# Isolating Tivo traffic from hogging internet speed?



## 1max2nv (Nov 29, 2010)

I have one cable modem and one wireless router currently. All 3 Tivo boxes are wireless via usb network adaptor and a PC running Tivo desktop is connected to the router via cat5. Now when the wife transfers her HD programming from any of the Tivo boxes to the PC it slows down the wireless internet connection for all other devices on this wireless router. Basically I can't play my Call of duty online when the wife is transfering her TV shows to her desktop. How do I keep all the transfer traffic from the Tivo boxes and the one PC separate from all other wireless devices?

Buy a wireless access point and hook up all the Tivo related stuff to it? Or is it something I can configure with my current router?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Connect your computer to the router using cat5 or get a separate access point just for it.

This assumes you are playing on a different computer than the one with TiVo Desktop on it. If that is not true, then it may not be the wireless, but the PC itself not keeping up with both tasks.


----------



## 1max2nv (Nov 29, 2010)

The problem is that I can't hardwire to the router since it's PS3 that's running wireless. It's way too far from the wireless router.

This is what I have in mind.

Keep the current wireless router for various internet connection needs. Buy a wireless access point and give it another SSID. Connect the wireless access point to the wireless router via cat5. Reconfigure all the Tivo boxes to go to this wireless access point and her desktop hardwired to this wireless accesspoint. Her desktop doesn't have wireless network card. Would I need to turn off the DHCP for the wireless access point? I don't think I can because I think the Tivo boxes needs IP addresses.



CuriousMark said:


> Connect your computer to the router using cat5 or get a separate access point just for it.
> 
> This assumes you are playing on a different computer than the one with TiVo Desktop on it. If that is not true, then it may not be the wireless, but the PC itself not keeping up with both tasks.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Wireless access is not recommended unless it is absolutely necessary, and definitely not for video. Performance and reliability are both problematical on wireless systems. That said, and with the clear understanding you may encounter any number of problems, a wireless solution may be possible. Understand the following:

1. Modern wired connections are switched. This means that trafic from A -> B does not travel the same path nor impact the bandwidth from C-> D, or even mostly from B -> A. The maximum total available bandwidth (under ideeal conditions) is N x K, where N is the number of hosts, and K is the wire speed. A 24 port Gig switch, for example, can hypothetically transfer up to 24,000 Mbps.

2. Wireless connections are hubbed. This means any traffic from A -> B uses bandwidth from the shared pool connecting all the hosts together. There is also a great deal more overhead, so an 802.11g network is doing well if it manage a maximum total of 45 Mbps. Note that the acknowledgements in a TCP/IP network usually run about 15-20&#37; of the payload, so a total throughput of 45 Mbps probably only means about 40 Mbps in payload.

What you are attempting to do is create two different LAN segments and connect them via a switch. This certainly can be done. Most access points have the ability to bridge the electrical side and the wireless side of their networks. A bridged network has the ability to deliver packets from one side of the network to the other without a layer 3 intermediary (i.e. a router). This means devices on both sides can have the same subnet and still talk directly to each other as far as each is concerned. (They aren't, of course, but they don't know that.) This also means that only 1 layer 2 server of any particular type is generally allowed. In this case, we're talking about DHCP. Since the bridged networks look like a single network segment at layer 2, only 1 DHCP server shoud be left on. In many cases it may not matter much which device acts as the DHCP server, but in some cases a router may refuse to forward packets to a host not in its host table, so it's probably best to either disable DHCP altogether and employ static addressing, or else leave it enabled on the router and nowhere else.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

1max2nv said:


> I don't think I can because I think the Tivo boxes needs IP addresses.


Personally, I use static IP addresses on all of my devices, Tivo included.

You should be able to turn off DHCP on the new AP and use the DHCP from the router. One LAN needs only one DHCP server. That's not to say it will work though, I have an interesting problem in one of my segments here where ARPs aren't making it through an AP for some reason.

You could also see if one of your devices (such as the offending PC) could be downgraded to 802.11b. That'd limit traffic from that device down to 11 Mbps. I've never tried doing that myself though.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

1max2nv said:


> The problem is that I can't hardwire to the router since it's PS3 that's running wireless. It's way too far from the wireless router.


I don't follow this. first of all, what do you mean by "too far". Cat5e can carry Ethernet 100 meters, or over 300 feet. That's a pretty good little way. A pair of fairly inexpensive fiber media converters will easily allow 1Km. If it is access, rather than distance, that is a problem, it's another matter.



1max2nv said:


> Keep the current wireless router for various internet connection needs.


OK so far. Most internet routers have four or five wired ports.



1max2nv said:


> Buy a wireless access point and give it another SSID. Connect the wireless access point to the wireless router via cat5.


'Still with you so far. Most access points have one wired port, although most routers can also be configured as access points.



1max2nv said:


> Reconfigure all the Tivo boxes to go to this wireless access point


'Still with you. You now have 1 wireless segment with a PS3, a three or four open ports on the router, and one segment with some TiVos on it. (It would definitely be better for the TiVos to be hard wired.)



1max2nv said:


> and her desktop hardwired to this wireless accesspoint.


Here's where you lost me, I think. I got that the PS3 is "too far away", but what's the issue with hard-wiring the others?



1max2nv said:


> I don't think I can because I think the Tivo boxes needs IP addresses.


Every host on the network requires an IP address. Most hosts, however, including the TiVos, support static addressing.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Personally, I use static IP addresses on all of my devices, Tivo included.


Static addressing allows the most control for the admin, and may be necessary for servers. DHCP is more convenient, bu is only necessary if a device on the network cannot employ static addressing. There are some such devices, but most do support static addressing.



1max2nv said:


> You should be able to turn off DHCP on the new AP and use the DHCP from the router. One LAN needs only one DHCP server.


Actually, one subnet only needs one DHCP server. A LAN may encompass many subnets. My home LAN does, for example. It's unlikely the OP wants to employ multiple subnets, though.



1max2nv said:


> That's not to say it will work though, I have an interesting problem in one of my segments here where ARPs aren't making it through an AP for some reason.


Yeah. That's why I prefaced my response above the way I did. The OP should realize we aren't guraranteeing him useful results. It may work. It may not work well, or perhaps at all, especially with consumer grade boxes.



1max2nv said:


> You could also see if one of your devices (such as the offending PC) could be downgraded to 802.11b. That'd limit traffic from that device down to 11 Mbps. I've never tried doing that myself though.


A mixed network is less efficient. Perhaps more importatntly, I wouldn't like to try real-time transfers from the PC to the TiVos over 802.11b.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Actually, one subnet only needs one DHCP server. A LAN may encompass many subnets.


Point taken, a slip in terminology on my side.

Although actually a multihomed server (Linux or Windows) with the proper configuration can use a single DHCP server to serve multiple subnets, but that's getting a little off-topic.



lrhorer said:


> A mixed network is less efficient. Perhaps more importatntly, I wouldn't like to try real-time transfers from the PC to the TiVos over 802.11b.


In theory, it would be similar to rate-limiting the Tivo. That's assuming the router doesn't downgrade everything to the lowest common denominator. I haven't kept up with the latest and greatest in wireless protocols, so I don't know what routers do in practice.

A managed switch is another option, albeit more than most users would want to configure. Back when I was using Vonage, I used a managed switch to keep Vonage working properly even with large downloads happening on the wire.

You're correct though that the best solution is just to separate the traffic.


----------



## Playloud (Jan 6, 2008)

1max2nv said:


> The problem is that I can't hardwire to the router since it's PS3 that's running wireless. It's way too far from the wireless router.


As somebody else mentioned, the max length for ethernet is 100 meters (about 330 feet). If you are in a house, I can't stress enough how nice it is to have the whole house wired. In my house, we run lines through the attic to each room.

In my room, I plug in the Ethernet cable from the router to an 8 port gigabit switch that I use to connect all my devices (wired)...

1. TivoHD
2. Slingbox
3. Gaming Computer
4. [email protected] Computer
5. Laptop Computer (much faster than wifi for large file transfers)
6. PS3

If you live in an apartment, and absolutely cannot drill holes to wire every room, then I agree that your best bet is to set up a separate Wireless Access Point on a different WiFi channel from your router.

However, if it is at all possible, hook that PS3 up via a wire. WiFi isn't great for gaming IMHO.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Playloud said:


> ...If you live in an apartment, and absolutely cannot drill holes to wire every room, then I agree that your best bet is to set up a separate Wireless Access Point on a different WiFi channel from your router...


I say look into MoCA before going wireless if an apartment dweller (as I am).


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

1max2nv said:


> The problem is that I can't hardwire to the router since it's PS3 that's running wireless. It's way too far from the wireless router.
> 
> This is what I have in mind.
> 
> Keep the current wireless router for various internet connection needs. Buy a wireless access point and give it another SSID. Connect the wireless access point to the wireless router via cat5. Reconfigure all the Tivo boxes to go to this wireless access point and her desktop hardwired to this wireless accesspoint. Her desktop doesn't have wireless network card. Would I need to turn off the DHCP for the wireless access point? I don't think I can because I think the Tivo boxes needs IP addresses.


Seems to me it would be much easier to put the PS3 on the new access point rather than the DVRs and doing so will give you the exact same results. (Either way is actually fully equivalent, so the only real difference is the number of boxes you have to set up to use the new wireless SSID) There is no need to make it harder than necessary.

Wireless access points don't do DHCP, they use the DHCP from the router. All you are doing is creating two non-overlapping wireless segments of a single home network. This part is important; make sure the wireless access point and wireless router are on different channels, preferable at least 5 channels apart from each other if using wireless G. They should also be on channels that don't overlap other nearby wireless networks from neighbors. Modern routers and access points will automatically find the best channels, but if all channels are bad, then you may get poor performance on one of the wireless networks. If you can use wireless N and the 5GHz band for the new wireless segment, it is much less likely to be congested, but that may not always be the case as your neighbors also upgrade to N.

This scheme will cause the two wireless segments to be switched, see LRHorer's comments above for an explanation of that. So this will help with your problem assuming there are no other wireless networks nearby on any of the channels you are using.

Suggestions to use powerline, MoCA, or other wired networking technologies are good. They really can make a network much more bulletproof. So shop around for something like MoCA if it will work for your setup and doesn't cost a whole lot more than a wireless Access Point. The reduction in frustration you will get from using a wired solution is worth every penny.


----------



## grafton (Nov 28, 2010)

ditch the wireless for the ps3, get a Ethernet to power line converter.

as others have said wireless speed is shared between each device connected, and when the tivo's are using it they use most of the bandwidth up. Also just setting up a second AP will not completely solve your issue there will still be "interference" between the 2 wireless networks

with the power line tech you'll have a much more stable connection for the ps3 and it's a lot easier to set up and manage than worrying about dhcp and extra AP etc...

quick search netted this :
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122360

good reviews and not too bad on price


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Personally, I use static IP addresses on all of my devices, Tivo included.
> 
> You should be able to turn off DHCP on the new AP and use the DHCP from the router. One LAN needs only one DHCP server. That's not to say it will work though, I have an interesting problem in one of my segments here where ARPs aren't making it through an AP for some reason.
> 
> You could also see if one of your devices (such as the offending PC) could be downgraded to 802.11b. That'd limit traffic from that device down to 11 Mbps. I've never tried doing that myself though.


I've used Linksys WAP54G's in a similar environment. These AP's have three different modes out of the box. A bridge, a Client, and an AP. In AP mode you can connect the device to a router and everything connected to the AP's SSID will work as if it's on the same network. Using one of these is one way to add wireless to a network that didn't have it before or to add a separate wireless network. In the past I used one for G service in the house while allowing the router to continue it's B service to all the legacy devices in the house. DHCP works as normal from the router or other DHCP server. The AP does not have a DHCP server.

As for DHCP...For several years I've used a separate DHCP server with reservations for all my "static" devices. Essentially, once I identify a device on my network I assign it a reservation so that the DHCP request always returns the same IP address I've previously configured. Makes it easier for me since I can manage all the devices in my house from the DHCP server rather than individually.


----------



## 1max2nv (Nov 29, 2010)

Thanks for all the info guys. It looks like the Powerline AV solution is what I need. I really just care about my PS3 speed and not so much about the speed of the Tivo traffic.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

1max2nv said:


> Thanks for all the info guys. It looks like the Powerline AV solution is what I need. I really just care about my PS3 speed and not so much about the speed of the Tivo traffic.


If you can, borrow one first to see how well it performs, or purchase one with a decent return policy. It may have just been poor wiring in the apartments I lived in, or poor quality equipment I bought or borrowed, but I was not satisfied with the powerline solutions. I've been nothing but happy with MoCA, with coax outlets in all the rooms I would want/need network access.


----------



## westside_guy (Mar 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Wireless access is not recommended unless it is absolutely necessary, and definitely not for video.


Tivos don't pull data that fast - modern wireless works fine. I've used it for years with my Series 2 and Tivo HD boxes. 802.11g worked well, and 802.11n works well. I've tested transfer rates against wired Tivos, and never saw a speed increase. The Tivo's ability to consume bits has invariably been the limiting factor, whether it's Tivo-to-Tivo or something like pyTivo or streambaby.

If someone has trouble with a Tivo on a wireless network, there's probably something else going on - it's doubtful the issue is actually the wireless network itself (unless there's a configuration issue).

FWIW I don't think Tivo's wireless adapters are particularly good. I *did* have occasional issues with them.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

westside_guy said:


> Tivos don't pull data that fast - modern wireless works fine.


It works like ass. The speed is not the issue; reliability is. In particular, the TiVo seems to get confused when any Zeroconf packets go missing (which is inevitable with WiFi), leading it to drop HMO and HME servers from the menus. (I don't fully understand why this is happening, so I still have some hope that it can be worked around at the server end. But I can say that 100% of the many people who report this problem seem to be on WiFi.)



> _If someone has trouble with a Tivo on a wireless network, there's probably something else going on - it's doubtful the issue is actually the wireless network itself (unless there's a configuration issue)._


If you live in the middle of nowhere, you might find WiFi more reliable. Otherwise, the primary issue is interference -- so yeah, technically not the network itself, but rather all those other networks in the area that interfere with it.


----------



## westside_guy (Mar 13, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> It works like ass.


Well, sweeping statements aside - I've been using wireless with my Tivos for a long time and haven't run into these problems you believe to be endemic, either with MRV or pyTivo/streambaby.

I'm not an apartment dweller - but there are generally 1-2 other wireless networks visible from my house, so it's not a case of having a completely isolated network either.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

1max2nv said:


> I have one cable modem and one wireless router currently. All 3 Tivo boxes are wireless via usb network adaptor and a PC running Tivo desktop is connected to the router via cat5. Now when the wife transfers her HD programming from any of the Tivo boxes to the PC it slows down the wireless internet connection for all other devices on this wireless router. Basically I can't play my Call of duty online when the wife is transfering her TV shows to her desktop. How do I keep all the transfer traffic from the Tivo boxes and the one PC separate from all other wireless devices?
> 
> Buy a wireless access point and hook up all the Tivo related stuff to it? Or is it something I can configure with my current router?


Put all the TiVos on one router. Put another router between that router and your cable modem, wired connections on both sides. Connect your computer(s) to that second router. If both routers are going to be wireless, set them for different channels, SSIDs, passwords, etc.

That way the TiVos can talk to each other through one router without tying up the other router that handles internet traffic, and go through that first router to the second router to the cable modem when they need to call the mothership for program guide info.

If the XBox wireless connection is mostly for internet connecting, make the router connected to the cable modem a wireless and let the XBox connect to it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

1max2nv said:


> Thanks for all the info guys. It looks like the Powerline AV solution is what I need. I really just care about my PS3 speed and not so much about the speed of the Tivo traffic.


Powerline only works on the same wired system. For instance in my current house we have three distinct areas served by three breaker boxes. Powerline doesn't work between them, so if your house has had any additions made to it where a separate box is installed the powerline won't be able to bridge the gap.


----------



## Ready4TiVo (Sep 16, 2004)

I have a seemingly basic question: I am setting up a MoCa system, using two Actiontech (Verizon FiOs) routers. With all of the forums detailing how to do it, I think I've got that covered. What I don't seem to get yet is: if my iMac upstairs is hard-wired via ethernet to the main router, and the TiVo downstairs is (will be) hard-wired to the second router downstairs, will TiVoToGo no longer work between the TiVo box and the iMac?

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum or this is a question asked and answered. Point me to the correct thread if so.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Ready4TiVo said:


> I have a seemingly basic question: I am setting up a MoCa system, using two Actiontech (Verizon FiOs) routers. With all of the forums detailing how to do it, I think I've got that covered. What I don't seem to get yet is: if my iMac upstairs is hard-wired via ethernet to the main router, and the TiVo downstairs is (will be) hard-wired to the second router downstairs, will TiVoToGo no longer work between the TiVo box and the iMac?
> 
> Sorry if this is in the wrong forum or this is a question asked and answered. Point me to the correct thread if so.


Will those 2 routers be connected to each other in any way?


----------



## Ready4TiVo (Sep 16, 2004)

unitron said:


> Will those 2 routers be connected to each other in any way?


I believe that's the plan.They have to "see" each other for the original plan - to get off the wireless network - to work. That's how I understand it.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Ready4TiVo said:


> I believe that's the plan.They have to "see" each other for the original plan - to get off the wireless network - to work. That's how I understand it.


I had to go Google Wikipedia to find out what MoCa is.

So are both of those ActionTec routers going to be connected to the same coaxial cable that your cable TV comes in on? (I assume Verizon provides you with some kind of box that changes fiber into regular telephone line and regular TV co-ax). Do they connect through that co-ax to whatever the FIOS equivalent of a cable modem is?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Ready4TiVo said:


> if my iMac upstairs is hard-wired via ethernet to the main router, and the TiVo downstairs is (will be) hard-wired to the second router downstairs, will TiVoToGo no longer work between the TiVo box and the iMac?


It will work fine as long as they're on the same subnet. I had this setup for a while.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

wmcbrine said:


> It will work fine as long as they're on the same subnet. I had this setup for a while.


If you have 2 routers on the same subnet, does one have to be downstream of the other (If you disconnect the internet feed from one, the other is also cut off), or can it work if they have separate, independent connections to the internet interface (what I'd ordinarily call the cable or DSL modem, but I'm not sure how the FIOS setup works)?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

There Can Be Only One.™

It's not hard to configure the second router as a MoCA adapter. If you can't figure it out, I believe there are instructions somewhere in the Fios group FAQ at DSLReports.com. To clarify, though, they would both connect to the same RF lines, split (with a splitter that can pass bidirectional signals!) in whatever manner is needed. MoCA is very flexible topologically, compared to traditional Ethernet setups.

There is no real equivalent to a cable modem. In Fios, the optical signal comes into (and goes out of) a big box with a laser in it called the Optical Network Terminal, or "ONT". Usually this is attached on the outside of your house. The ONT converts between optical and electrical signals, providing conventional phone, digital cable, and Ethernet outputs. In a typical Fios setup today, the Ethernet port is not used, and the incoming Internet data is passed to the router over MoCA. However, you can ask that the Ethernet port be used instead, so that you can use your own non-MoCA router.

In my case, I actually use the Actiontec as my router, but have the WAN signal coming in over Ethernet anyway (it gives me options for the future, and it improves latency), while I also have a second Actiontec that connects to the first over MoCA, to provide Ethernet to another room.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

westside_guy said:


> Tivos don't pull data that fast - modern wireless works fine.


I regularly transfer in excess of 45 Mbps to and from my Tivos, sometimes simultaneously on two different TiVos, not to mention all the other netwrik traffic. Network utilization sometimes exceeds 1.5 Gbps.



westside_guy said:


> I've used it for years with my Series 2 and Tivo HD boxes. 802.11g worked well, and 802.11n works well.


Then you are unusually lucky.



westside_guy said:


> I've tested transfer rates against wired Tivos, and never saw a speed increase. The Tivo's ability to consume bits has invariably been the limiting factor, whether it's Tivo-to-Tivo or something like pyTivo or streambaby.


How many transfers did you have going during your test? How many wireless hosts / Access Points? What other network traffic?



westside_guy said:


> If someone has trouble with a Tivo on a wireless network, there's probably something else going on - it's doubtful the issue is actually the wireless network itself (unless there's a configuration issue).


I've never even bothered to try.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> Put all the TiVos on one router. Put another router between that router and your cable modem, wired connections on both sides. Connect your computer(s) to that second router. If both routers are going to be wireless, set them for different channels, SSIDs, passwords, etc.


Why a router? I don't really see the point.



unitron said:


> That way the TiVos can talk to each other through one router without tying up the other router that handles internet traffic


If all the TiVos are on the same subnet - which is what you seem to be suggesting, then they won't talk through the router when communicating with each other in any case. TiVos that are not on the same subnet don't talk to each other very well, if that is not what you are suggesting.



unitron said:


> and go through that first router to the second router to the cable modem when they need to call the mothership for program guide info.


Adding an additional routing path / NAT element to the mix makes no sense at all. Putting all the TiVos on a switch makes some sense. It's also much cheaper than a router.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> If you have 2 routers on the same subnet, does one have to be downstream of the other (If you disconnect the internet feed from one, the other is also cut off), or can it work if they have separate, independent connections to the internet interface (what I'd ordinarily call the cable or DSL modem, but I'm not sure how the FIOS setup works)?


I'm having trouble envisioning what you are asking. What constitutes "downstream"? How do you propose one would set up a network so that one router is "downstream" of the other, especially if they are on the same subnet? By definition, every host on a subnet has direct layer III access to every other device on the same subnet. Devices on a single subnet are generally connected via layer II devices such as switches, hubs (very rare these days), or in some cases a bridge. Two hosts can be directly connected via a crossover cable, of course.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> I'm having trouble envisioning what you are asking. What constitutes "downstream"? How do you propose one would set up a network so that one router is "downstream" of the other, especially if they are on the same subnet? By definition, every host on a subnet has direct layer III access to every other device on the same subnet. Devices on a single subnet are generally connected via layer II devices such as switches, hubs (very rare these days), or in some cases a bridge. Two hosts can be directly connected via a crossover cable, of course.


I've got a piece of CAT5 running from my cable modem to a Linksys BEFSR41's Internet jack. Connected to the '41's 4 other jacks are 3 computers and a cable that goes to one of the 4 grouped jacks on a Linksys WRT54G, where a Series 1 with a TurboNet card and a Series 2 are connected and another Series 2 connects to it wirelessly.

I consider the 54G to be "downstream" from the 41, since it (and anything connecting through it) has to go through the 41 to get to the Internet.

My theory here is that if the S2's are doing an MRV, they do it though the 54G without having to drag the 41 into it, so that the 41 has more of its resources available to intermediate between my computer(s) and the cable modem.

It also comes in handy for letting an MRV transfer continue uninterrupted when I have to reboot the 41 and the cable modem to re-establish internet connnectivity (Earthlink over Time-Warner, I'm looking at you).

Of course it's always possible that I have no idea what I'm doing or talking about and it's just blind luck that my setup works. : - )


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> I've got a piece of CAT5 running from my cable modem to a Linksys BEFSR41's Internet jack. Connected to the '41's 4 other jacks are 3 computers and a cable that goes to one of the 4 grouped jacks on a Linksys WRT54G, where a Series 1 with a TurboNet card and a Series 2 are connected and another Series 2 connects to it wirelessly.


There's no real reason for you to have the BEFSR41. It's functions are all duplicated by the WRT54G. I would eliminate the BEFSR41 and add a workgroup switch to the "back" side of the WRT54G. Alternately, you could add an access point and a switch to the BEFSR41. The way you have it now, the router of the WRT54G is not being used, at all, but you do have two switch realms.



unitron said:


> I consider the 54G to be "downstream" from the 41, since it (and anything connecting through it) has to go through the 41 to get to the Internet.


Logically, the WRT54G consists of a 6 port switch, a NAT router, and a wireless access point. One port of the switch is attached internally to the access point. One port is attached internally to the NAT router. On the other side ( "upstream", if you will ) of the NAT router is the WAN port, which ordinarily faces the internet - although evidently not in your case. Any non-broadcast traffic with a recognized destination MAC address going from one port of the switch to another port of the switch does not appear at the NAT router, the AP, or any of the other four ports of the switch. Any host attached to either one of the external switch ports or coming in via wireless connection is only "downstream" of the router with respect to the Internet, not anything else. Said traffic between those two ports does not impact the bandwidth on any of the other four ports. Only broadcast traffic or traffic with an unknown destination MAC address arriving on one port of the switch is broadcast out all five other ports on the switch.

The BEFS41, OTOH, consists of a NAT router and a five port switch (one port being internally attached to the router), with no AP.



unitron said:


> My theory here is that if the S2's are doing an MRV, they do it though the 54G without having to drag the 41 into it, so that the 41 has more of its resources available to intermediate between my computer(s) and the cable modem.


Uh-uh. If all the TiVos are on the switch ports, then their traffic is already sequestered from the wireless and the internet connections. This whether they are on switch ports of the BEFS41 or the WRT54G. If one host is on the BEFS41 and the other on the WRT54G, then the traffic will eat up bandwidth on the link between the two, but not in either router. Since wireless traffic bound for either the internet or a host on the BEFS41 must share that same link, they could impact each other. That's one reason a single switch with more ports is preferred.



unitron said:


> It also comes in handy for letting an MRV transfer continue uninterrupted when I have to reboot the 41 and the cable modem to re-establish internet connnectivity (Earthlink over Time-Warner, I'm looking at you).


That's a different matter. Such problems should be rare. The last time I rebooted my router was when it failed completely and had to be replaced. Before that, it was a long-term power outage. In fact, I don't even have a separate modem and router. I have a Wireless Cable Gateway which incorporates a DOCSIS modem, a NAT router, and a wireless AP. It doesn't have additional built-in switch ports, but then I have a 24 port managed gig switch, so I wouldn't be using them if it did. I suspect eliminating one of the devices you mention will help with the reboots. Using a switch outboard of the WRT54G router would allow your MRV to continue as long as the MRV is not wireless. If you add an AP and a switch to the BEFSR41 and get rid of the WRT54G, then rebooting the BEFSR41, as you say, will have no effect on the other equipment.



unitron said:


> Of course it's always possible that I have no idea what I'm doing or talking about and it's just blind luck that my setup works. : - )


I just think you have some misapprehensions concerning how the traffic flows in your system, and probably concerning what a switch does and how it works - including the little six port switch embedded in your WRT54G. You can get an idea by looking at the little link lights while doing some tests. If you attach a couple of hosts (with no automatic internet processes) to the switch ports and two via wireless, you can see what is happening. Continuously ping one wireless host from the other and you will see the wireless activity light flash every second, but none other (except probably the WAN light, as traffic from the internet will frequently hit the router without anything going on behind the firewall). Ping one wired host from one wireless host, and the wireless light and the one wired port light will flash once every second, but nothing else. Ping one wired host from the other and the two wired lights will flash. Ping the internet from one host, and its light and the WAN light will flash.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> There's no real reason for you to have the BEFSR41.


Sure there is, I need more than the 4 ports on the 54 and I got the 41 cheap.



> It's functions are all duplicated by the WRT54G. I would eliminate the BEFSR41 and add a workgroup switch to the "back" side of the WRT54G.


How about if I eliminate the 54 and add a workgroup switch to the back of the 41? At that point I'll have an already paid for 54 I could use at that position instead of having to go out and buy something else.

The rest of your post indicates that you know a lot more about this stuff than do I, or that I'm likely to know any time soon, if ever (I ain't gettin' any younger).

If you know of a way to utilize the internet jack of either of my routers to couple to the other, instead of leaving it empty and having to lose the use of one of the other 4 jacks for clients, I'd be very appreciative of finding out about it.

Why Linksys couldn't have made it easy to do that, increasing their product's versatility (and likelyhood of being used with another Linksys product), at what I suspect wouldn't have been all that much greater an expense, is beyond me.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Forgot to mention the following in my other post.



lrhorer said:


> That's a different matter. Such problems should be rare. The last time I rebooted my router was when it failed completely and had to be replaced. Before that, it was a long-term power outage. In fact, I don't even have a separate modem and router. I have a Wireless Cable Gateway which incorporates a DOCSIS modem, a NAT router, and a wireless AP. It doesn't have additional built-in switch ports, but then I have a 24 port managed gig switch, so I wouldn't be using them if it did. I suspect eliminating one of the devices you mention will help with the reboots. Using a switch outboard of the WRT54G router would allow your MRV to continue as long as the MRV is not wireless. If you add an AP and a switch to the BEFSR41 and get rid of the WRT54G, then rebooting the BEFSR41, as you say, will have no effect on the other equipment.


You're right, such problems should be rare, and they were, for about a year and a half, until a short but very muscular thunderstorm blew through here one morning a few months ago.

I took the modem back to TWC and swapped for an identical model that afternoon. There was a guy in line right behind me from my neighborhood doing the same, except he had a different model modem (and got a *different* different model in exchange) and he's got RoadRunner from TWC, and I had moved my dial-up Earthlink account over to TWC's wires.

His service was back up a little later that afternoon.

Mine didn't get restored until around midnight.

(I suspect there was never anything wrong with the first cablemodem)

As I have explained over and over again to the Earthlink and TWC script monkeys (who always want to dump me off to each other), the problem isn't on my end of the cable. I've gotten to where I don't bother to call unless things stay down for several hours, it's just too much hassle.

Sometimes even a hard re-boot of router and modem don't fix anything and I have to fall back to dial-up while I wait a few hours for whatever it is that happens on their end to restore service.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> Sure there is, I need more than the 4 ports on the 54 and I got the 41 cheap.


I mean from a network standpoint. Yours isn't exactly a horrible solution, but a single switch is both more efficient and effective. You can get an 8 port 100M dumb switch for $10 from NewEgg. They also have an 8 port 1000M dumb switch for $30.

Two 4 port switches tied together gives you 6 usable ports. If we have 3 computers on one switch talking to 3 computers on the other switch (but not to each other), the total bidirectional throughput would be 200M, or about 33M per computer, Unidirectionally. If we replace the two 4 port switches with an 8 port switch, We can have 8 computers, not 6, and each computer can do (best case) a full 200M bidirectionally with all 8 PCs communicating flat out, and no restrictions on which PC can communicate with which other PC for maximum througput. Make it a Gig switch, and the maximum theoretical throughput jujmps to 16,000 Mbps (2000 per PC). Of course, real world it's exceedingly difficult to actually saturate a Gig switch, but trying to push more than 33M on 3 PCs simultaneously is not all that difficult.



unitron said:


> How about if I eliminate the 54 and add a workgroup switch to the back of the 41? At that point I'll have an already paid for 54 I could use at that position instead of having to go out and buy something else.


I don't understand what you mean. How can you eliminate the 54 and then turn right back around and use it? How can you add a workgroup switch unless you buy it?



unitron said:


> The rest of your post indicates that you know a lot more about this stuff than do I, or that I'm likely to know any time soon, if ever (I ain't gettin' any younger).


Well, that's not surprising since I do it for a living.



unitron said:


> If you know of a way to utilize the internet jack of either of my routers to couple to the other, instead of leaving it empty and having to lose the use of one of the other 4 jacks for clients, I'd be very appreciative of finding out about it.


Not a reasonable one, no. Unless you want to create two different subnets in your house and firewall one from the other, there's no reason to employ a second WAN port anywhere. Indeed, unless you want at least two subnets, there is no reason for more than one router, period.



unitron said:


> Why Linksys couldn't have made it easy to do that, increasing their product's versatility (and likelyhood of being used with another Linksys product), at what I suspect wouldn't have been all that much greater an expense, is beyond me.


For the same reason GM doesn't build cars with one steering wheel in the front facing forward and another in the rear facing backward. By fully intentional and inflexible design, the WAN port is firewalled from the LAN ports. The router employs Network Address Translation so that multiple hosts on the LAN side can appear as a single IP address on the WAN side. Otherwise, your ISP would have to charge you for each and every PC you have connected to the internet, and we would have run out of IPV4 addresses years ago. NAT, all by itself, alleviates most autonomous threats from the internet. Add in firewall code (something like iptables) that prevents specific access through the firewall even from inside the LAN going out, and you have a very inexpensive security solution. It's the whole purpose of the WAN port.

As to the expense, you are asking Linksys to implement code that allows the user to turn a $70 router into a switch that could be had for $10, only with greatly inferior performance to the $10 switch. To be sure, the firewall and NAT could be disabled, and the WAN port could be bridged to the LAN ports, with almost an order of magnitude poorer performance on the WAN port than the LAN ports, but why bother?


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> Uh-uh. If all the TiVos are on the switch ports, then their traffic is already sequestered from the wireless and the internet connections. This whether they are on switch ports of the BEFS41 or the WRT54G.


True but _possibly_ misleading. My understanding is that many home switches have backplanes that can't handle simultanious full speed transfers between all ports. (IOW an 8 port gigabit switch doesn't have 8 gigabits of internal transfer ability)

So even though the traffic is isolated (a packet sniffer run on your computer won't see any packets moving between two TiVos), if the sum total of the traffic on a switch saturates its internal backplane then transfer rates for the network get impacted anyway.

In that (probably very rare) situation splitting a group of devices that talk almost exclusively to themselves, but at very high bandwidth, out onto a physically seperate switch _could_ somewhat improve network throughput for the other devices back on the original switch.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

I've seen some of those things which look like harmonicas in the back where one port could be used either as a regular port or as an uplink port to another one of them (I've got a couple around here somewhere that run at 10 instead of 100), so it seemed that it wouldn't have been all that difficult for Linksys to have defaulted the internet port to being an internet port but included a way to re-route it as another "regular" port to conserve real estate.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> True but _possibly_ misleading. My understanding is that many home switches have backplanes that can't handle simultanious full speed transfers between all ports. (IOW an 8 port gigabit switch doesn't have 8 gigabits of internal transfer ability)


Most switches these days, even the cheap ones, are non-blocking. There are a few that are not - mostly older ones - but they are getting less and less common. Your point is well taken, though, and if the switch does not say it is non-blocking or else specify a certain forwarding rate, then it is best not to assume it is non-blocking, especially if it is a very cheap switch. OTOH, one of the cheapest from NewEgg is a 5 port Rosewill 100M switch which by its specs supports 148,000 packets/sec at 100M or 14,800 packets/sec at 10M. While not non-blocking, 148,000 pps with an average 512 byte packet size is 606 Mbps. A non-blocking matrix would allow 1000 Mbps. As previously mentioned, actually flooding a 100M switch is quite a challenge, so the difference between a higher quality non-blocking switch and a cheaper, more limited switch is not great enough to be a serious issue on a home network.

Note also I don't knwo whether the 4 port switches in the Linksys routers are non-blocking or not.



Jonathan_S said:


> So even though the traffic is isolated (a packet sniffer run on your computer won't see any packets moving between two TiVos), if the sum total of the traffic on a switch saturates its internal backplane then transfer rates for the network get impacted anyway.


It's certainly possible, although again it's not going to be a continuous situation even with the cheapest switches, and even the cheapest switches will handle better than 200 Mbps on the backplane.



Jonathan_S said:


> In that (probably very rare) situation splitting a group of devices that talk almost exclusively to themselves, but at very high bandwidth, out onto a physically seperate switch _could_ somewhat improve network throughput for the other devices back on the original switch.


Indubitably. The best practice, however, is KISS. If the network is of a sufficiently small extent that a single switch can handle all the traffic, the best practice is to buy a large enough switch to do just that. The next best thing is to get switches with high bandwidth uplinks. The next best after that is to move all the lower speed devices to a single, more economical switch with a high speed uplink and all the higher speed devices to a more powerful switch.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> I've seen some of those things which look like harmonicas in the back where one port could be used either as a regular port or as an uplink port to another one of them (I've got a couple around here somewhere that run at 10 instead of 100)


An uplink port is not a WAN port. They are completely different animals. Older switches did not have auto MDI / MDI-X ports, so for the uplink port (also known as an inter-switch port), they either had a little pushbutton switch that internally rewired the uplink port from MDI-X to MDI so it could be used as either a regular switch port or an uplink port without the need for a crossover cable, or else they had the uplink port of the switch wired to two separate jacks, one wired as MDI and the other as MDI-X. Quite some year ago manufacturers started producing inexpensive chips that allow every port on the switch to automatically configure itself as MDI or MDI-X depending on what is required. That killed off both the pushbutton and the dual jack uplink port.

Many more modern switches have one or two uplink ports that support much higher speeds than the rest of the ports on the switch. Many, for example, have 1G uplink ports with 10/100M network ports.

Neither of these situations, however, is even remotely like a WAN port on a NAT router. The WAN port is designed to have a routable IP address on it with a NAT firewall between it and the LAN ports, all of which presumably have a non-routable address visible to them. The job of the router (surprise, surprise) is to route packets between the non-routable subnet on the LAN side of the router and the (usually) routable subnet on the WAN side of the router, blocking any packets not related to communications requested by the hosts inside the firewall.



unitron said:


> so it seemed that it wouldn't have been all that difficult for Linksys to have defaulted the internet port to being an internet port but included a way to re-route it as another "regular" port to conserve real estate.


Thereby defeating the fundamental fucntion of the router. Of the literally millions of internet users out there, it is entirely possible you are the only one who would consider this to be useful. Like I said, rather than worry over the fact Linksys (and no other manufacturer, for that matter) did not see fit to provide a way to change a $70 router into a particularly bad version of a $10 switch, just get the $10 switch.

Ferchrissake, already.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> As I have explained over and over again to the Earthlink and TWC script monkeys (who always want to dump me off to each other), the problem isn't on my end of the cable. I've gotten to where I don't bother to call unless things stay down for several hours, it's just too much hassle.
> 
> Sometimes even a hard re-boot of router and modem don't fix anything and I have to fall back to dial-up while I wait a few hours for whatever it is that happens on their end to restore service.


The first suspect is level issues on the CATV plant. You need to have them come out to measure RF levels, balancing the plant and possibly replacing one or more bad components. Once good levels have been established, they can look into data equipment problems, if the symptoms persist.

Hint: see if you can establish a correlation between outside temperature and modem problems.


----------

