Its possible I guess that since the main link doesnt work with my Mac running Safari that the DSL report below has issues regarding Mac's running the latest IOS
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, I also had to run the HTTP version on my Mac, which is what the above results are from.
The "buffering" in question is what your router is doing when your connection is being saturated, ergo that test is more an evaluation of your equipment than just of your connection. My bufferbloat was poorer when I was using a Cisco 1921 ISR over my current MX64 as an example.
Your ping, when measured in a typical speed test, is done before the test runs, so there is no load on the equipment. This is then just really a test of the latency imposed by your ISP and their network.
The "Bufferbloat" test measures latency while the test is in full swing; while your connection is saturated. This is thus a test of the latency imposed by your equipment while it is doing inspection, NAT/PAT...etc on top of your ISP's impact.
So, for example, if your ISP had a ping of ~4ms but when you ran the test your bufferbloat was horrific, it tends to point toward overwhelming your equipment's ability to pass packets at the rate of your connection without imposing additional latency.
Here's the description from DSL Reports:
Since my (consumer) ISP has a ping of ~18ms my results (A) mean that my equipment isn't introducing much additional latency while doing PAT, AMP, and Threat Detection/Mitigation.
I did some quick throughput testing on my 1Gb/s Comcast service with iperf3 on a Linux box. I have a firewall between my cable modem and LAN switch, which claims about 600Mb/s throughput.
From the first run with "-P 1", which mean on socket I get 386Mb/s down with some packet loss, as the sender sent 690MB and I only received 667MB. Unfortunately, these days private peering points are mostly congested, so packet loss is the new norm.
iperf3 -P 1 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 5] 0.00-15.00 sec 690 MBytes 386 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 5] 0.00-15.00 sec 667 MBytes 373 Mbits/sec receiver
We can see from the above example that throughput is constrained with only one socket transferring data. Even with scaled TCP windows, the send window drains before it gets the ACK, so the sender stops sending and waits.
The public iperf server is about 60ms away which dramatically reduced throughput with one socket.
ping iperf.he.net
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 19ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 58.022/59.300/63.062/1.439 ms
Let's try two sockets.
iperf3 -P 2 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.25 GBytes 719 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.21 GBytes 695 Mbits/sec receiver
Much better throughput with two simultaneous sockets (-P 2) and well above my firewall's expected throughput.
Let's see if three sockets (-p 3) are better (more is always better right?).
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.25 GBytes 717 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.21 GBytes 694 Mbits/sec receiver
Nope, we've reached the limit of something between iperf.he.net and my Linux box, which I believe is my firewall. I could connect my Linux box directly to my cable modem, but I don't feel like making this throughput testing Saturday
Throughput testing is a complex undertaking and all segments end to end must be understood, or you're likely to misinterpret the results. It would have been easy to say that Comcast isn't giving me the 1Gb/s I purchase, but that would be unfair as I can't get more the 730Mb/s through my firewall. All of the above testing was done over wired 1Gb/s Ethernet inside my house.
Just for grins I ran a test to see how much difference adding my WiFi network into the mix would make. My WiFi is Ubiquiti and is very high quality, but it's not the same as a wire.
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 142 MBytes 79.3 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 135 MBytes 75.4 Mbits/sec receiver
1/10th of the throughput? Yes, add the variable of wifi and it can drastically change the results. I was surprised to see it this low as I can do local transfers and sustain 400Mb/s. You can see though that results can vary wildly.
[edit]
It was bugging me why my local WiFi throughput was so low at 75Mb/s, so I did some poking around and found my office access point got switch to HT40 from HT80 (HT40 is two 20Mhz 802.11ac channels bonded and HT80 is four 40Mhz 802.11ac channels bonded). My workstation had also fallen back to a 2.4Ghz channel. When I run a local throughput test on 5Ghz HT80 I get much better results.
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 854 MBytes 477 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 849 MBytes 475 Mbits/sec receiver
Now we'll do another throughput test from iperf.he.net
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 145 MBytes 80.9 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 139 MBytes 77.7 Mbits/sec receiver
Strange, not much better than the 75Mb/s before. We'll add more sockets and see what we get.
6 sockets
iperf3 -P 6 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 284 MBytes 159 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 273 MBytes 153 Mbits/sec receiver
12 sockets
iperf3 -P 12 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 531 MBytes 297 Mbits/sec 52 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 509 MBytes 285 Mbits/sec receiver
As you can see the end to end throughput from iperf.he.net to my WiFi connected Windows box gets better as we add more sockets. We only required three sockets to get max throughput to the wired Linux box, but twelve sockets to the WiFi connected Windows box. In my experience WiFi always has lower throughput than 1Gb/s wired Ethernet. There are several technical reasons this is so.
I think the moral to the story is to be careful how you interpret your throughput results.
From the first run with "-P 1", which mean on socket I get 386Mb/s down with some packet loss, as the sender sent 690MB and I only received 667MB. Unfortunately, these days private peering points are mostly congested, so packet loss is the new norm.
iperf3 -P 1 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 5] 0.00-15.00 sec 690 MBytes 386 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 5] 0.00-15.00 sec 667 MBytes 373 Mbits/sec receiver
We can see from the above example that throughput is constrained with only one socket transferring data. Even with scaled TCP windows, the send window drains before it gets the ACK, so the sender stops sending and waits.
The public iperf server is about 60ms away which dramatically reduced throughput with one socket.
ping iperf.he.net
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 19ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 58.022/59.300/63.062/1.439 ms
Let's try two sockets.
iperf3 -P 2 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.25 GBytes 719 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.21 GBytes 695 Mbits/sec receiver
Much better throughput with two simultaneous sockets (-P 2) and well above my firewall's expected throughput.
Let's see if three sockets (-p 3) are better (more is always better right?).
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.25 GBytes 717 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.21 GBytes 694 Mbits/sec receiver
Nope, we've reached the limit of something between iperf.he.net and my Linux box, which I believe is my firewall. I could connect my Linux box directly to my cable modem, but I don't feel like making this throughput testing Saturday
Throughput testing is a complex undertaking and all segments end to end must be understood, or you're likely to misinterpret the results. It would have been easy to say that Comcast isn't giving me the 1Gb/s I purchase, but that would be unfair as I can't get more the 730Mb/s through my firewall. All of the above testing was done over wired 1Gb/s Ethernet inside my house.
Just for grins I ran a test to see how much difference adding my WiFi network into the mix would make. My WiFi is Ubiquiti and is very high quality, but it's not the same as a wire.
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 142 MBytes 79.3 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 135 MBytes 75.4 Mbits/sec receiver
1/10th of the throughput? Yes, add the variable of wifi and it can drastically change the results. I was surprised to see it this low as I can do local transfers and sustain 400Mb/s. You can see though that results can vary wildly.
[edit]
It was bugging me why my local WiFi throughput was so low at 75Mb/s, so I did some poking around and found my office access point got switch to HT40 from HT80 (HT40 is two 20Mhz 802.11ac channels bonded and HT80 is four 40Mhz 802.11ac channels bonded). My workstation had also fallen back to a 2.4Ghz channel. When I run a local throughput test on 5Ghz HT80 I get much better results.
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 854 MBytes 477 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 849 MBytes 475 Mbits/sec receiver
Now we'll do another throughput test from iperf.he.net
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 145 MBytes 80.9 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 139 MBytes 77.7 Mbits/sec receiver
Strange, not much better than the 75Mb/s before. We'll add more sockets and see what we get.
6 sockets
iperf3 -P 6 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 284 MBytes 159 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 273 MBytes 153 Mbits/sec receiver
12 sockets
iperf3 -P 12 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 531 MBytes 297 Mbits/sec 52 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 509 MBytes 285 Mbits/sec receiver
As you can see the end to end throughput from iperf.he.net to my WiFi connected Windows box gets better as we add more sockets. We only required three sockets to get max throughput to the wired Linux box, but twelve sockets to the WiFi connected Windows box. In my experience WiFi always has lower throughput than 1Gb/s wired Ethernet. There are several technical reasons this is so.
I think the moral to the story is to be careful how you interpret your throughput results.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I did some quick throughput testing on my 1Gb/s Comcast service with iperf3 on a Linux box. I have a firewall between my cable modem and LAN switch, which claims about 600Mb/s throughput.
From the first run with "-P 1", which mean on socket I get 386Mb/s down with some packet loss, as the sender sent 690MB and I only received 667MB. Unfortunately, these days private peering points are mostly congested, so packet loss is the new norm.
iperf3 -P 1 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 5] 0.00-15.00 sec 690 MBytes 386 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 5] 0.00-15.00 sec 667 MBytes 373 Mbits/sec receiver
We can see from the above example that throughput is constrained with only one socket transferring data. Even with scaled TCP windows, the send window drains before it gets the ACK, so the sender stops sending and waits.
The public iperf server is about 60ms away which dramatically reduced throughput with one socket.
ping iperf.he.net
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 19ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 58.022/59.300/63.062/1.439 ms
Let's try two sockets.
iperf3 -P 2 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.25 GBytes 719 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.21 GBytes 695 Mbits/sec receiver
Much better throughput with two simultaneous sockets (-P 2) and well above my firewall's expected throughput.
Let's see if three sockets (-p 3) are better (more is always better right?).
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.25 GBytes 717 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 1.21 GBytes 694 Mbits/sec receiver
Nope, we've reached the limit of something between iperf.he.net and my Linux box, which I believe is my firewall. I could connect my Linux box directly to my cable modem, but I don't feel like making this throughput testing Saturday
Throughput testing is a complex undertaking and all segments end to end must be understood, or you're likely to misinterpret the results. It would have been easy to say that Comcast isn't giving me the 1Gb/s I purchase, but that would be unfair as I can't get more the 730Mb/s through my firewall. All of the above testing was done over wired 1Gb/s Ethernet inside my house.
Just for grins I ran a test to see how much difference adding my WiFi network into the mix would make. My WiFi is Ubiquiti and is very high quality, but it's not the same as a wire.
iperf3 -P 3 -t 15 -R -c iperf.he.net
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 142 MBytes 79.3 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[SUM] 0.00-15.00 sec 135 MBytes 75.4 Mbits/sec receiver
1/10th of the throughput? Yes, add the variable of wifi and it can drastically change the results. I was surprised to see it this low as I can do local transfers and sustain 400Mb/s. You can see though that results can vary wildly.
I think the moral to the story is to be careful how you interpret your throughput results.
Excellent post Wayne, agreed.
I suggested the DSL Reports link due to its simplicity, extensive explanation of their process employed and the fact it measures latency at connection saturation, which is valuable.
If I run the same tests you've run above, I get:
Latency:
Single socket:
Two sockets:
Three sockets:
Three sockets on WiFi (same computer):
So I lose about 20Mbit going from Gig-E to 802.11n, which is all my old Mac Pro has in it for wireless (2.4Ghz).
Equipment in use:
Cisco Meraki MX64 firewall
Cisco Catalyst 2960 Gigabit 24-port PoE switch
Cisco Meraki MR20 (AC) access point
I do not have any ferrite filters or anything on any of my equipment, cabling is all CAT6.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
As I noted in my reply before your edit, I also had to use the HTTP link as well since I'm running it on a Mac. The results I posted were from that test. In the background I had Chrome, Firefox and Brave open. Chrome has 38 tabs open, Brave has 11, Firefox has 19. Outlook is also running on this computer as is iTunes, WhatsApp and several other applications.
See my earlier explanation as to what the test measures. Your "D" denotes latency of between 200 and 400ms with the connection saturated.
My network has 28 clients at present including a security camera and server for it, 5x iPhones, 4x tablets, 4x laptops, two desktops, two X-Box's, 1x PS4, my thermostat, receiver, and 3x Smart TV's FWIW, so I expect our client load is similar.
No complaints on 300 up and down with AT&T Gigapower
I typically get 120% of the rated speed. I feel no need to move to 1gb
www.speedtest.net
I typically get 120% of the rated speed. I feel no need to move to 1gb
Speedtest by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test
Use Speedtest on all your devices with our free desktop and mobile apps.
97.3Mb/s is very good real-world throughput for 2.4Ghz!
Buffer bloat is a killer if you do any gaming, and was a problem on my old Netgear router. But I pay for 100Mbps and this is on 5ghz WiFi.
Do you have an option on your router for a priority queue? Highly interactive apps like VoIP and gaming don't belong in a default queue, instead they should always be in a priority queue if available. Unfortunately, on the internet you have zero control over the return traffic so all you can do is prioritize your outgoing traffic. Queue depth (buffer bloat) is a non-issue if you can put your interactive traffic in a priority queue.
The older one no, there was QoS but it was pretty basic and at best I could get a D rating pushing over 200ms loaded latency. The new Asus running Merlin firmware allows for some pretty fine tweaking.
Yeah, first I ever heard of buffer bloat, Im not really into the down in the dirt technical stuff like others in here. I AM very into proper set up, proper noise filtering, proper everything about my internet and wifi. Proper everything about all the equipment hooked into it and more. I have always been, for decades now, the go to person for other people in my life when they have issues. Recently fix a neighbors wifi camera, after he told me he has been contacting tech support over the last year about it, they even sent him a new camera, same issue, losing connection. I fixed it with router placement and ferrite snap ons, he called the camera company and suggested they tell future people about this issue once I fixed it.
(anyway, giving you background that I am a hands on person, but do not in any way know the ins and outs off all this stuff, but I DO know how to make it work*LOL*)
I can say, in my home, it is absolutely flawless. Now, maybe as you say, If was a gamer, buffer bloat would matter. Im also a little skeptical about websites with these tests. Website do have issues at times and the dsl reports one has comments about this. Anyway, since not a gamer the buffer bloat thing is more of a moving target to me (not others) as I read up on it. Heck, I guess it makes no difference to me, why would I want anything changed with the results I get?
All I know is that all important things that matter to be are absolutely perfect on my home network. Jitter is a real target regarding internet phones, we all know latency is a huge factor as well. I can honestly say my home, with previously stated 20+ devices which includes 3 outdoor wifi cameras, door bell camera, 5 (five) Roku players (all together over 20 devices) PLUS a second Cisco router plugged into my home Motorola router through a power line adapter for my wifes workstation and another Ooma telephone plugged into the back of my Motorola router ya da yada. ...
With all that, I get 117 to 120 Mbps download speeds on my 100 Mbps service up to 20% more then I pay for (as posted a few posts up, no sense repeating which I know I do*L*)
But even more important then getting speeds are the incredible low latency (?), I am not kidding, I literally take my hand off the mouse when I click and I am on the website, almost as fast as you can snap your finger. My security cameras (and I KNOW about security cameras, I have installed hundreds of them) I open the app, tap on the camera, within 1 to 2 fast snaps of a finger the image is up ... (I have also fixed countless issues with customers wifi cameras as well as NVRs.
Yet, with all that, I get a "D" for bloat on that test but A+ for quality.
Anyway, the DSL thing isnt important to me me, as a gamer I am sure there is something more to it. Yet the stuff I read on it, seems almost a fuzzy subject.
Anyway, being Im not a "gamer" this test seems more important to me, also some from ATT ect All I know is what I do works. The reason I am posting so much in this thread is I installed a new router in the last week as posted in another thread I think, After my faithful TPLINK Archer C7 worked flawlessly for the last 5 years I figured it was time for a hardware upgrade in the sense of a new device being the old one has been running five years, I purposely did not want a WIFI standards upgrade and stuck with AC for now.
This new router is faster and I am thrilled with it and to me the price was a killer at $99 for an AC 2600 with powerful range. Motorola mr2600.
Anyway, with the new router, I got into putting even more noise filters on everything I could ... *L* and I am pulling the speed below over my wifi about 25 feet from the router. Router is on the first floor almost middle of the house in a closet, my Mac is the second floor end of the house.
Here is the result =
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
As the DSL Reports site notes, and I've noted previously, the bufferbloat issue is simply latency measured with the connection saturated. As Wayne touched-on, this can be mitigated (locally) with QoS tweaks but it is NOT a problem with your connection, which is why those results come back looking good.
Also noted in the DSL Reports link is that poor bufferbloat results are extremely common with consumer-grade equipment. I expect, based on the differences you say you are seeing, that your old Archer, if you hooked it back up, would do even worse, just like my old 1921 and even 2951 did, and these were far from consumer grade, it's just IOS isn't the best thing to be doing NAT/PAT with, that's why Cisco makes ASA's. ISR's are a router platform and that's where they excel.
You could try turning off some of those firewall-related services mentioned in the other thread you had discussing the options on your new router to see if they have an impact on the results. That might be an interesting experiment.
On why these results are so different: Cisco caps the Meraki firewalls at a specific line speed so you can't overwhelm them, this was a big change for me, as I'm used to ASA's that were not sold this way, Cisco simply had "recommendations" and you could use your judgment to determine what model was the best fit. That line speed is set based on a full services load, including VPN, AMP, IDS and everything else available in the platform. My MX64 is capped at 250Mbit, the MX84 is capped at 500. I'll probably upgrade to the new MX67 when my Advanced Security contract is up, it will do 450. For a Gig-E service link this means you'd need an MX250, which is hardly practical for Average Joe, heck, most people would choke on the price of any of these offerings for home use.
MX250: https://meraki.cisco.com/product/security-sd-wan/large-branch-campus-concentrator/mx250/
MX250 at CDW:
Cisco Meraki MX250 Cloud Managed - security appliance - MX250-HW - Firewalls & VPN - CDW.com
Buy a Cisco Meraki MX250 Cloud Managed - security appliance at CDW.com
www.cdw.com
MX250 3-year Advanced Security subscription:
Cisco Meraki Advanced Security - subscription license (3 years) + 3 Years Support - 1 security appliance - LIC-MX250-SEC-3YR - Authentication - CDW.com
Buy a Cisco Meraki Advanced Security - subscription license (3 years) + 3 Years Support - 1 security appliance at CDW.com
www.cdw.com
This was gear I didn't take seriously when Cisco first acquired them. Then I started seeing them in hospitals and thought I should probably start looking into it. My tests of it have left me very impressed so far. The MX series is NOT a 1:1 replacement for an ASA. There are things they simply cannot do. They also do not make an ISR equivalent. But for a great deal of applications, an MX may be a better fit than an ASA, particularly if you've got a small management/support pool and a lot of disparate satellite sites.
Similar threads
