BGW320-500 + SL-SWTGW215AS + RT-AX86U + ORBI(RBR50)

[josep]

Hi everyone. I hope someone can help with this issue. AT&T technical support seems stumped.

I currently have the following network hook-up:

On the Cable Modem:
Fiber -> BGW320-500 (5G ethernet) -> SL-SWTG215AS (port 6, 10G max)

On the Switch:
Port 1: 1 of 2 link aggregation (5G max) [trunk 1]
Port 2: 2 of 2 link aggregation (5G max) [trunk 1]
Port 3: Orbi to extend wifi (1G)
Port 4: Office Computer (1G)
Port 5: RT-AX86U 2.5G LAN port
Port 6: BGW320-500 using 10GBase-T SFP to Ethernet plug (SL-10GE-T)

On the RT-AX86U:
LAN 4: Port 1 switch (1 of 2. trunk1)
WAN: Port 2 switch (2 of 2, trunk 1)
2.5G: Port 5 switch

On the Orbi:
Internet: Port 3 switch
Lan1: NAS1 (synology port 1)
Lan2: NAS2 (synology port 2)

The switch is set up with two VLANs (untagged, unnamed):
VLAN 1: Port 6, trunk 1
VLAN 2: Port 3-6

BGW320 Set to IP PASSTHROUGH, all wifi turned off
DHCP done in RT-AX86U using Merlin firmware , all wifi turned off
ORBI (RBR50) in AP mode connected through the switch supplies wifi to the network with the aid of a satellite ORBI companion (RBS50).

All cables to/from the switch are 3ft cat6 cables. Cable from the NAS to ORBI are a little longer (6ft)
All firmware is current.

A few obvious observations and why the network is the way it is (mostly from evolving over a few years):
1) The ORBI is a little old. It can't possible supply 5G wifi speeds. The best it can do is 500ish...maybe 600 in ideal conditions.
ANS: Yes, I understand. I am in the process of updating to faster speeds, working on this "next".

2) The RT-AX86U can already provide WiFi 6...forget the ORBI.
ANS: I agree, except that the range won't work for my entire house. I have to use mesh or some sort of extender product. I originally used the RT-AC86U for its on-board VPN and routing capabilities only and used the Orbi's for wifi. I just recently upgraded to the AX86U. Maybe I can get rid of the ORBIs but I did not want to take on that work just yet.

The RT-AX86U currently reports 43 clients connected to my network.

Sorry about the long setup to my questions.

Here is my question:

I am having an annoying connection problem in which the BGW320 disconnects from the WAN (flashing red, then back to solid white). Sometimes for just seconds at a time. Sometimes for minutes or hours at a time. Most of the time when I have the issue there is no outage in my area. Sometimes it seems like the modem's errant behavior is foreshadowing an AT&T network outage. Most of the times when it happens it just seems like the modem is misbehaving. It doesn't happen all the time continuously; sometimes everything is working great for a few days or weeks and then the modem gets on the fritz again.

The AT&T tech support is not sure what to make of this modem behavior. They can see on their side that I am having the disconnect issues and they can see that fiber line is working "perfectly". It seems like there is something faulty at the modem, except they have replaced the modem twice already.

Is it possible that the switch could "overwhelm" the BGW320? How do I know if this is the case? It's surprising that something connected to the ethernet ports of the BGW320, even a faulty device, could make the entire modem go down for seconds, minutes, or hours at a time. If the switch is overwhelming the modem, is there something I can do to?

Any ideas are welcome.

Thanks,
Jose

 

[degrub]

1) Does the fiber terminate in an ONT wall mounted or directly into the BGW320-500 ?
A lot of issues with loss of WAN can be fixed by directly terminating the fiber into the BGW in my experience.

2) Does the WAN loss occur if you configure the BGW as router ( no pass thru) with wireless off and all your gear disconnected ?
What happens to WAN loss after you connect your router and LAN to the BGW ?
BTW, double NAT is really not an issue unless you are running a server for external (WAN) access.

This sounds like a ATT field issue with their fiber delivery to your service location. i would bet on the termination in your BGW or the field fiber cable tap. Bad cable or termination somewhere. Field tech should be able to sort it if he can see the WAN disconnect. ATT tries to do everything remotely, but you may need to have a tech visit.

 

[Tech9]

I don't see why all this complication is needed. Also had to google what SODOLA switch is.

 

[degrub]

Squirrel in the fiber somewhere

 

[Tech9]

ISP Gateway suspected issues - test with the Gateway only. What's behind it - irrelevant and AT&T technical support won't care.

 

[degrub]

According to OP, he has had 3 of the same gateway sent to him to sort the issue. None of the replacements solved the issue. That leaves gateway config issue or fiber /termination issue, i think.

 

[Tech9]

Quite possible, but still all the equipment behind the Gateway has to be excluded from the testing process.

 

[josep]

1) Does the fiber terminate in an ONT wall mounted or directly into the BGW320-500 ?
A lot of issues with loss of WAN can be fixed by directly terminating the fiber into the BGW in my experience.

2) Does the WAN loss occur if you configure the BGW as router ( no pass thru) with wireless off and all your gear disconnected ?
What happens to WAN loss after you connect your router and LAN to the BGW ?
BTW, double NAT is really not an issue unless you are running a server for external (WAN) access.

This sounds like a ATT field issue with their fiber delivery to your service location. i would bet on the termination in your BGW or the field fiber cable tap. Bad cable or termination somewhere. Field tech should be able to sort it if he can see the WAN disconnect. ATT tries to do everything remotely, but you may need to have a tech visit.

1) I think the fiber is terminated directly on the BGW320-500. How can I tell? There is a cable running to my office wall to a what I guess is a "fiber port" and then fiber to the modem. Is there a way for me to check? Maybe between the wall of my office and the modem? Should it be terminated at the wall and the modem?

2a) I have not done a lot of checking on whether or not the WAN disconnects without my gear connected. The reason being that such a setup is not useful for my household. As I stated, I have a lot of devices connected. I have connected my office computer directly to the ethernet ports on the back of the modem, but to do so I have to change it to DHCP so it provides an ip address to the office computer. I don't recall the modem crapping out in this scenario, but not a comprehensive test.

2b) I am actually running multiple servers so yes I need to passthrough.

I also think it is a field issue, and they have sent a technician, but he did absolutely no work outside the house at all. He said his diagnostics tests showed everything was working so he didn't have to look outside. He only replaced the modem and the next day it started to exhibit the same symptoms.

Do you think my setup could do something to the modem via the ethernet port to make it disconnect to the AT&T service? Is that even possible?

Thank you for your response.
Jose

 

[degrub]

1) picture of the wall box and cable from wall box to back of BGW ?
It sounds like there is an outside fiber to the wall termination and then another fiber ( if it terminates in the fiber port on the BGW) to the BGW. If you can get a tech back out ask them to terminate the outside fiber directly on the BGW. i have seen a few issues with the intermediate termination approach that were solved by direct fiber from outside cable connecting to BGW. If it was an ONT on the wall, then you would have an ethernet CAT5e or CAT6 cable rather than a fiber cable to the BGW. Did the tech just replace the BGW or the BGW + fiber cable ?

There could be an issue at the fiber termination on the pole with rain getting in if the plug at that box is not fully sealed. But that should correlate with rain/dew events. Rare.

2) On the config side possibility - If the WAN is not lost with the BGW in router mode, then there is a configuration issue somewhere. Possibly in the config of your router for the service type. ATT won't have responsibility. i don't run pass through, so no idea. Try running double NAT for a while. Research setting up static routing rules in the BGW if that is possible.

3) do you have a UPS powering all of this gear - from ONT, BGW, and router ?

 

[josep]

I don't see why all this complication is needed. Also had to google what SODOLA switch is.

To address this point... As I stated in my post, I am getting ready to transition to "faster speeds", hopefully at something around 2G. Getting to 5G means I have to replace my router as well as the WiFi extenders (which I plan to replace in the future).

The switch has 6 ports, 5 are 2.5G ports and 1 is a 10G port. It's somewhat inexpensive compared to other brand names. According to the specs, the switch is a full 45G bandwidth so it's no like other switches that have the ethernet ports but cannot actually utilize all of the ports at top speed. Anything with 5G or more ports is very expensive.

RT-AX86U can provide a maximum of:
1) 2.5G in (from 2.5G "game port" ) and 2G out (via link aggregation LAN1+LAN2)
or
2) 2G in (via link aggregation LAN4+WAN) and 2.5G out (from 2.5G "game port" )
or
3) Mix of the 2 above at 2G both ways, but why?

The BGW320 unfortunately does not do link aggregation, so that's where the switch comes in. Port 6 takes the 2G service (actually a 5G port) from the modem and port 1 and 2 provide a link aggregated 2G into the RT-AX86U. The reason why I chose (1) over (2) is because since port 6 can take up to 10G, I would be future proofing the network up to 10G in. As a side, the switch can aggregate up to 5G using the 2.5G ports. If I ever switch to a router with a 2.5G WAN/LAN, I assume that I would be able to aggregate to 5G just like I do now to 2G with 1G ports.

Port 2 gets the 2.5G from the router and port 3 goes to the Orbi for WiFi and connectivity to the NAS devices. Although the switch can provide 2.5G, the Orbi can only take in a maximum of 1G and provide up to a maximum of 866M on WiFi, so it's definitively a pinch point, but it's still pretty good.

Port 4 was extra, so I connected it to the office computer right next to the router/switches.

Obviously port 1,2, and 6 have to be separate from port 3, 4 and 5, thus the two VLANs

Why not extend the RT-AX86U via AiMesh, you ask? While the RT-AX86U is a fantastic router, it is not so great (in my opinion) for mesh. It compromises WiFi speeds for the mesh backhaul, so I am not so sure I would be getting the best WiFi speed if I actually use the WiFi extended. I could replace it with a "Triband" and I might still do that, but two Triband routers are more than the switch. Also, if I upgrade, I would want to make sure the WAN/LAN ports are at least 2.5G. I have been using Merlin for a very long time, so I have to do some research before I change my trusty RT-AX86U.

Regards,
Jose

 

[Tech9]

2.5G in (from 2.5G "game port" ) and 2G out (via link aggregation LAN1+LAN2)

No single connection will exceed Gigabit. Link aggregation is not 1Gb+1Gb=2Gb.

Why not extend the RT-AX86U via AiMesh, you ask?

I don't. When wire infrastructure is available there are better options than AiMesh.

 

[josep]

1) picture of the wall box and cable from wall box to back of BGW ?
It sounds like there is an outside fiber to the wall termination and then another fiber ( if it terminates in the fiber port on the BGW) to the BGW. If you can get a tech back out ask them to terminate the outside fiber directly on the BGW. i have seen a few issues with the intermediate termination approach that were solved by direct fiber from outside cable connecting to BGW. If it was an ONT on the wall, then you would have an ethernet CAT5e or CAT6 cable rather than a fiber cable to the BGW. Did the tech just replace the BGW or the BGW + fiber cable ?

There could be an issue at the fiber termination on the pole with rain getting in if the plug at that box is not fully sealed. But that should correlate with rain/dew events. Rare.

2) On the config side possibility - If the WAN is not lost with the BGW in router mode, then there is a configuration issue somewhere. Possibly in the config of your router for the service type. ATT won't have responsibility. i don't run pass through, so no idea. Try running double NAT for a while. Research setting up static routing rules in the BGW if that is possible.

3) do you have a UPS powering all of this gear - from ONT, BGW, and router ?

1) There is no ONT on the wall. As I said, there is a "fiber port" at the wall. Is this what you are calling double terminated? The tech just replaced the BGW and not the fiber cable. I asked him multiple times about this and he swears the fiber cable from the wall to the BGW was good.

2) I have not tried double NAT with the BGW. I guess I can try to do that. In the past I've had to set the IP address of the router as DMZ. I also, probably have to figure out how to open certain ports for the servers on the BGW as well. PIA, but yes I've done that before. Passthrough is nice, because you only do it on one place and I am very familiar with Merlin firmware.

3) There are two UPS powering everything. The router and switch are on one. The BGW is by itself on a different one. I've also connected the BGW directly to the wall plug because I read somewhere that BGWs and UPSs sometimes don't fancy one another, but I still saw the problem.

Regards,
Jose

 

[Tech9]

In the past I've had to set the IP address of the router as DMZ. I also, probably have to figure out how to open certain ports for the servers on the BGW as well.

Not needed if your router is placed in DMZ.

 

[josep]

No single connection will exceed Gigabit. Link aggregation is not 1Gb+1Gb=2Gb.


I don't. When wire infrastructure is available there are better options than AiMesh.

Yes I understand that any one client would only see 1Gb... 2 clients would both see 1Gb, thus increasing the overall "effective" speed of the network to 2Gb that can the service can provide. I've seen the "double the lanes in the highway" analogy a few times. Overall it makes the network less "laggy" so I still think it is worth doing in my setup. If I want a single client to see 2G, I have to change my router, of course and that is my plan.

I have not done a lot of homework regarding mesh WiFi architectures, so I can't comment. I believe you that AiMesh might not be the best.

Regards,
Jose

 

[Tech9]

You perhaps also understand your home router has firmware features good for advertising purposes only. Keep it simple and you'll be happier. This specific router has some quirks around 2.5GbE port as well. Different revisions use different chip for it. You may find the Gigabit WAN port more stable.

 

[josep]

Not needed if your router is placed in DMZ.

I just double checked. The BGW does not have DMZ...you have to use IP Passthrough or DHCP and open a bunch of ports and deal with double NAT... yuck.

 

[josep]

You perhaps also understand your home router has firmware features good for advertising purposes only. Keep it simple and you'll be happier. This specific router has some quirks around 2.5GbE port as well. Different revisions use different chip for it. You may find the Gigabit WAN port more stable.

I wasn't aware of any quirks. Can you elaborate? The router was rock solid with my cable modem. My setup only started having trouble when the BGW was introduced... And the router seems fine. It's the BGW that seems to crap out.

Regards,
Jose

 

[Tech9]

I haven't tested any newer firmware releases lately, got bored playing with the same thing over and over again and finding something fixed and something else broken every single time. After ISP change I also don't have a modem anymore allowing 2x routers behind it with 2x public IP addresses. When testing RT-AX86U I've got intermittent WAN instability on 2.5GbE port, firmware features locking up when using it, restricted upload, etc. Basically all previously mentioned intermittent issues by someone else in different threads. The built in SoC WAN port is better. YMMV like with everything else Asus. Last time I used RT-AX86U was as bait to catch the malware damaging it, but my attempts were unsuccessful in double-NAT.

 

[josep]

I haven't tested any newer firmware releases lately, got bored playing with the same thing over and over again and finding something fixed and something else broken every single time. After ISP change I also don't have a modem anymore allowing 2x routers behind it with 2x public IP addresses. When testing RT-AX86U I've got intermittent WAN instability on 2.5GbE port, firmware features locking up when using it, restricted upload, etc. Basically all previously mentioned intermittent issues by someone else in different threads. The built in SoC WAN port is better. YMMV like with everything else Asus. Last time I used RT-AX86U was as bait to catch the malware damaging it, but my attempts were unsuccessful in double-NAT.

OK. Thanks for your input. It's good that I am not using the 2.5G port for WAN, then so I made the right choice. I can attest that aggregation via WAN/LAN4 works very well.

Regards,
Jose