How much delay should I expect running a router behind a router/modem (UVerse 2wire)?

[matt6789]

I'm wondering if I have some settings incorrectly configured. I decided to try running a router behind the required modem/router combo required for UVerse service. I have a DLink 820L cloud router that I connected to the 2Wire.

I usually connect wirelessly with my laptop. It seems that when I connect to the DLink there is more of a delay for page loads. I've connected to the 2Wire and tried pulling up pages then switched over to the DLink and loaded the same pages and there was a noticeable difference in the time it took.

Should there be this kind of delay, about 1-3 seconds?

2Wire HGV3600
DLink 820L, AC1000

 

[stevech]

This is not a good arrangement. Having two cascaded routers creates a DHCP double-NAT issue.

I don't know aobut AT&T and their (expletive) U-Verse, but most honorable ISPs will agree to put their modem/router combo in bridge mode. This disables the router function and passes all traffic straight through to your router. This is as if your router were connected to their modem.

AT&T will argue, resist, say it's impossible. You have to get stern and escalate the problem if you want to run your own GOOD router. Get a better router in the $75 area, 11n, unless you have user devices with 11AC and want to pay the premium.

If you have cable modem service available, run don't walk, to their store and get a deal saying you might change away from the evil ISP you have now.

 

[jlake]

The delay should be no more than 1 or 2 milliseconds.........at the most. If you're getting a delay in the seconds, then there's obviously something wrong...somewhere.

When I test cascaded routers with Att DSL, the delay is on average 0.5-1 millisecond. Which is negligible.

 

[abailey]

When I had Uverse I never got ATT to put it in bridge mode. I did, however turn off its wireless and put my router in the DMZ and it worked pretty well. In fact when testing latency and bandwidth I only saw a 1ms difference between connecting directly to the ATT vs connecting through my router in the DMZ, and no difference in bandwidth.

 

[sfx2000]

This is not a good arrangement. Having two cascaded routers creates a DHCP double-NAT issue.

I don't know aobut AT&T and their (expletive) U-Verse, but most honorable ISPs will agree to put their modem/router combo in bridge mode. This disables the router function and passes all traffic straight through to your router. This is as if your router were connected to their modem.

AT&T will argue, resist, say it's impossible. You have to get stern and escalate the problem if you want to run your own GOOD router. Get a better router in the $75 area, 11n, unless you have user devices with 11AC and want to pay the premium.

Problem with putting a uVerse modem/gateway into Bridge Mode is that it will disable the Wireless TV set top boxes... (which use WiFi)

So to upgrade the household to 801.11ac (or better 802.11n for older 2Wire boxes), one has to put the Router into AP mode, and keep WiFi enabled on the uVerse/FIOS box...

 

[stevech]

Using an Access Point connected by cat5 cable to a LAN port on the AT&T box is what is said above.

Any consumer WiFi router can be reconfigured as a non-routing access point. That does give you better WiFi. If you want better router features and control, you're stuck with AT&T as long as you have U-Verse, since AT&T tells you what is best for you

 

[sfx2000]

Using an Access Point connected by cat5 cable to a LAN port on the AT&T box is what is said above.

Any consumer WiFi router can be reconfigured as a non-routing access point. That does give you better WiFi. If you want better router features and control, you're stuck with AT&T as long as you have U-Verse, since AT&T tells you what is best for you

yah... on the other hand, one can put a router after the GW, and live with the double-NAT, port forwarding where needed...

Perhaps a different approach would be for the providers to provision 2 IP's - one for the GW and STB's, and then offer a direct connection for customer router/AP's - which can be done, I've seen this on ATT DSL outside of the uVerse platform...

sfx

 

[abailey]

yah... on the other hand, one can put a router after the GW, and live with the double-NAT, port forwarding where needed...

Perhaps a different approach would be for the providers to provision 2 IP's - one for the GW and STB's, and then offer a direct connection for customer router/AP's - which can be done, I've seen this on ATT DSL outside of the uVerse platform...

sfx

If you put your router in the ATT DMZ it will give your router the outside WAN IP, but the Uverse router will still work as well, also using the outside WAN IP. That way it is easy to port forward on your router.

 

[stevech]

Opinionated I am, the best solution is to go from U-verse to cable modem.

Then you don't have to live with AT&T's anal attitudes, nor their attempt to run 30Mbps on 30 year old twisted pair that was intended for 4KHz.

 

[abailey]

Opinionated I am, the best solution is to go from U-verse to cable modem.

Then you don't have to live with AT&T's anal attitudes, nor their attempt to run 30Mbps on 30 year old twisted pair that was intended for 4KHz.

I completely agree if that is a choice. I moved to Comcast cable internet and can't believe the difference. I am so much happier. Also I am getting 50Mb down, 10Mb up for the same price I was getting 12 down, 3 up from ATT.

 

[Kris404]

You should put the router Mac address in 'DMZ Plus' mode if you want to avoid double-NAT issues.

'DMZ Plus' mode allows you to configure one device on the network share the public IP.

 

[matt6789]

All, thanks for the help. I connected them with a patch cord when I was trying things out and learning some of this stuff. I didn't realize that having the DLink setup as a different connection would cause that much of a problem. I'll have to pick one to provide wireless since both providing wireless access is the issue.

Steve, I'm with you on 30 yr-old phone wire capability. A few times a year I lose my internet at the perfect temp and humidity(cool and misty or foggy). With rain I'm ok.

I miss cable internet, but around here (outside Baton Rouge) Cox is kinda high. And I refuse to pay their $200 fee for the property going 12 months without Cox service. UVerse 18Mbps is only $30. Cox is $63 for 25Mbps and $74 for 50Mbps.