Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Broadband Hardware => Topic started by: Weaver on April 08, 2017, 08:40:26 AM
-
Should I try out a ZyXel VMG1312-B as a modem (not a router)? I can get one configured as a straight modem. Can anyone tell me if they can handle MTU 1500 + 8 = 1508?
Any good things / bad things I should know?
I see that they are full featured:
* They speak SRA (I can only dream).
* Can do RE-ADSL too
* I think they support "monitored tones", which would be an improvement for me, although how significant I couldn't say. Might help stop the general downward spiral of ever-decreasing SNRM?
-
Should I try out a ZyXel VMG1312-B as a modem (not a router)?
Which ZyXEL VMG1312? The older VMG1312-B10A, still being sold by A&A, or the newer VMG1312-B10D?
-
I think they support "monitored tones", which would be an improvement for me, although how significant I couldn't say. Might help stop the general downward spiral of ever-decreasing SNRM?
To follow up on what b*cat says, the B10D is the budget version with a newer but cheaper chipset - BCM chipsets (http://wiki.kitz.co.uk/index.php/BCM_routers).
The VMG8324-B10A, VMG8924-B10A, VMG1312-B10A also include an internal common mode noise filter which is why they may perform better on some lines with certain types of noise and another reason why they are more expensive.
That said Zen supposedly did some fairly extensive testing on the B10D and concluded it performed better than the average modem, but as with most modems sometimes its a case of suck it and see.
-
Any good things / bad things I should know?
Zyxel f/w can be a bit buggy, but the web GUI is extremely feature rich. For a modem intended for the consumer market the config options are more akin to what you would expect from a business grade modem.
Also double check your wifi requirements as to whether you want AC or are happy with wireless-n. That said I dont think I've ever seen any complaints about the wireless N versions which are at the high end and perform better than the average wireless n for range.
-
So the B10A might be the one to go for? Ultimate DSL performance is all that matters.
I didn't know which model it was that AA are selling.
I take it I can get it dumbed down to be just a PPPoE modem, is that correct?
I doubt I'll be able to use wifi, because I am thinking about these devices as my main modems, so I would need three WAPs in client mode to talk to three ZyXel boxes which would give me lightning protection hurrah! But that gets rather messy and extremely wasteful if precious channel space. Unless I put them all on the same channel and let them fight, which might be nasty and I am worrying about collisions. Or I just stay wireful as I am now, which is a lot cleaner, less latency and no channel space wasted. Right now I am using insurance plus spares as my lightning protection (finally got some sorted out, just in time).
So let's say for the moment no wifi, just a very expensive ADSL2 modem and supported by AA which is good because they are then 100% to blame for everything, no buck-passing.
-
I use two B10As in bridge mode as they provide the highest sync on my lines. I've compared them to the HG612, Vigor 130, Billion 8800NL and Netgear D7000. The 10Ds were also inferior. I did have a weird PPPoE issue, but that appears to be fixed with a parameter tweak on the Firebrick. Unfortunately they don't support the larger MTU size. My lines are vdsl, so the performance on your lines may be totally different. Perhaps A&A could ship one to you on approval?
-
I think I should perhaps go for it. It is a nuisance about the MTU though.
-
I'm confused when you say you want to configure it as a modem not a router. If you're setting these up in bridge mode then MTU isn't set from the Zyxel GUI. Your router is where the MTU should be set. Does your Firebrick handle the PPP session, or your D-Links?
I'm not familiar with the VMG1312's, but the VMG8x24's can be configured to use PPPoA or PPPoE(oA).
With PPPoA you can set MTU at 1500.
With PPPoE(oA) you can set MTU at 1492.
-
thanks for the info kitz on the chipset changes, one for sure needs to be careful, this zyxel here is about £50 cheaper than 10A's
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Zyxel-4-Port-Firewall-Integrated-Router/dp/B01DCHV02Y/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1491708100&sr=8-4&keywords=VMG1312-B10A
It says 10A in the product description at the top, but if scrolling down it then says its a 10D. So be careful.
Also it seems the VMG1312-B10A has the same chip as the hg612 according to the page kitz linked to. So if you want the best chip you would need the VMG8324-B10A which now looks like its not been made anymore.
-
The VMG1312-B10A has a Broadcom 63168.
Escape character is '^]'.
VMG1312-B10A
Login: admin
Password:
> cat /proc/cpuinfo
system type : 963168VX
processor : 0
cpu model : Broadcom4350 V8.0
BogoMIPS : 398.33
wait instruction : yes
microsecond timers : yes
tlb_entries : 32
extra interrupt vector : no
hardware watchpoint : no
ASEs implemented :
shadow register sets : 1
core : 0
VCED exceptions : not available
VCEI exceptions : not available
unaligned exceptions : 15143555
processor : 1
cpu model : Broadcom4350 V8.0
BogoMIPS : 402.43
wait instruction : yes
microsecond timers : yes
tlb_entries : 32
extra interrupt vector : no
hardware watchpoint : no
ASEs implemented :
shadow register sets : 1
core : 0
VCED exceptions : not available
VCEI exceptions : not available
unaligned exceptions : 15143555
>
The VMG1312-B10A is much more compact than the 8324 and can be easily wall mounted which may better suit being used as a modem only.
-
I'm confused when you say you want to configure it as a modem not a router. If you're setting these up in bridge mode then MTU isn't set from the Zyxel GUI. Your router is where the MTU should be set. Does your Firebrick handle the PPP session, or your D-Links?
I'm not familiar with the VMG1312's, but the VMG8x24's can be configured to use PPPoA or PPPoE(oA).
With PPPoA you can set MTU at 1500.
With PPPoE(oA) you can set MTU at 1492.
Yes, but the 1312 in bridge mode still has to pass the packets. When I swapped back to them after using the Vigor, which does support the larger MTU size, I forgot to change the Firebrick back to 1492 (from 1500) and had all sorts of issues. Some sites wouldn't load and streaming (Netflix) was completely broken. That was PPPoE. Looking at the configuration options on my 1312, in normal mode the encapsulation methods offered are PPPoE and IPoE, max MTU 1492. In bridge mode there is no choice offered as you say.
-
thanks vic.
-
Looking at the configuration options on my 1312, in normal mode the encapsulation methods offered are PPPoE and IPoE, max MTU 1492. In bridge mode there is no choice offered as you say.
That's for ADSL/VDSL over PTM.
Weaver needs ADSL over ATM.
When ATM is selected the options then change to PPPoA or PPPoE(oA). PPPoA offers a 1500 MTU.
-
Indeed. I had to create a new WAN interface for those options to show up. Thanks for the clarification.
-
At The Cattery, a ZyXEL VMG1312-B10D device is used for a G.992.3 (ADSL2) service, PPPoA, with a MTU of1500.
For my purposes, it is the best modem/router I have ever owned. :)
-
Stupid question, I just can't think of the answer though: could I use it without PPPoEoE, just set it up to do PPPoA on the DSL and then have it pass all IPv4 and IPv6 packets through straight? That would get rid of the PPPoEoE MTU 1492 problem. (If this is doable, I would totally need to redesign the Firebrick config somehow.)
-
Just use PPPoA with 1500 MTU.
You can either have PPPoA with 1500 MTU or PPPoEoA with 1492 MTU.
-
@john I have the luxury of MTU 1508 now with the DLink modems and PPPoEoE -> PPPoEoA because they and the router can both handle baby jumbo frames on the LAN, like the HG612 does.
-
I have emailed AA sales to clarify whether or not they are B10A units that they are selling.
-
Weaver yeah but if you use PPPOA you get native 1500 bytes mtu without a need to use jumbo frames. PPPOA is a superior protocol to PPPOE.
-
I have emailed AA sales to clarify whether or not they are B10A units that they are selling.
From the image on their website, I can identify the devices as ZyXEL VMG1312-B10A.
Zen sell the ZyXEL VMG1312-B10D.
I purchased my -B10D from an eBay vendor as a brand-new, unused, Zen supplied unit, cost £40 and delivered to my local Argos store. All I needed to do was to clear the ROM-D (which removed all Zen customisations) and configure it appropriately for a G.993.2, ATM, VC-MUX 0/38, service.
-
. . . just set it up to do PPPoA on the DSL and then have it pass all IPv4 and IPv6 packets through straight?
Yes, yes, yes and - er - yes! :) That is what I thought you were doing. I now realise, from recent discussions, that you were "trapped in a historic era" (protocol-wise) through lack of knowledge/experience (??) of VC-MUX, 0/38 and were using LLC.
I know of a good informational web-site (http://www.kitz.co.uk/) where LLC (old protcol) and VC-MUX are documented. Please don't ask me to provide an explicit URL as I would have to rummage and dig around . . . :angel:
-
Please also have a read of this forum thread (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,19616.msg345705.html).
-
@Chrysalis - Agreed, PPPoA is indeed far superior. For the one case of 1500-byte long IP packets, now I have woken up to the use of VC-MUX (having rid myself of the idea that it didn't work with BT and PPPoEoA), at least it is just the same as PPPoEoA VC-MUX anyway, because of ATM cell padding. But for many packet lengths, especially short ones, the difference is massive.
The thing is, it isn't quite so simple, the Firebrick may need the config options provided by the use of PPPoE interface objects, in order to define the upstream rate policing and it uses PPPoE I suspect to detect downed interfaces so that it can do failover - it will shift the traffic load seamlessless and very very quickly over to the remaining i/fs or fire up a failover interface such as a 4G USB dongle.
So I might be completely ruining all the reliability and load-balancing feature of the FB.
There's possibly a lot to lose just to get the MTU fixed. And after all, I never had the joy of MTU 1500 in recent years. I lost it when I gave up using an integrated modem-router with PPPoA (my beloved Netgear DG834 v3) and went to separate-box modems because unless you are using a Draytek Vigor you've had it for MTU 1508 on 20CN as I found out after I bought my first DLink modems having used ZyXel separate modems before that. So all during my 20CN days, while I had a separate modem, I was stuck with MTU 1492 PPPoEoA.
Make sense? I would need to ask RevK (with his Firebrick hat on) to confirm this.
-
@vic
Thanks - just noticed that had been there on the wiki since 2013 as the VMG1312-B iirc the original 6368 info may have originally come from openwrt. Im not certain as Ive only had a quick google, but all info dating back to 2013 seems to just say 'B' without an extension.
The info on the modem routers thread (here (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,14436.msg269710/topicseen.html#msg269710)) is and always has been correct. I'll update the wiki in a min.
-
I have emailed AA sales to clarify whether or not they are B10A units that they are selling.
Yes its a B10A, as pointed out by b*cat they look very different. You can tell immediately by looking at whether its a flat (B10A) or upright (B10D) modem.
I also picked up a brand new ex-Zen VMG1312-B10D on ebay for just £15 inc P&P. I had to flash it with standard Zyxel f/w though before putting it on my connection.
-
@kitz - no worries, a useful table which I hadn't actually seen before. :)
@weaver - A&A may be able to supply the VMG1312-B10D too as they sent me a couple to try out during my PPPoE troubles.
-
But just to double check - the B10A is the one I should be going for? (Asks rather belatedly.)
-
The B10A certainly performs better than the B10D on my line so it would be my preference.
-
But just to double check - the B10A is the one I should be going for? (Asks rather belatedly.)
Yes, but unfortunately its quite a bit more expensive.
Plus the caveat that what works best on some lines may not work best on others.
-
Hi
Second Kitz. The B10D is the cheaper made one. The B10A like the 8x24 series has an integrated common mode noise suppression filter, and that is perhaps why they do so well, but the B10D doesn't.
Now this all comes back to what's been reiterated many, many times, there is no one modem you can say is the best for everyone, and no one can design one that is.
The common mode noise filter is essentially a long length of coiled wire, so this is the equivalent of extending your phone line distance, so it may drop your attenuation a little. If your line already has such a filter (perhaps in the NTE faceplate or ADSL filter) that is doing a good job already at removing noise, or you don't have much noise on the line the filter is designed for, this additional filter may cause you to see a slightly lower sync rate without any benefit, especially on your long lines and already low sync rate.
You will only know if you buy and try both, even then out of your 3 or 4 lines, a filtered version may work better on one line and not the other, so you might need a mixture, and will you gain anything worth the effort and expense, I personally don't think so, but ultimately if you have the time and money to try that's your call of course.
Regards
Phil
-
Here
It is written that the chipset in VMG1312-B10D is BCM63138......
http://prodottiperisp.ief.it/files/prova-del-VMG1312-B10D.lwp.pdf
-
I have requested that my VMG1312-B10D discloses its CPU information --
$ cat cpuinfo
system type : 963381_VMG1312
processor : 0
cpu model : Broadcom BMIPS4350 V8.1
BogoMIPS : 598.01
wait instruction : yes
microsecond timers : yes
tlb_entries : 32
extra interrupt vector : no
hardware watchpoint : no
ASEs implemented :
shadow register sets : 1
kscratch registers : 0
core : 0
VCED exceptions : not available
VCEI exceptions : not available
processor : 1
cpu model : Broadcom BMIPS4350 V8.1
BogoMIPS : 606.20
wait instruction : yes
microsecond timers : yes
tlb_entries : 32
extra interrupt vector : no
hardware watchpoint : no
ASEs implemented :
shadow register sets : 1
kscratch registers : 0
core : 0
VCED exceptions : not available
VCEI exceptions : not available
$
The line of interest is "system type : 963381_VMG1312".
Looking at the image, below, I can just make out "BCM63381 . . ."
-
Then the italian review contains a mistake.....