2.5gbe port logistics?

[jsmiddleton4]

Not sure logistics is right word but it gets close.

Now that I have a router with 2.5gbe WAN port and a router with the 2.5gbe port to make the most use of the highest speed tier for our area Xfinity I’ve been thinking about how this actually works for home networks.

Even if I have wired devices with 2.5gbe capability, I have one, I hit a bottle neck in trying to actually use 2.5gbe on my home network.

The 2.5 port is being used as the WAN. Every other port is 1 gb. Which means the wired connections are maxed at 1 gb. If I use the 2.5gb port on the router for my LAN, I lose the 2.5gb for the WAN and its back to the 1gb max. Right?

No matter what I do only one section of my LAN/WAN is 2.5gb.

Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of 2.5gb?

To take full advantage of 2.5gb don’t we need one 2.5gb that we can use for the WAN and at least one 2.5gb we can use for the LAN?

The only avenue that can take advantage of the 2.5gb WAN data flow are wireless 5ghz 6 AX and 6ghz 6E clients. Right?

 

[ColinTaylor]

To take full advantage of 2.5gb don’t we need one 2.5gb that we can use for the WAN and at least one 2.5gb we can use for the LAN?

You're thinking of it only in terms of one LAN client talking to the internet.

More typical is your 2.5Gb connection into the router, which feeds multiple LAN clients with an aggregate bandwidth of up to 2.5Gb. But no one (wired) client can transfer faster than its 1Gb connection.

Alternatively, connect the 2.5Gb port to a local NAS (also with a 2.5Gb port). Then multiple LAN clients can transfer data to/from the NAS up to an aggregate capacity 2.5Gb.

 

[appleseed]

Asus really needed at minimum (2) 2.5Gb ports for WAN and LAN. It's kind of silly. Manufacturers including Asus offering motherboards with 2.5Gb, along with Gigabyte, Comcast, Netgear, and multiple ISPs....and then makes a router with only a single 2.5 port.

There are $400+ routers out there with 10G WAN/LAN and might negotiate with 2.5Gb/5Gb but then you have to use tranceivers which get hot and sometimes unreliable.

I keep checking this subforum to see if anyone has info on upcoming releases this fall/winter.

 

[Adooni]

from users point of view we will need it in 10years maybe. Asus can do it for commercial point of view.

average in the world internet speed is a bit above 100Mbit https://www.statista.com/statistics/896779/average-mobile-fixed-broadband-download-upload-speeds/
this mean that for most users (95%+) even routers we have now AX86U for example it to fast/ good
rest are professionals and prefer to made they own router using miniPC etc.

just about example RMerlin was downloads from main page 15k times and we have 7.8kkk people at our planet This mean that your needs are niche

 

[jsmiddleton4]

You're thinking of it only in terms of one LAN client talking to the internet.

More typical is your 2.5Gb connection into the router, which feeds multiple LAN clients with an aggregate bandwidth of up to 2.5Gb. But no one (wired) client can transfer faster than its 1Gb connection.

Alternatively, connect the 2.5Gb port to a local NAS (also with a 2.5Gb port). Then multiple LAN clients can transfer data to/from the NAS up to an aggregate capacity 2.5Gb.

Nope. Take that 2.5gbe LAN port to a 2.5gbe switch, which are down to just over 100 bucks now, and have a big 2.5gbe group hug.

WAN at 2.5gb, modem at 2.5gb, one 2.5gbe LAN port. I can join LAN ports on my equipment, just a few switches. But only practical where the location and those accompanying cables can run short distances. I'm not pulling yet one more CAT cable to the office on the other side of the house.

My ISP is running between 1.2 and 1.5gbs not 100 Adooni. Nice dismissive attitude though. You'll do well in a corporate position.

"But no one (wired) client can transfer faster than its 1Gb connection."

You do know that's my point yes?

 

[ColinTaylor]

"But no one (wired) client can transfer faster than its 1Gb connection."

You do know that's my point yes?

I must be missing your point. If you were already aware of the different scenarios where 2.5Gb throughput can/cannot be achieved then I don't understand the reason for your post. Or were they just rhetorical questions?

 

[thiggins]

My ISP is running between 1.2 and 1.5gbs not 100 Adooni. Nice dismissive attitude though. You'll do well in a corporate position.

No need for personal attacks. @Adooni 's point is valid. He even quotes a current source.

Many (the majority?) of users don't even use the Ethernet LAN ports on their router. One consumer router maker once told me they even considered making a router with no LAN ports to save cost at one point. Obviously, they didn't follow through.

Perhaps Wi-Fi 7 will bring multi-gig 1/2.5/5 ports to both WAN and LAN. But with those speeds, Ethernet ports could be used even less.

 

[jsmiddleton4]

"I don't understand the reason for your post. Or were they just rhetorical questions?"

Because you can't do any of that with 1 2.5gbe port on the router.

"Ethernet ports could be used even less."

I think that's the driving design principle. And my wifi6 clients are taking advantage of greater than 1 gb speeds.

And there was no personal attack. Just an observation regarding taking a dismissive approach. And while his statistic is accurate it is not universal. Just because an average is so throttled doesn't mean all of us have a throttled pipe line to the great wide web.

 

[Adooni]

I work for corporation at specialist position

but I was not plan to offend you just wrote that this way world work - company are makin money not selling to billionaires but selling 1kk and more to middle class.

If you look what we have in router/switch business very often switches have 10Gb or 25Gb port as "WAN" and each user is connected to 1Gb LAN. Idea is that with 2.5Gb WAN and 4 users connected to LAN 1Gbit each - even both in the same time can use top speed.

I am not talking about companies that have 100-1k employers. but for me personally even few years ago I was like you just go with higher speed. I had for myself 1Gb than 500Mb, now I have 300Mb and in 2 months I move to new flat where I will have 150Mb. I truly do nor see need to have more. Yes Poland as poor EU country have very good internet (as infrastructure was places not long time ago) but going outside I very often hit speed below 50Mb even. I was connected 15y ago to 10Gbit internet - you cannot image how much my PC costed then

I checked and my friend in UK that have 75Mb internet can play w/0 any issue and Bufferbloat Grade A+, watching 4K movies, streaming etc.
Companies that have few hundreds employees have 1Gb internet connection.

Why we as home users need 2.5Gb Eventually we would need to buy routers with WAN 10Gb because 1Gb WAN parts will not be available but will we truly need it.

for example Synology Mesh Router MR2200ac have 1WAN and 1LAN- world is going to direction to be wireless but until 1LAN will be available my PC gaming machine will be always connected via cable

 

[jsmiddleton4]

Now that I've banged around regarding routers with a single 2.5gbe port my "issue" is not a one-off. Lots of others with same issue and same complaint.

Also learned a bit. I'm still confused about 10gb ports can't do 2.5gb? Its either 10 or 1?

 

[ColinTaylor]

I'm still confused about 10gb ports can't do 2.5gb? Its either 10 or 1?

The IEEE only approved the 802.3bz (NBASE-T) standard in September 2016. Chipsets that actually support that standard would have been produced sometime later and would be more expensive. So any existing 10Gb chipsets that don't support 802.3bz will only be able to operate at 10Gb or 1Gb (or 100Mb).

 

[HellDiver]

It's pretty simple to me, 2.5GBe WAN, inbuilt WiFi doing 1200Mb each way to WiFi6 clients, and then 1Gbe to the wired network. It's very easy to saturate the 2.5G WAN if you're using the WiFi6 and ethernet heavily.

 

[jsmiddleton4]

Thanks Colin. I had been chatting with Asus tech support about how to use the 2 10g ports on the 89X. The 10g t-base port can handle multi-speed. The SFP+ is 10 or 1. If going to use a 89X the typical setup is T-base to modem, SFP+ to switch. Unless there's 10G internet. Which some have but not most.

In the scenario like mine, seems like others, with 2.5gb wired clients is 10GB SFP+ port to a switch with 10G SFP+ Uplink and 2.5gb ethernet ports. They're out there. Both they and the 89X too expensive at this point. WAY too.......

I still don't understand why IF you use a 2.5gb copper transducer in the SFP+, copper Cat cable you'd not have 2.5gb? Seems to me if you did so could run to one of the reasonably priced 2.5gb hubs and boom, you have a 2.5gb wired network.

If you go directly to the 89X SFP+ port okay, get it. Doesn't the transducer/transreceiver change that?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078SNK1MY/?tag=snbforums-20

There's these kinds of things too.

XT-705A 10G/5G/2.5G/1G/100M Copper to 10GBASE-X SFP+ Media Converter - Planet Technology USA

The XT-705A Media Converter is equipped with one 10G/5G/2.5G/1G/100BASE-T auto-negotiation port and one 10GBASE-X SFP+ slot. Speed: 10G BASE-T to 10G BASE-X SFP+ Optical Interface: *SFP module required and sold separately* Installation: DIN Rail or Wall Mount Power Requirement: 5V DC, 2A...

planetechusa.com

 

[jsmiddleton4]

Or this. This seems to be perfect to pair with the 89X. Mix of 1gb clients, 2.5gb clients, etc. Could run to a 2.5gb switch if needed. Thing is just over 100 too. Wow.....

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B084MLC83G/?tag=snbforums-20

 

[jsmiddleton4]

Just say no......