Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Broadband Hardware => Topic started by: kitz on December 18, 2019, 12:03:48 AM
-
I have a problem with my beloved VMG8324 :'(
Things have been a bit strange over the past week or so and although I think I've found out why, I don't think there is a solution which means that I will have to look at getting another router. :( :( :(
Although the 'oddness' which I couldn't quite put my finger on has likely been going on for a bit longer, I just thought perhaps it was me being silly or in respect of the porch light not always coming on it was because the rocker on the wall switch was a bit temperamental.
Things finally started to come to a head a couple of days ago when I got a Blink system. I thought the camera was faulty and had spent ages on the Blink site seeing if I'd done something wrong.. or blaming the home system as being crappy. A few times when the front door detected motion, my Zyxel rebooted itself, so I temp turned off motion detection until I had chance to look further. I uninstalled the camera and then the Home system started playing up saying no internet connection. Messed around updated the firmware, deleted the app and started again. Yay it worked brilliantly inside. Col fixed the cameras to the wall externally this morning and all was fine until I got a delivery this evening and I tried to view who was at the door and puff the whole system went down. So there's me cursing the Blink but didn't have time to look at it as I had to nip out.
Came in this evening, walked through the door asking Alexa to turn on the porch light and she kindly told me "Porch Light isn't responding". Pffft I got someone to replace that wonky switch for me at the weekend so can't blame that any more.
Went into the study and my Show is displaying "No Internet" on the screen. But my Echo and Dot are both up and working fine. Checks the Show - goes into DHCP settings and no IP addresses allocated.
Picks up my mobile and starts to double check my Amazon account settings and purely by chance noticed the little 4G notification flashing away merrily - Hang on a mo.. I should be on wifi. Penny drops - Damnit that may partially explain why for the first time ever I went over my data allowance 2 weeks ago and will be billed an extra £6.50 this month.
Virtual Mars bar to who can guess what the problem is.
-
I will have to sit down and actually count how many wifi devices I have, because at this moment I really don't have a clue.
Bearing in mind I have a Hive system which aside from the boiler and thermostat also controls a fair amount of lights. For example although study lights is grouped it consists of 3 lightbulbs all using their own separate connection with their own MAC addresses
I also have the Echo devices, firesticks, kindle, 2 smart TVs and tablet and about 5 smart plugs.
The killer may have been the smart extension lead I bought on Cyber Monday. I've just found out that has 5 connections - One for the extension lead as a group and 4 for each individual switch. It may just be on one MAC address, but I can't check as the Zyxel GUI wont tell me and packs in displaying anything more than about 10 devices.
On reflection and looking back now, it would have been at around the day I plugged that in when some of the other items started becoming unresponsive. I'd not really thought about it earlier as I'd had another bad fall a few weeks ago but I was far too preoccupied to even ponder on anything technical - and hence why it took me until this week to get around to putting the Blink system into action.
... and just in case anyone hasn't guessed, the reason why I need a new router is this maximum limit of 32 connections. :(
It won't let me change it to anything more than 32 and that will be why not all devices can be online at the same time. The Zyxel just won't allocate IP addresses to them all. The Blink cams are inactive until it detects motion (unless I ask it to stream view) which is why it will always be back of the queue and wont work when I have the lights and xmas decos on as those have taken up all the IP addresses first.
------------
ETA
According to my Alexa app she can control 29 devices. So by the time you add in the smart tvs, a tab and any other mobile devices then I am in excess of the 32 limit.
-
So what exactly is the limit, number of devices? 32 is a pretty pathetic number!
Is it a limit on DHCP leases? I'd just get a Raspberry Pi and install dnsmasq or something on it..?
-
Hi
Sorry kitz, I am a little confused if you mean your dsl provider is restricting to 32 connections or your 8324
If 8324, it maybe the session limit as apposed to max connections
If you goto networking settings, nat, session and delete the session limit (take a note of the figure first) save and restart router
Does this resolve your issue
Apologies if I am wrong
Many thanks
John
-
I had a fairly quick play last night and I can't seem to get more than about 20 devices able to connect at the same time.
The router just stops allocating IP addresses and IP allocation doesn't seem to go above xx.19 when looking at the addresses in arp.
By rebooting the router I was finally able to get an IP for my mobile phone and the Show.. and the camera worked again. However once other devices started asking for an IP the blink cam stopped working. The Blink designed deliberately to snooze and only wakes upon motion detection in range.... so it is going to struggle especially at night when I have the lights in use. It worked fine until dusk last night, which is when some of the other devices are timed to come on.
According to the settings in wireless network the max limit is 32 but I think its not even allocating that many and some devices will only become available when another device is unplugged or switched off. As you say 32 is in itself a pathetic number if you have smart home equipment and can soon easily be exceeded.
I found a thread on the Plusnet forums about their hub zero which wont allow more than 12 devices to connect at the same time and they were having to send out hubones for people with smart home devices. Bob said something about the router was hard coded to not allow more than 16 connections at the same time and it wasn't anything to do with DHCP lease.
I shall have to do some more accurate testing before I can draw a definite figure but right now its looking like its actually less than 32.
I'm also wondering what would happen if I assigned static IPs to each device.
-
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
>>> I am a little confused if you mean your dsl provider is restricting to 32 connections or your 8324
Our posts crossed - its the VMG8324 which wont give out any more IP addresses.
If I reboot the router to clear everything, the IPs are allocated on first come first served basis. Highest I could see allocated was x.19 before it stopped issuing any more.
That 19 includes 2 ethernet connected devices and also bearing in mind it is using x.1
-----
PS Max NAT session is set at 15000
-
Hi kitz
Many thanks and I understand now sorry
I would think then it is the router perhaps that cannot handle more connections due to hardware and of course, when the router was new, there will not have been the same demand for IoT
I would think static assigned ip addresses would not work but would be a good test
I know you prefer all in one due to space/tidiness but a quick resolution would be to use a WAP and have devices use the wap (turn off dhcp on router) and let the wap use just 1 IP address but you would have to put wap on different subnet to router and make sure wap was able to handle more connected devices
We use drayteks and do not have this issue sorry
Many thanks
John
-
Is it a limit on DHCP leases? I'd just get a Raspberry Pi and install dnsmasq or something on it..?
Pi + Pi-Hole = win in this case I reckon. No need to set this all up manually, let someone else do the work.
https://pi-hole.net/
-
Kitz,
As I know you really like the 8324 I'm wondering if an 8924, which is the same thing but with 5GHz wifi added, would alleviate the issue. They are available cheaply from that well known auction site. In theory it should double the number of available connections if you split the devices between the 2.4 and 5GHz bands.
I say 'in theory' as it seems another limit may be in play if you can't get your 8324 to issue more than 19 concurrent IP addresses. :no:
:)
-
I'm wondering if an 8924,
Thanks for the suggestion :flower: I do have an 8924 in my cupboard which I've not yet gotten around to removing the ISP f/w and installing the standard Zyxel fw
My initial thought were that as both use the same f/w that I would come across the same issue. I could see at least 3 devices showing wireless n. The devices which likely could use the 5GHz band will be my mobile devices such as phone and tab which are those I tend to use in summer in the garden, so I'd prefer to leave both options open for those.
Ideally I need to make a list of all the devices and tie them up with their corresponding MAC addresses. I've been slowly accumulating smart home devices over the past 3 years and just letting them plug and play so to speak and it is surprising how many of them I now have.
Pi + Pi-Hole = win in this case I reckon. No need to set this all up manually, let someone else do the work.
Thank you.. I think it may be the way forward then. Note I highlighted router in my post as opposed to modem as I'm aware I could still let the Zyxel manage the dslside.
However this will have to wait until at least after xmas for 2 reasons
1- As you know I had yet another fall a few weeks ago which knocked me a bit out of action for a while and I'm now finding myself totally unprepared for xmas despite me supposedly hosting xmas day dinner for family.., so I have what seems like a million and one things to do.. and then from boxing day my bro is doing the hosting and we're going over there to stay for a few days to enjoy some time with the girls. I think this year will be the last that the youngest still (half) believes in Santa. Being out of action for a while has left me snowed under with site stuff and there's some coding I really need to do when I get a clear head day and I've still to read 580 site emails, 91 personal and bin those that are in the junk folder. The past few weeks just seem to have been a blur of hospital/docs/physio/tests/clinics/more tests/pain -v-morphine haze.. and a growing suspicion as the symptoms progress & materialise that it may be something else* I've got an appt which came through this week to see the consultant in Feb.
2- I don't have a Pi and I would be a total n00b. It wont be until after the New Year that I could begin to think about buying new kit and setting it up. I shall probably require heavily on advice in here from you guys who already have one. Brain fog is a bitch. I know things but struggle to communicate it or put it into action - add it with the fact my feet are constantly numb and my hands are either in pain or numb its no wonder I get frustrated at myself for how long it takes me to do things.
----
Before anyone jumps to wrong conclusions - its nothing fatal. It's a disease which affects the brain and spinal chord.
-
Grrrrr :comp:
Just had a delivery... and as the camera covering the drive and front door must have tried to activate I suddenly heard both the Show and one of my echo dots chime up with "This device is having difficulty connecting to the Internet".
Presumably this will be when the blinkcam detected movement on my drive and asked for an IP, then it must have knocked the other 2 out of action.
I can see that the Blink unit (the control hub) managed to get one of them.
Annoyingly, not even everything is even switched on yet. eg the firesticks and smart tvs are off and I'm not using my Kindle or galaxy tab.
I'd given 'plug 2' a static IP as the router is plugged into that and I sometimes access that remotely.
Look below there's hardly anything switched on atm... yet still the Zyxel wont allocate an IP address to my Show.
Come 4pm and when it gets dark then more things will be wanting to be switched on.
-----------
ETA
I've now only got 5 devices connected and it still wont allocate an IP to the Show despite me rebooting it. Looks like I may have to reboot the router. I've tried disabling and re-enabling wireless but that didn't work.
-
Is it only wireless devices having this problem?
It would be odd to have DHCP limit how many addresses it will give out so low, but WiFi only allowing 20 clients is not at all unusual for consumer hardware from what I've read. I've seen it explained a few times as being the reason why they upgraded to Ubiquiti APs over consumer hardware.
If you can split the clients between 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz manually, you might perhaps be able to get 20 clients on each. I have my LIFX bulbs for example on a completely different AP.
-
Maybe completely irrelevant, as this thread’s not about Billion. Nevertheless, I’ve been looking at how Billion (7800 dxl) configure these limits...
Each SSID seems to have a configurable limit of ‘Max Clients’, that can be set 1-32.
I have two SSIDs, one private and the other for guests. Each SSID is configured to 32 so it does allow me to configure more clients by adding another SSID, 64 in total. Unfortunately I don’t have that many WiFi devices, so don’t know how many would actually work.
More interestingly In Advanced settings there is another parameter, ‘Global Max Clients’, ranging 1-128. Not sure what effect of that is, mine is currently set at 32 which I guess was the default.
As stated, I know the VMG’s not a Billion, above just thrown in for sake of inspiration... :)
-
Kitz I've just been looking at my VMG3925 which I just put back on and it shows max wifi clients as 32 for each 2.4 and 5 ghz, in theory 64 split across both. Now I've looked at the manual for the 8924 (which I also have) and it shows max wifi clients as 16 for each. Now I have no idea whether you can increase this figure on the 8924 and I suspect the 8324 has the same as default. Now I am unable to test whether it makes a difference because I only use the 3925 for connecting my lan devices and I have BT Whole Home WiFi for the wireless stuff and it does not have any max client parameter, plus I probably dont have more than 16 wireless devices in total ;) Should have mentioned the manuals dont say there is a range you can use or what happens if you go over the 16 or 32 values.
Stuart
-
Well what a pile of p00. I've spent the past few hours trying to assign static IPs to MAC addresses and once I got to 12 then the Zyxel refused to dish out any more IPs or reconnect any IPs if 12 devices were simultaneously using the network. That included 3x ethernet connections (PC, Hive and the NAS)
Even using dynamic it seems to remember the lease time and is loathe to let any new devices join the network until the lease has expired or the router is rebooted.
I have a heck of a lot more wifi devices than I originally thought. I'd got to 12 and not even started on the echos/kindle/tab/printer nor any of smart plugs or switches except the one feeding the router itself. Still not got a final total as I keep finding more things I've forgotten about which use wifi.
I'd probably not noticed it too much before as I may not have been concurrently using more than 12 at the same time but the blink system needs at least 3 IPs simultaneously (The cam, the hub and the viewing device). When it comes to the plugs and switches they only need a connection whilst the command is issued and don't constantly hog the IP address... but that may explain why sometimes if I ask it to turn on a group, on the odd occasion then all the grouped devices may not come on.
@broadstairs and 7LM
Thanks - that 32 limit in the wifi settings is totally pointless being there. That was the first thing I tried to change.
The max of 16 is possibly more like it, but 12 is as far as it will go when I add them one by one. I seem to recall reading something on the plusnet forum last night that the max for the hub zero was supposedly 16 but people were also reporting a max of 12. Bob came back and said something about a hard coded limit and not anything actually to do with DHCP. Found the thread again here (https://community.plus.net/t5/My-Router/Is-there-a-12-device-limit-to-connected-devices/td-p/1613710).
This shows the current address resolution. Even though some of the earlier IPs have dropped out of the arp table, the router is still refusing to connect anything on x.13
The GUI will allow me to assign more IPs past .13 but 'something' just refuses to allow them to connect.
C:\Users\kitz>arp -a
Interface: 192.168.1.2 --- 0x4
Internet Address Physical Address Type
192.168.1.1 10-7b-ef-6e-8a-ee dynamic
192.168.1.8 48-6d-bb-b6-eb-0f dynamic
192.168.1.9 a8-54-b2-30-57-76 dynamic
192.168.1.10 c8-02-10-c4-8d-44 dynamic
192.168.1.11 78-e1-03-0f-f4-24 dynamic
192.168.1.12 fc-a6-67-5c-27-92 dynamic
192.168.1.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static
224.0.0.22 01-00-5e-00-00-16 static
224.0.0.251 01-00-5e-00-00-fb static
224.0.0.252 01-00-5e-00-00-fc static
226.178.217.5 01-00-5e-32-d9-05 static
239.255.255.250 01-00-5e-7f-ff-fa static
255.255.255.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static
-
What a nightmare!
Forgive my laymans input, but I have found that WPA2 is a non trivial cryptographic load for these 400mhz MIPS routers... even with only a few wifi devices I have seen 50%+ CPU load during use that disappeared when offloaded to another device. I do not think the wifi client limit is at all related to DHCP.
As a stop gap solution you could add any available wifi routers as dumb APs by disabling their DHCP servers, giving them a non conflicting IP on the same subnet and putting them on different SSIDs. Split 3 ways, channel 1,6,11 (12?), you could cover the houses 30 or so devices.
I'm sure more clever things could be done sharing the same SSID, but if I wanted something to work thats where I would start.
-
@kitz. I think using another router as and AP is the easiest solution. I know where a suitable router is!
I could configure the ranges for you if needed, and helpful
Tony
-
Thanks Guys
Yes I will have to put another router on me thinks and use as an AP.
I've currently got a lot of the plugs pulled out and this morning the Front door cam triggered fine when the postman came and the clip stored fine to the cloud so the Hub managed to grab an IP too, but then the Show dropped out so I couldn't get a live view or if I'd needed I wouldn't have been able to converse over the 2 way intercom.
@Tony thanks - sorry not yet responded to your PM but yes will sort something. I will be parking all day tomorrow around the corner from you, but don't anticipate being home until late but certainly need to arrange some other day. I'm a bit concerned that that router will also suffer the same limitation especially after seeing it happen with the Hub Zeros too. I have a TPlink VR900 which may be worthwhile trying first as that is dual band and has 2 wireless chips, just need to get it out of the loft.
-
Hi
I thought I had better check the draytek for max Wi-Fi connection and found the following
It may help or not sorry
Many thanks
John
How many wireless stations can be associated with a DrayTek wireless router ?
64 client for 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi and 5Ghz Wi-Fi separately. But please be advised that the bandwidth available for each wireless client is retrieved by the total bandwidth divided by the number of clients. Therefore, 20 to 30 is in general the maximum recommended range.
-
That negates my potential solution to use a Draytec as a AP ( @kitz I have some older ones in stock to loan)
It would seem to me a pro-consumer AP is likely the longer term solution and more straightforward perhaps.
Tony
-
Hi
@guise - sorry even the older draytek AP on g should I believe spin upto to 64 clients on Wi-Fi
And this is only for Wi-Fi connections which lans are not included
Sorry if I wrong though sorry
Many thanks
John
-
Pondering this, I would speculate that an AP may want to allocate a non-trivial amount of RAM for each client, to cater for retransmission buffers. I wonder if that may be a factor that in limiting the number of clients, with consumer-grade hardware?
I’ve never looked into 802.11 in detail and I’m not offering to do so now, so above may be utter twaddle or it may not. :)
Edit:
PS: I get the impression this device shows memory usage on a status page. Have you looked to see if it is affected much by the number of attempted WiFi clients?
-
Pondering this, I would speculate that an AP may want to allocate a non-trivial amount of RAM for each client, to cater for retransmission buffers. I wonder if that may be a factor that in limiting the number of clients, with consumer-grade hardware?
I’ve never looked into 802.11 in detail and I’m not offering to do so now, so above may be utter twaddle or it may not. :)
Edit:
PS: I get the impression this device shows memory usage on a status page. Have you looked to see if it is affected much by the number of attempted WiFi clients?
I'd guess no, as the Ubiquiti nanoHD only has 128MB RAM but is supposed to handle 200+ clients under potentially much more complex environments (eg per user rate limiting) than a residential gateway, though granted on a router the NAT table can eat a fair amount of RAM.
I think its more down to the CPU. Its why if baffles me that some people use their router as a NAS, its stealing precious CPU cycles away from routing.
-
Anyone got an idea what I could have done wrong here please as I can't seem to get the Zyxel to recognise the TPlink. I thought this was going to be straight forward but I've been messing with it for hours trying to get it working. *
Zyxel
192.168.1.1
255.255.255.0
- Disabled wireless
- Disabled DHCP
TPLink
- Set IP to 192.168.1.99
- Set operation mode from DSL Mode to Wireless Router Mode
- Enabled DHCP
- Assigned IP pool .100 to .199
- Lease 1440 mins
- Default gateway 192.168.1.1
- Primary DNS 1.1.1.1
- Secondary DNS 8.8.8.8
If I set the Zyxel back to DHCP it still cant find the TPlink. I have even tried putting a rule into the static DHCP table assigning the TPlink's MAC address to 192.168.1.99.
I can get my phone to connect to the TPlink, but there is no routing out on to the Internet.
----
I'm even having intermittent problems connecting to the internet from my PC since I assigned a static IP of 192.168.101 to it (did this to try connect to the TPlink GUI).
Its almost like the Zyxel keeps forgetting what is supposed to be connected and will drop a device. Once an IP has been dropped its horrendous trying to get connected again.
As regards trying to get connected again, that is not new and has been going on for a couple of weeks (See previous mention of phone using mobile data when I thought it was on wifi). It seems to be a constant struggle for an IP to be released in order to get a new connection possibly something to do with lease time?
-----------------
*I'm soooo peed off, cause right now nothing aside from the PC is connected.
Was supposed to be going out for the day to something I'd been really looking forward to for ages.. but was too ill & in pain and so thought I'd do this as it "shouldnt take long".
-
Hi kitz
I could be wrong sorry as I read it quickly but you have both devices set as 192.168.1.1
I assume zylex is modem only not gateway
Many thanks
John
-
TPlink IP is 192.168.1.99
Should that also be the gateway address in the TPlink? I was only trying to use it for wireless access point.
I think I may have tried putting .99 in at one point I shall try again.
---
Edited typo. Sorry.
-
Hi kitz
Sorry your having a bad day
I thought your zylex was 192.168.1.1 and tp link was 192.168.1.99
Is the tp link connected to zylex hardwired
Sorry I thought you were using zylex as modem only
Many thanks
John
-
Hi kitz
Sorry just a thought, have you connected the incoming network cable to correct wan port on tp link
Many thanks
John
-
You could leave DHCP on the Zyxel. No DHCP on the TP link. Sounds like a clash to me. It doesn’t matter where DHCP comes from as long as the device is on the same subnet.
Tony
-
Sorry just a thought, have you connected the incoming network cable to correct wan port on tp link
Sorry relised my typo and corrected it seconds before your post.
Yes tplink is hardwired
>> have you connected the incoming network cable to correct wan port on tp link
There's only 4 LAN ports and I assumed it was LAN1
Just tried LAN4...... and voila!
Thank you. <3
-
You could leave DHCP on the Zyxel. No DHCP on the TP link. Sounds like a clash to me. It doesn’t matter where DHCP comes from as long as the device is on the same subnet.
Tony
Whenever I've set up APs or range extenders before I usually do let the main modem/router perform the DHCP and it doesn't take long to add the other router, which is why I thought this would be a quick job to swap over too. :(
However, this particular time I was concerned about the Zyxel only being able to dish out a limited amount of IP addresses and therefore wanted the TPlink to handle the IPs for the wireless devices. I was afraid that by letting the Zyxel continue to be in charge of DHCP then I may just be making things worse by adding another piece of hardware onto the network which required yet another IP.
The Zyxel seems to come unstuck somewhere around the 12 active devices (inc LAN) mark. From what I've observed it's also not very quick at reallocating IPs from devices it's dropped and seems to hold the dropped IP almost as if its reserved for a while. There can be 'free' IPs showing on an arp query, but the Zyxel wont let them be put back in use for up to several hours later.
-
That’s a fair assumption, and as you have the TPlink going it will be interesting if it’s solved. I usually ( even at home) have DHCP on a server.
It could be an interesting lesson, with the proliferation of wifi devices that’s likely to crop up again with many users. I suspect ISP supplied routers may be even worse !
Tony
-
Lovely. 2 devices & the Blink system up and working so far.
Can't believe I spent all that time thinking it was the settings and in the end it was the network cable in LAN1 rather than LAN4.
Why it didn't cross my mind to think of that - boy am I kicking myself now at the amount of wasted time checking and rechecking settings.
Need to go around the house and swap all connection settings now on about 30 other devices :D
This will only have to be a temporary solution as I'm not 100% happy with the state of the wiring.. and one major thing which I'd forgotten.
The TPlink runs hot - Very hot to the point it was uncomfortable to touch. Granted I'd laid it on its front when I swapped the cables over, but its had nearly an hour to cool down since then. iirc it was one of the points mentioned when we were beta testing them.
-
That’s a fair assumption, and as you have the TPlink going it will be interesting if it’s solved. I usually ( even at home) have DHCP on a server.
It could be an interesting lesson, with the proliferation of wifi devices that’s likely to crop up again with many users. I suspect ISP supplied routers may be even worse !
Tony
I prefer to keep all core networking to a single device (so that server maintainence doesn't kill the whole network), but then that device is running pfSense so its a very different scenario to a consumer router.
-
This will only have to be a temporary solution as I'm not 100% happy with the state of the wiring.. and one major thing which I'd forgotten.
The TPlink runs hot - Very hot to the point it was uncomfortable to touch. Granted I'd laid it on its front when I swapped the cables over, but its had nearly an hour to cool down since then. iirc it was one of the points mentioned when we were beta testing them.
I personally regard ‘running hot’ as a big minus vote.
That’s partly because of wasted energy which equates to increased cost as well as environmental issues. A router that consumes ‘n’ watts, left on 24x7 at current prices will add something very broadly around ‘n’ pounds per year to your electricity bill.
It’s also because one of the most common component failures in low cost consumer equipment is aluminium capacitors, whose life expectancy (dictated by their chemistry) varies exponentially with temperature. Broadly speaking, I believe, capacitor life might be doubled for every 10C drop in ambient temperature.
-
I personally regard ‘running hot’ as a big minus vote.
That’s partly because of wasted energy which equates to increased cost as well as environmental issues. A router that consumes ‘n’ watts, left on 24x7 at current prices will add something very broadly around ‘n’ pounds per year to your electricity bill.
It’s also because one of the most common component failures in low cost consumer equipment is aluminium capacitors, whose life expectancy (dictated by their chemistry) varies exponentially with temperature. Broadly speaking, I believe, capacitor life might be doubled for every 10C drop in ambient temperature.
True, but were talking a watt or two, its fairly insignificant.
The capacitor issue is a fair point, but I had an old Netgear that ran hot and I only had to replace the filter capacitor long after I had stopped using it for normal router duties. I had flashed it with OpenWRT and given it to a friend to automatically connect to BT FON and NAT it, as they couldn't afford broadband. Its kinda unusual that the capacitors in the PSU didn't go first as they almost always run much hotter as they have zero ventilation.
-
True, but were talking a watt or two, its fairly insignificant.
If it were just a watt or two, it wouldn’t be getting hot. A quick search shows that Ispreview measured around 10-14Watts for the VR900, costing in other words, very vaguely, £10-15 -ish per year. Not a major concern if you’ve only one router but adds up if you start deploying extra ones.
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/06/2018-update-best-vdsl-routers-for-uk-fttc-fibre-broadband-isps.html/2
I can’t remember how much my own routers have consumed when measured, but gut feeling is the TP-Link is more than average, consistent with being hotter than average.
-
The Zyxel seems to come unstuck somewhere around the 12 active devices (inc LAN) mark.
I'm wondering if there's something wrong with the Zyxel, as you know in the past I used one at home, and also used one at work and I'm not aware of either having issues* - both networks must have exceeded 12 devices easily.
*Only issues I had was with a couple of Chinese phones which had wifi issues at home, but every other device was fine, although at home I use a separate AP.
-
So far so good as far as the Blink system is concerned and no dropouts on that side. Its picking up activity fine and I live viewed the postman this morning after the alert.. and just this minute next doors cat kindly triggered it whilst walking up to my front door and sniffing the step :D
The TPlink is warm this morning as its now stood on end, centre top its like putting your hand on a radiator which is cooling down. But yesterday I'd left it laid on its front for a short while after I swapped the cable from LAN1>LAN4 and it was blisteringly hot. Even the desk where it had been laid down on was uncomfortably hot to touch.
I spent ages last night putting devices back on, thats a PITA. I did ~16 individual devices and switches.
My NAS is still running from a static IP attached to the Zyxel and the Hive System (9) is also still using a reserved IP.
I still need to do several plugs and a few things I don't use so often such as the printer, so about another 10 to go............
However I'm struggling to get my TV, the downstairs firestick and the sound plate connected as none of them can pick up a signal from the TPlink All these 3 are in a notorious blackspot which has always been problematic. I even wrote about it in the Zyxel review (https://kitz.co.uk/routers/zyxel_VMG8324-B10A_review.htm) "This location was a previous wi-fi dead spot and Id previously had to install CAT5 to get a decent stream to the TV. The VMG8324 totally negates the previous need for a run of ethernet cable." Unfortunately I ripped out the cable about 4 years ago after having new carpet laid. Another trip to the loft is in order to get a long length of CAT5 to temp move the TPlink a bit nearer to try setting it up, but that will have to be for another day.
I'm not really happy with the existing set up and I've got the TPlink in space where I really wanted to keep the Show, purely because I was trying to give some devices best chance of getting a signal. Wireless penetration on the VMG8324 is definitely much better, even if it doesn't have ac.
I'm wondering if there's something wrong with the Zyxel,
Also beginning to wonder - especially after trying to set up the TPlink. I could see there may be as low as 5 active devices listed in arp but it just wouldn't release an IP address to anything new attempting to connect. As I mentioned in previous post, its only recently its been struggling and not always switching on porch light when asked.. and the most annoying thing not giving an IP to my phone when I walk in. Last month I exceeded by data use for the first time ever and once aware I could see that it wasn't giving an IP to my phone and I was continuing to use data when I thought I was on wifi.. and refused to connect until I rebooted the router. Nail in the coffin is the fact the Blink system needs at least 3 IPs to be able to function properly. 9 times out of 10 it was failing to allocate an IP address to the camera once it detected movement. More often than not the way I knew someone was at the door was because the Show and an echo dot would announce "I'm having problems connecting to the Internet". The Zyxel was obviously attempting to release their IPs but then wouldn't give them back either to cam nor the device(s) it took them from.
That said there is definitely a limit and it is small (<16). This limit affects not just the Zyxels and I suspect it may be related to a specific wireless chipset. You can ignore what the GUI says (32) because it definitely will not. I am not sure where the restriction is but Bob Pullen gives a clue in respect of another router
They have however confirmed that the platform configuration is limited to 16 devices on the Wi-Fi interface. This limitation is not at the DHCP layer.
The 16 is still being disputed and several saying its less than that. If you search around then this problem is something beginning to rear its head only over about the past year or so as more people get smart home systems. I read a post on a forum somewhere where someone had said they had in the past written software for wifi devices and it was a limitation of some of the cheaper wifi chipsets. btw he also said something about it not needing much memory or CPU which was something 7LM recently queried. If I find that post again I shall link to it.
-
If it were just a watt or two, it wouldn’t be getting hot. A quick search shows that Ispreview measured around 10-14Watts for the VR900, costing in other words, very vaguely, £10-15 -ish per year. Not a major concern if you’ve only one router but adds up if you start deploying extra ones.
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/06/2018-update-best-vdsl-routers-for-uk-fttc-fibre-broadband-isps.html/2
I can’t remember how much my own routers have consumed when measured, but gut feeling is the TP-Link is more than average, consistent with being hotter than average.
In my experience, almost all routers seem to come with 12v 2A PSUs, pulling somewhere between 12-24W. IMO the biggest difference on how hot they feel is simply how well they dissipate that heat, not that they actually use significantly difference amounts of power to each other.
For example the old Netgear I fixed with a bad capacitor used to feel quite hot and actually used less power than newer routers I own that do not.
-
In my experience, almost all routers seem to come with 12v 2A PSUs, pulling somewhere between 12-24W. IMO the biggest difference on how hot they feel is simply how well they dissipate that heat, not that they actually use significantly difference amounts of power to each other.
For example the old Netgear I fixed with a bad capacitor used to feel quite hot and actually used less power than newer routers I own that do not.
The markings on PSU bricks generally describe the maximum it will supply, a bit like a 13A plug. It does not mean the device will consume that maximum.
Electronics and classical physics is rarely seen as ‘opinion’ these days. If you’re going to challenge it, you’d need some pretty compelling evidence, to be taken seriously.
-
With respect to PSUs, I always assume that any router with a USB connection must have at least 500mA 'spare' for that to use. Thus a router with a 2A PSU and a USB socket would not be pulling more than 1.5A in normal use.
I've no idea if that is a fair assumption or not.
:)
-
With respect to PSUs, I always assume that any router with a USB connection must have at least 500mA 'spare' for that to use. Thus a router with a 2A PSU and a USB socket would not be pulling more than 1.5A in normal use.
I've no idea if that is a fair assumption or not.
:)
That's 500mA at 5V, so let's just call it 300mA at 12V due to conversion losses.
There's also conversion efficiency of any given PSU, so one outputting 1.5A could be pulling way more watts than another.
So sure I admit, its not a perfect example of how much the router will consume as more USB ports = more peak current availability required.
In fact I'm well aware the PSU is a poor example, as some manufacturers under-spec badly, others over-spec. So some will only use 50% the majority of the time, others may use 90%. Some PSUs will run hot due to inefficient design or pushed too hard, others will not.
But my point still stands, I wouldn't judge a router simply by how hot it feels. It may just mean it has a heatsink in that spot with little space between the case and heatsink to allow the heat to dissipate, so it heats up the case more than one with more volume inside or a bigger heatsink. Or the chips that run the hottest may be closer together.
I'm not denying that it "feels" safer if the case feels cooler, but its not necessarily an indication of a router being less efficient than another or even its long-term reliability. What feels hot to the touch is nothing to a silicon chip.
-
That's 500mA at 5V, so let's just call it 300mA at 12V due to conversion losses.
There's also conversion efficiency of any given PSU, so one outputting 1.5A could be pulling way more watts than another.
...
Good point ref 12V - I forgot about that bit. :-[
The design of the PSU is indeed very important and some are certainly a lot better than others.
As most consumer kit is built to a price then I feel that some manufacturers do as little as they can get away with to make sure it is both safe and will outlast the warranty by a reasonable margin.
Like Kitz, I don't equipment that runs uncomfortably hot even though I know that the chips can easily stand it. It particularly concerns me when power supplies run hot as I know that heat and electrolytic capacitors are not good friends.
:)
-
Interesting comparison here, of different routers’ power consumptions based on their own tests and/or manufacturers data. Idle consumption in their comparisons range from about 4W up to about 12W...
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/01/energy-usage-uk-home-broadband-routers-big-isps-compared.html
As linked a few posts back, the VR900 mentioned by Kitz was tested by ISPreview at 10-14W, which seems to be at the high end of things.
I measured my own Billion 7800dxl yesterday, which generally seems to run nice and cool. On a cheap plugin power meter it showed about 6W idle, 7W when streaming an HD movie over WiFi to a TV about 20 feet away, two rooms distant. But that’s without DSL as I’ve a separate modem. All ethernet ports are populated, but wouldn’t have been seeing much traffic when measured.
@Kitz, apols all of this is somewhat off topic. :-[
-
I just checked my Zyxel and it seems the default DHCP range is from .2 to .254 so almost a full /24.
I wonder if you just have a buggy firmware on there or something. Bear in mind also when a device disconnects the IP will effectively be reserved for as long as the lease time value. So you would ultimately need more IP's than devices unless you using DHCP preservation across the board.
-
I just checked my Zyxel and it seems the default DHCP range is from .2 to .254 so almost a full /24.
I wonder if you just have a buggy firmware on there or something. Bear in mind also when a device disconnects the IP will effectively be reserved for as long as the lease time value. So you would ultimately need more IP's than devices unless you using DHCP preservation across the board.
Good, back on topic. :)
I believe the limitation is on the number connected WiFi clients, rather than DHCP clients.
-
I believe the limitation is on the number connected WiFi clients, rather than DHCP clients.
Correct. It appears to be a hardware limitation of the wireless chipset - despite the GUI displaying options up to 32.
It's not specific to the VMG8324 and other routers are also likely to be affected. :(
-
Having been watching these discussions I am now wondering if my BT Whole Home WiFi 3 disc system has a similar issue? Note I have not experienced any issues even when the grandkids are here with their Dad and 3 extra phones. I'd be really upset if it did have these issues. It is crazy in my view for home devices to have these issues as more people are using multiple wifi devices in their homes. Suppliers need to wake up and resolve this, it cannot be difficult to fix but yes maybe they need to throw a few bucks at it and come up with more capable routers etc.
Stuart
-
Having been watching these discussions I am now wondering if my BT Whole Home WiFi 3 disc system has a similar issue? Note I have not experienced any issues even when the grandkids are here with their Dad and 3 extra phones. I'd be really upset if it did have these issues. It is crazy in my view for home devices to have these issues as more people are using multiple wifi devices in their homes. Suppliers need to wake up and resolve this, it cannot be difficult to fix but yes maybe they need to throw a few bucks at it and come up with more capable routers etc.
Stuart
This is nothing new, when there are routers supporting WiFi 5 that only have 100Mbit ethernet and even the Home Hub 5A that has a WiFi chip capable of hitting full WiFi 5 speeds, but an SoC that utterly chokes if you try.
This is what happens when nobody wants to pay for their router and exactly why £300 routers exist, with hardware that CAN handle it. (although somehow they still often manage to mess up the software on those)
-
pfSense and OPNSense are poor at wireless (mainly due to underlying FreeBSD), so I think the best for wifi AP's is perhaps getting something with good hardware "and" is compatible with openwrt. Since I started using openwrt for wifi I havent had anymore issues on wireless.
The problem I have with vendor firmware's is they typically done with lowest cost in mind and support often ends not long after the unit is sold, since they seem to cycle products very regularly.
There is also the deliberate separation of enterprise and home, so it wouldnt surprise me if a 32 device limit was there for that reason. Its the reason we seeing 2.5gbit ports instead of 10gbit ports.
-
Actually there are a few other reasons for 2.5Gbit ports, not least that I suspect SoCs are lagging behind in their integrated support.
Realtek make a cheap chip for that so if you can spare a PCIe lane, then you have one. N-BASE-T switches are still pricey though, thus why you still only get Gigabit LAN ports. :(
Another important factor is 10Gbit runs hot as it uses a TON of power, neither good things for a router. I could cook my dinner on the Netgear GS110MX and it only has two 10Gbit ports.
-
I imagine some of it is maintaining compatibility with existing cabling. 2.5 G works with Cat 5e. 5 G works with Cat 6. Cat 6a or equivalent performance is the recommendation for 10 G.
That and the main driver for 2.5 G - access points being bottlenecked by Gigabit Ethernet.
-
Hi Kitz
Sounds like you might need to move to more "pro" gear. Using consumer grade kit only gets you so far.
If you can then running an Ethernet cable up into the loft and installing a ceiling mounted access point would not only improve range to all devices, but also get you something more professional. Power over Ethernet makes installing something like this much simpler now as you don't need to get power up there, just an Ethernet cable, then inject power into the cable elsewhere.
Use the ZyXel as a modem only and get yourself something like the Netgate SG-1100 for routing, this little thing consumes around 3 watts and is pretty powerful and runs pfSense, it will beat any consumer type router for performance and reliability. You will also need some sort of switch to give you some more Ethernet ports but these can be had cheap enough and also are well optimised now and draw little power.
This will give you something much more pro-consumer/SOHO and easily cope with FTTP faster speeds in the future. We are all only going to need more devices connected in the future.
Regards
Phil
-
I had an odd fault on my Netgear ADSL router a fews years ago. I started having some of the WiFi settings going missing after I had repeatedly put them back in again. So I assumed that my router was running out of memory. Since I had a huge number of devices in the Access Control list, I decided to delete ALL Access Control settings, and the problem went away......
-
The original problem description sounds awfully like ARP table exhaustion.
We ran into this at my previous job where we used a load of consumer-grade access points for temporary field use. We could get about 26 devices running before this sort of oddness crept in. Eventually we got a D-Link engineer to confirm the ARP limitation.
There was nothing in the router's settings or status pages to suggest a limitation - for example, DHCP would happily offer a full /24's range of addresses no problem. It'd just freak out when >26 were in use at once. This sorta makes sense -- there's nothing intrinsic to the WiFi, Ethernet or DHCP implementation that has a limit -- the device simply can't keep more than a few dozen IP-to-MAC entries in RAM at once in order to route between them.
This is one of the many reasons I chose to keep my modem, router, switch and AP duties in separate lumps of hardware.
[edit: I just did a cursory search for VMG8324 and ARP. Looks like the ARP table can at least be viewed via the web interface. Might be worth counting the entries and seeing if you get an 'interesting' number - a power-of-two, or power-of-two-1, or a round decimal number. Also see if the table's missing a device that you're struggling to reach after it's randomly lost connectivity]
[edit2: I see ARP's already been discussed and discounted(?) - never mind me!]