Newfoundland

Unfortunately I have some other gear here but when I get time I’ll test it out.

Mines not up and running sadly.

Thanks for the info. Might be worth noting it to Fraser as some isps tend to have different values.

What do you think the default value is? That’s a bug that needs fixing.

It’s because MTU works both ways. So for example the server can reconstruct those packets far quicker than what our routers can and packets can and will end up being dropped through errors. I can see why he thinks it’s arriving slower but it does not work that way as it’s a 2 way trip which he forgets about so incoming traffic needs to be sorted. Not only that but if it’s the main network all traffic incoming and out going is effected by the MTU value which on his side has further impact as everything is being handled by a limited CPU and memory capacity. Remember the router has to assign resources and that’s not great. here’s a post that tells a bit more about UDP. https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing/udp-fragmentation/td-p/4412567

Only in your mind. All those packets arrive at about the same time and the servers are far more equipped to build those fragmented packets where as your router can’t. Some gamers have a particular outlook for trying to achieve better results. So my question is for you. How much latency from incoming fragmented packets add to your side as MTU is both ways so in your eyes it makes it slower for you to receive packets too. I think looking at your posts you think MTU is a one way trip to the servers. So again can you show any source that shows that.

Because you don’t understand what’s going on no matter what’s said. Fragmenting packets for reconstruction within a router is a known no no in the industry and the R2 will badly suffer because it’s a milestone behind 99% of most routers with it’s hardware. You can’t blame the hardware though, it’s the end user to blame and quite frankly a simple search would put your mind at rest why fragmenting taxis memory and CPU and slows down the network. When every router company explains why fragmentation is bad and remember it’s both ways so in your eyes you are behind because the router is reconstructing before it then continues through the network which puts you at a disadvantage after all latency increases because it takes time for the R2 or any of our routers to put it together. if you can show me a source link where MTU is one way or where fragmentation is a great idea from any manufacturer I’ll look at it.

It’s called fragmenting and that means your router has to also reconstruct and slows packet forwarding which means you have higher latency on your network. the MTU size is incoming and outgoing so your network suffers so info is slower to show on your side on incoming. broken packets is a bad move and widely known. The R2 is not going handle that well. All traffic not just COD will be fragmented so everything on the network will be having issues like IoT and so on. Poor network practice and poor understanding that their side can rebuild without issues which is the COD server as they run equipment where it’s not effected unlike our routers. And I quote from Cisco Reassembly on a host is not considered a problem because the host has the time and memory resources to devote to this task. Reassembly, however, is inefficient on a router whose primary job is to forward packets as quickly as possible. A router is not designed to hold on to packets for any length of time.

Sorry to hear Liam has moved on, a real gentleman when we communicated. I wish him the very best on his next venture.

It’s pretty normal to see a whole bunch of scans under their logs. The net is full of port scans and the firewall is doing its job even if the logs don’t always show the correct value of scan.

Good luck in the tournament 👍let us know how you get.

It’s because it’s a simulated test and not accurate and relies on servers that you can’t control. With PingPlotter try it where you try to put as much load on your connection. You should never need such a large drop which should ring alarm bells. Try it with QoS on and Off and at different throughput settings. Look at the round trip and the hops plus graph.

Wow that’s awful. So they rely on that. I take it they don’t understand why it’s god awful and why it’s flawed as a test bed.

Who asks, your isp?

Waveform is awful, tells me I have high latency all the time, it’s just plain bad. do yourself a favour and use PingPlotter which there is a free version and run that from a PC wired up, do not alter the standard settings.

All manufactures have weak points, it’s how it is as no one is perfect and yes you can’t roll back and the latest firmware is that which is more up to date and bring the whole line of their routers into one line for updates which is the correct way to go. unfortunately people are impatient, and they want everything now, and there’s the problem and it’s the same here too. Their latest release is fine, you can’t roll back and support for third party stuff is not what it was and that upset users but that’s how it is. It’s more complex as they want code from any line used in all lines so upgrading is from one unit to another can be handled which is not something most routers support and I’m not sure if they will win there. sadly their breach is a concern to all companies where honesty and confidentiality exist. We have no right in knowing what goes on internally which many wanted to know. I say it as I see it, that’s how I am and I look at both points of view. there is no offence intended but I say it as I see it. Their latest update is out, are you not on it. That went through a lot of testing, lots of issues were seen and solved which is what others do when beta testing. It was completed very quickly and there were several releases into the new line. In the early days to update you had to SSH in till they got to a set firmware, I hated that and yes it’s been a long ride. Their QoS failed to work for a year for PPPoE users and is finally working again. you should try the latest and try with one of their APs as you don’t have the control with third party APs. Saying you will never use them again then hoping problems are solved is not the way forward. Their beta is open to all and is a simple sign up and interesting if you are into this type of technology. You can do the same with Netgear which I’ve helped in the past. The more you get involved the more experience you gather over a range of products and different technology till you get to a point where you settle in to what you want to do. Glenn will probably ask you to update to latest firmware as support will have ended on the old firmware now. they do a few WiFi 6 APs, the enterprise one is pretty good which I use and has 6E. They also produce WiFi 6 mesh points but they do run hot built on the same form factor as the ones you have. Their APs are known as steady but don’t have the coverage of say the likes of NG who produce a few units with very good hardware for the WiFi side. Mesh on the Unifi is not great and they don’t use a dedicated backhaul channel so latency is an issue. I run a NanoHD in mesh and it’s painfull as the latency is and always will be an issue due to the mechanics of WiFi in such a set up where resources are split doing several jobs. Client talks, APs acknowledge and send receipt, drops sends acknowledgement to main AP and wait for a response, once response is received then wait for another client and the whole process is continuous. Not great for low latency requirements and one poor client can slow down the network very quickly if retransmissions occur. It’s why most wire up. Unifi do have scopes for their AP range and not all have the same output, the UDM for example has low output and dBi is lower than most routers creating a more circular impression. Most of their APs are the same and the likes of NG and others have higher dBi resulting in a narrower beam. You will always require more of their APs to cover a set area. The RAX120 was nice and the RAXE500 has great WiFi too. Ok the 120 was draft but still very good and the 500 has the lowest latency you could want. Im sure Cisco who released the wrong firmware for routers recently felt silly too and the back door that weighed down for many years. Even the top dogs make mistakes so no one is perfect and the recent NG firmware for the CAX line went belly up. Asus had a period of security issues, the list is endless but they all get there in the end. me, well I’ll try most things, I like to see progression using the newer technology but I’ve found my feet and have stepped back a bit waiting for the next leap in WiFi tech. you have an issue with the unit maybe, with QoS on you should be able to hit roughly around 800 with 80%. You could go higher but 80% is a rough starting point. If you need to alter the parameters of priority then it can’t be done on Unifi sadly. That would be fine if you have a very busy network. It’s the threat management IPS/IDS that hits the throughput too on early firmware and that’s over 3Gbs now that issue is sorted. With a Gb you should not require QoS unless you have large amounts of clients pulling huge amounts all the time. Did you try limiting devices as well rather than using Smart Queues? When I had issues other users were testing and hitting well above 700. What version of the board do you have? What switch are you using? here’s a test on a UDM pro. Notice the comments about priority. Here he correctly tests throughput at 80% and gets almost 800 with it on. When you set the limit it will always be under in tests ie set to 50 you will get around 47 or 800 you get around 770. At some point you will have to take the leap of faith and update and then see if your issue remains.

What AP were you using out of interest? what versions are you on, controller and network? which interface did you set the UDM up on? FQ CoDel is fine, the CPU and non set values work just fine and no different to any other QoS as the chipset has plenty of grunt to handle that and threat control at over 3Gbs. Cake uses less resources. There’s been very little problems as it moves to 3.0, it’s those that had installed packages that have issues as it’s not built on containers. Other issues are not having the right controller firmware before updating. At no point did they say Cake was being added but if there’s a link I’ll be interested in it. if you knew your stuff you could have added Cake but the kernel would be a problem with Unifis updates. There is sources out there under GitHub but since it offers little and as it will not play ball you would be stuck on old firmware. Some of their older routers had it but only due to being more friendly on resources due to hardware specs. adblocking on the UDMSE and UDR is out, very basic feature, that’s due when the pro and base get 3.0 which is not long. It’s not a killer feature and more basic than Netdumas version. if you have a link to your support thread I’ll be interested in seeing what’s going on.cheers. Cisco have had issues with firmwares, no different apart from better support and you have licences, there’s plenty more out there like Juniper that are as good but are thousands more to deploy. did you roll back the firmware and retry and if so how did you do that?

They are more complex, not for most as it’s easy to mess them up if you don’t understand the settings. Nowadays it’s very stable where they were once very messy.

What issues have you got with a CPU running at that percentage? Are you seeing a degrading service or is it just you are seeing 35%?

I sure hope clients support 2.4Ghz. I wanted to expand on your post. You would want your smart phone on 5Ghz really as they tend to eat up throughput and will slow down 2.4 creating higher latency plus 2.4 is normally the most congested thus lowering throughput and increasing client time connections. networking is not just about gaming ie. Devices on 2.4Ghz. It’s about the appropriate connection type vs distance, allocation and security. IoT are the weak point as security is often lower than other clients hence why it’s a good idea to separate them. Of course you need better equipment to ensure firewalls are in place so communication over a set VLan can take place while isolating over Vlans to protect the network which is not something NG or Duma can do as you can’t access firewall rules. worth noting IoT tends to be WiFi 4 and so AX or Mi Mumo is not supported. Latency is tested to WAN not just over WiFi. Mu Mimo is not easy to test and due to other clients vs streams running 2 devices at the same time will be hit or miss as other non MU clients join, leave, join. the R2 does not support mu mimo and some routers when a client with mu mimo joins will revert down on streams on some routers. Some of NGs revert from 4x4 to 2x2 which then makes mu mimo redundant as it’s a one client (2x2)at a time connection. You can’t prioritise Mu Mimo clients over WiFi. so a typical house has 10 devices and a mixture of other clients makes Mu Mimo almost impossible to test and see any benefit other than having a button on the UI for on and off which domestic routers tend to have. Once you step up that option disappears as we know it’s not an environment we can control to that degree. sadly none of the NG Duma routers have enough streams to see a benefit of Mu Mimo if you have more than 2 clients. the R2 should be fine with the quest. You should be able to hit a throughput of around 460 up and down which was fine on my Quest. Latency will bob about a little but it’s still acceptable. If you can’t reach 200 or have a latency issue we can try to find out what’s going on. are you using the quest 2 as a single client for your PC connection? If so the SXR2130P will not see any benefit with Mu Mimo on even with the chipset supporting it. https://www.snbforums.com/threads/why-you-dont-need-mu-mimo.41716/ The link above is quite good, lots of interesting info found there. Broadcoms vs Qualcomm implementation is different too. Add client implementation and it’s a mess where Mu Mimo has not set standard of performance. It’s why some routers have the setting off as it can effect performance as per the thread I linked too. Sadly Mu Mimo like many marketing ideas does not always deliver but looks and sounds like it’s needed.

It should be your primary email address and password can be anything, I use BT as my password.

That’s the link to opt out. Just wish they would disable the WiFi on their routers if you opt out. I stayed in then just removed their router.

There is no opt out of the free WiFi from the UI, can you see if it’s broadcast if you use a WiFi analyser? your other photo looks like an ONT, do you have the BT voip service ie. Home phone. If so if you don’t use their router you will not be able to have your home phone. what’s the model number of the homehub?

Is this BTs business router version as their home hubs don’t offer DMZ? on the home hub they broadcast free WiFi, worth checking that’s disabled but I believe it still broadcasts but is hidden.