| 1 |
I have net by cable with nominal speed 200Mbps. The ISP provides a |
| 2 |
modem/router Netgear (from Numericable). I disabled the WiFi and I |
| 3 |
have 2 computers connected via ethernet to the router. The speed is |
| 4 |
about 156Mbps (measured by http://www.speedtest.net), which seems to |
| 5 |
be what to expect. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Now, having a device provided by the ISP to act as router seems to be |
| 8 |
good for people who trust both the ISP and the manufacturer. (Please |
| 9 |
comment if I'm being too paranoid.) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So, I setup the router to work in bridge mode and connected one of the |
| 12 |
4 lan ports to the Wan port of a secondary router TP-link (Archer |
| 13 |
C1200, Wireless dual band gigabit). It is supposed to comply with |
| 14 |
802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz and 802.11a/n/ac 5GHz. Not that this matters per |
| 15 |
se, as I disabled the WiFi. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The point is: I connected the computers to the lan ports of my |
| 18 |
secondary router (with original firmware, but I intended to install |
| 19 |
ddwrt), and the setup works, except that the speed never reaches |
| 20 |
100Mbps. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Which part is to blame? The secondary router boasts 1300Mbps on 5GHz |
| 23 |
WiFi, so I assumed it could deal with 150Mbps on cat5e ethernet cable. |
| 24 |
The power consumption is about 4.5w, which seems a bit flimsy. |
| 25 |
Or maybe the primary router is thottling speed when in bridge mode? Is |
| 26 |
this possible at all? (And if so, what could be the purpose of such |
| 27 |
measure? *spooky*) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Someone has a similar setup? Any experience with that (TP-link) router? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Jorge Almeida |
Archives