Noob question - Virgin Media - which router for 2.5GB port

Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,891
Location
Cheshire
Hi (noob here aim answer at intelligent 10 year old)

https://rog.asus.com/uk/motherboards/rog-strix/rog-strix-b550-f-gaming-model/

My Asus MB has a port: Intel® 2.5Gb Ethernet with ASUS LANGuard

Which routers have a 2.5 port and I use a wire COD Warzone gaming?

Budget range £80 to £250 I guess unless it is essential to go higher!


And do I ditch the VM router or set it to modem mode?

Many thanks for your help kind TECHPros

pod
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Posts
775
Location
Earth
That 2.5Gb port is only really useful if you have other things in the house that can keep up with it.

Such as a storage device (NAS) or direct transfers for video editing between machines.
Extremely fast internet that is over 1Gbps.

These don’t apply in your case, I assume your internet is less than 1Gbps and for general cod warzone gaming even 100Mbps would be enough other than the time it takes to update.

Just get any standard router/wifi or use the virgin one it won’t make any real difference. But you really don’t need to be looking for a router with a 2.5Gbps port.

A few of them do offer one but it will not give you any gains and you’ll be paying a hefty price for something that you get no gain out of what so ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R3X
Associate
OP
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,891
Location
Cheshire
That 2.5Gb port is only really useful if you have other things in the house that can keep up with it.

Such as a storage device (NAS) or direct transfers for video editing between machines.
Extremely fast internet that is over 1Gbps.

These don’t apply in your case, I assume your internet is less than 1Gbps and for general cod warzone gaming even 100Mbps would be enough other than the time it takes to update.

Just get any standard router/wifi or use the virgin one it won’t make any real difference. But you really don’t need to be looking for a router with a 2.5Gbps port.

A few of them do offer one but it will not give you any gains and you’ll be paying a hefty price for something that you get no gain out of what so ever.


Top draw, the Pros have delivered.

Noob status confirmed.

Thanks fellas - appreciated.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2007
Posts
9,704
Location
Liverpool
Why do you want a 2.5Gb port when Virgin Media maxes out at 1Gb if you’re lucky? :)
I assume your internet is less than 1Gbps

VM's Gig1 package is actually delivered as 1.1Gbps. Unfortunately the mandatory SH4 only has gigabit LAN ports, so unless you bond two of them into a second device with >2.5Gb ports to serve the LAN you'll never see it on a single local client. Whether all that faff is worth it for an extra 100Mbps on an already 1Gbps connection is up for debate. You can, however, realise the full 1.1Gbps using more than one local device simultaneously. For example, having an automated download client capped to 100Mbps while still having full gigabit available to your desktop or whatever.

VM's Gig1 Speeds page has more details.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Posts
775
Location
Earth
VM's Gig1 package is actually delivered as 1.1Gbps. Unfortunately the mandatory SH4 only has gigabit LAN ports, so unless you bond two of them into a second device with >2.5Gb ports to serve the LAN you'll never see it on a single local client. Whether all that faff is worth it for an extra 100Mbps on an already 1Gbps connection is up for debate. You can, however, realise the full 1.1Gbps using more than one local device simultaneously. For example, having an automated download client capped to 100Mbps while still having full gigabit available to your desktop or whatever.

VM's Gig1 Speeds page has more details.

Good to know it’s possible, I did a bit of Googling and most setups involve bonded ports and pfsense. Generally because they want it all to run through pfsense.

Although I do agree it’s not worth the effort and isn’t require by any means for a gaming system or general use. You just need to have two separate devices wired in both that require updates or downloads at the same time and you can make the most of it without any special configuration.

What did shock me was seeing speed tests of 1.1Gbps down and then their upload was 48Mbps. That’s one thing the UK doesn’t get right.

Also worth noting even on the 1.1Gbps service they only guarantee 565Mbps down but I expect you get the full speed most of the time.

I had to take a business connection on my only provider choice to have better upload and due to cost went with 400/250.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2007
Posts
9,704
Location
Liverpool
Good to know it’s possible, I did a bit of Googling and most setups involve bonded ports and pfsense. Generally because they want it all to run through pfsense.

Although I do agree it’s not worth the effort and isn’t require by any means for a gaming system or general use. You just need to have two separate devices wired in both that require updates or downloads at the same time and you can make the most of it without any special configuration.

What did shock me was seeing speed tests of 1.1Gbps down and then their upload was 48Mbps. That’s one thing the UK doesn’t get right.

It's not a UK thing, it's a DOCSIS (cable) thing. The US and Europe etc are the same, if you look at Liberty Global, Comcast et al. There's just not enough bandwidth on the upstream compared to the downstream, as the standard was originally designed to deliver content (TV) one way - downstream. The tacking on of Internet over the top was a more recent development, and was shoehorned in. Later standards (eg DOCSIS 3.1 and beyond) are looking to remediate this with symmetric 10Gbps connections, for example.

Also worth noting even on the 1.1Gbps service they only guarantee 565Mbps down but I expect you get the full speed most of the time.

I had to take a business connection on my only provider choice to have better upload and due to cost went with 400/250.

Yeah, I run OpenBSD on an x86 router and see gigabit 24/7 without issues. The availability of Internet where I live, despite being a city, is pretty woeful. There's either VM, or ADSL (2Mbps). That's it. The FTTC has been full for years, and there's no FTTP in sight. I've registered interest with every provider going, but I won't hold my breath. Like you, I've been looking at SMB/enterprise offerings and considering a leased line in the interim. Latency is important to me, and a solid upstream with a /30 (or better yet, a /28) would suit me perfectly.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Posts
775
Location
Earth
It's not a UK thing, it's a DOCSIS (cable) thing. The US and Europe etc are the same, if you look at Liberty Global, Comcast et al. There's just not enough bandwidth on the upstream compared to the downstream, as the standard was originally designed to deliver content (TV) one way - downstream. The tacking on of Internet over the top was a more recent development, and was shoehorned in. Later standards (eg DOCSIS 3.1 and beyond) are looking to remediate this with symmetric 10Gbps connections, for example.



Yeah, I run OpenBSD on an x86 router and see gigabit 24/7 without issues. The availability of Internet where I live, despite being a city, is pretty woeful. There's either VM, or ADSL (2Mbps). That's it. The FTTC has been full for years, and there's no FTTP in sight. I've registered interest with every provider going, but I won't hold my breath. Like you, I've been looking at SMB/enterprise offerings and considering a leased line in the interim. Latency is important to me, and a solid upstream with a /30 (or better yet, a /28) would suit me perfectly.

I do agree to some extent but it’s slightly better than you suggest. * In Europe. Still think UK options are lacking.

I was been a bit generic when I said a UK thing, I guess I meant FTTP providers could give the upload if they wished and they simply don’t.. I wouldn’t say Europe on a whole only provides asynchronous connections. I don’t live in BT land or Virgin for that matter but in general UK connections are asynchronous compared to Netherlands for example where synchronous is very possible. I’ve worked with a good amount of Telcos across Europe providing OTT streaming services. Can’t think of other examples off the top of my head, but yes Liberty Global part own Belgium and Netherlands telcos I’ve worked with and they did not have the best packages. But they have at least some providers giving them full speed in both directions. I have a WebDAV share to someone in Netherlands having 500/500. Even parts of the US that actually have fiber compared to cable style providers can provide the upstream bandwidth. But again US is big and many many providers, I’d guess there good ones only cover smaller areas.

I can’t say many great things about Hull but I’ve been extremely lucky. Back when people were on dialup I had 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up. We had a failure of a TV service called KIT however it was run over ADSL prior to the rollout of ADSL for internet in the UK and you just needed to have friends in the department that added another route for you allowing you to access the public internet on other devices rather than limited to the STB as it was intended. Once it shut down I moved onto the up to 4Mbps service with 256k upload following that 8Mbps 512k if I recall correctly which was depressing in itself after having more for a couple of years.

At my last house I had ADSL interface issues, in the end KCOM installer fiber to that postcode only down the street outside of the rollout plan as it was cheaper than continuing to troubleshoot my ADSL issues. The select few houses either side of me all got fiber offered about a year before the rest of the street.

I still see people complain about the Lighstream service here but it has been rocksoild even before I took the business line. Latency is great often check others in games when possible and I’m either top or joint top in most cases. 19-23 in a lot of warzone games but server dependant I can see more.

Having a /29 is also a bonus :) Justified by wanting to run Minecraft servers :)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2007
Posts
9,704
Location
Liverpool
I do agree to some extent but it’s slightly better than you suggest. * In Europe. Still think UK options are lacking.

I was been a bit generic when I said a UK thing, I guess I meant FTTP providers could give the upload if they wished and they simply don’t.. I wouldn’t say Europe on a whole only provides asynchronous connections. I don’t live in BT land or Virgin for that matter but in general UK connections are asynchronous compared to Netherlands for example where synchronous is very possible.

I was replying to you saying VM's upload was shocking and that's one thing the UK doesn't get right... While I'm with you all the way on synchronous connections, I was simply pointing out that VM's upload is a limit of the current technology standard. FTTP is another matter altogether. Meanwhile my friends in Nordic countries are paying <30 Euros for symmetric 10Gbps to the home. If I didn't have a family I'd move.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,763
Location
Oldham
I'm not a VM user. But unless you can use a different device than the one that comes with the VM service then you'll be bottlenecked with a 1gb port, even if you put it in modem mode. Because you'd still be getting the connection via one of the VM routers ethernet ports.

I should add if you are using multiple ethernet ports on the VM device then you'll be getting the full gig1 service speed.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Posts
775
Location
Earth
I was replying to you saying VM's upload was shocking and that's one thing the UK doesn't get right... While I'm with you all the way on synchronous connections, I was simply pointing out that VM's upload is a limit of the current technology standard. FTTP is another matter altogether. Meanwhile my friends in Nordic countries are paying <30 Euros for symmetric 10Gbps to the home. If I didn't have a family I'd move.

haha yes understood, I really should have said FTTP in the first place. I almost took a job about 8- 9 years ago working on the VM network design. Very glad I didn’t as another role came up a year or two later that led to better things and a lot of travelling.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,891
Location
Cheshire
Another question.

I set my VM router to modem mode and then this leads to an unmanaged switch in the lounge.

The switch leads via a wire to an Asus router in the office with a hardwired PC and wifi which is great.

When I plug my kodi or laptop into the switch in the lounge I can't connect to the internet from the switch?

Do I need to use a second router in the lounge.

Jeeze this is confusing.

Doesn't the modem output internet? :p

Explain like I am 10, possibly 5. Thanks pod
 
Associate
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Posts
910
Virgin router/modem => asus router => switch, the modem should go to the wan port on the asus router the switch should connect to a lan port
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2007
Posts
9,704
Location
Liverpool
Another question.

I set my VM router to modem mode and then this leads to an unmanaged switch in the lounge.

The switch leads via a wire to an Asus router in the office with a hardwired PC and wifi which is great.

When I plug my kodi or laptop into the switch in the lounge I can't connect to the internet from the switch?

Do I need to use a second router in the lounge.

Jeeze this is confusing.

Doesn't the modem output internet? :p

Explain like I am 10, possibly 5. Thanks pod

You can't do that. Full stop. TLDR at the end

...
A group of connected devices is called a network.

Your home is one such network, hence Local Area Network, or LAN. Your home network (or LAN) is made up of all your computers, laptops, tablets, phones, printers, TVs or anything else with a network connection. Nowadays, these local devices will all be connected together via their network ports to a central switch which allows them to speak to each other across your network. The switch can be a stand-alone device, or it can be built into your router.

This type of network is a private network. You own and control it, and all the devices on it. Only you can see what happens there; for example who is connected, or what traffic is being sent. All the traffic (communication) between the devices on a local private network stays within that network. It doesn't go outside of the network (eg to the Internet or someone else's house).

Private networks assign devices on them an IP address from one of a few specific universally-agreed ranges of numbers, called reserved private IP address spaces. These ranges are 192.168.0.0/16, 10.0.0.0/8 and 172.16.0.0/12. So, your local network devices may have addresses like 192.168.1.2 or 10.0.0.5 etc. Private networks can only see (send or receive) traffic on their own subnet - so devices on a local network addressed as 192.168.1.X can not see or talk to devices addressed with 10.0.0.Y, and vice versa. Your local network will have a single range, and stick to it.

Private addresses like these will never be seen on the normal public Internet (Iran excepted), and are reused inside private networks the world over. A switch connects local devices together. It keeps track of all the local devices on the local private network, by maintaining a list of their private IP addresses and corresponding MACs (hardware IDs uniquely assigned to every network port at manufacture). This allows those devices to talk to each other across the local network.

Originally all networks were private local networks like this, but in time - years ago, now - some networks were physically joined together across physical space, bridging the gap between them. This made information sharing easy. But what about all the conflicting devices and local IP addresses? Well we didn't create one global private network. That would have been hugely messy, and insecure. I don't want someone on the other side of the world to have access to my printer, my NAS full of family photos or anything else and besides, if I send a packet to 192.168.1.1 (eg my router) will it go to *my* 192.168.1.1 or yours?

No, we need a second network - a shared, public one - alongside the individual private networks. That's where public IP addresses come into play. If you recall, all devices already had a local private IP. Anyone wanting to join this interconnected public network also needed to also have a unique public IP address to identify them to other devices in other networks, maybe on the other side of the planet.

Now, by having a private IP and a public IP, you could send traffic either locally and privately (between your own devices using their private IP addresses), or across the wider shared public network (between one public IP in England to another public IP in, say, Iceland).

Across the world, all the devices with public IP addresses (routers, web servers etc) are part of the shared public network - the "INTER-connected NETwork" of devices, aka the Internet. So Virgin Media have another network, made up of all of their devices. Google, Cloudflare, M247, Microsoft, Amazon and all the other people, companies and organisations around the world also have their own networks.

Remember how a switch connects your local devices and allows them to communicate? Well as a switch connects together devices on a local network, a router connects together different public networks, using their respective public IPs.

These public IP addresses (numbers) are assigned by an external authority, and never reused. Each is unique, and every device on the public Internet needs one. At first, every single networked device on the planet got its own public IP address, but when the Internet and web exploded in popularity we started to run out of IP (v4) addresses very quickly. After all, IP (version 4) addresses are only made up for four digits (0.0.0.0) with each digit being a number between 1 and 255. Some combinations (ranges) are already reserved for specific uses, like with the private IP ranges already discussed, but there are others too. This leaves only a limited number of addresses left available for general public network use worldwide.

To get around this, routers started to act as a proxy to share one public address with all the devices on the local private network hiding behind it. This meant that instead of your house needing (for example) 20 IPv4 public addresses, one for each device, you could assign just one - to your router. Your router would then be the only device on your network with two addresses - one private address, as with all your other local devices (eg 192.168.1.1), but also a public IPv4 address, to enable it to see and be seen on the Internet.

By keeping a record of all traffic going in and out of it, a router can now act as a middle man sending and receiving traffic between the private network and the wider public network, fetching information/data/packets from the Internet on behalf of the private clients on the local private network that it serves. This is called Network Address Translation, or NAT.

With that in mind, suppose your PC (which only has private IP address 192.168.1.10 and no public IP address) wants to ask for data from google.com. Google is on the public Internet, to which it has no direct access due to not having its own public IP. So rather than connect directly, the PC will ask the router, its gateway to the Internet, to send out the request on its behalf. Think of the router as that one guy in the village who has a telephone, so everyone goes round their house to ask to make calls.

The router will record that local device 192.168.1.10 is requesting info from google.com at, for example, public address 8.8.8.8. It will make the request on the local device's behalf, and then when it gets a reply from Google it'll check its record/table, and say 'Yes, 8.8.8.8 replied - this was for the device at 192.168.1.10'. It will then send the data (reply) from Google to the correct device.

Meanwhile, the router is doing this multiple times per second for every device on your local private network. This way, one single public IP address gets shared by many private devices hiding behind it. That means we can make public IP address last longer/stretch further, and everyone still gets to go online. That's where the NAT (Network Address Translation mentioned earlier) comes in. Your router is translating requests between your local network addresses and the public Internet IP address.

Your modem (Super Hub in modem mode, in this case) is just a bridge to Virgin Media's public network, basically the metaphorical hand that VM extends to give one of your local devices a single public IP address. Since VM only offer each account one IP address, you probably want to make that device your router which, as above, can share the connection between your whole network.

You could just plug in one random device like a PC, but then that device gets your one and only public IP address and then (1) is directly connected to the Internet with a public IP and likely woefully lacking in security to defend itself from attackers, and (2) means you can't have any of your other devices online.

So, we're back to wanting a router to handle things for us and share the connection around your whole network. You have a router, so you're good to go... aren't you?
...

Think back to how you've set up your network. What you've done, and what you're describing, is extending the modem (via a switch) to a different room. We now know that switches connect all the devices plugged into them, but we also know this means that they are also like an extension cable to branch out a single port to many connected devices.

When you plugged in a switch to the modem's port, you made that one port expand to fit however many devices the switch can take. So now we have, say, 7 devices all trying to connect to the single modem port to claim a single IP address so that they have an identity and can 'talk' on the public network.

In your case, the router takes the single available public IP address from VM via the modem. So far, so good... but can you guess now why your other devices on that switch aren't working? They don't have a public IP address and aren't behind (connected to) a router with NAT, and so can't share the router's connection to either the Internet or the local network! They're stranded.

A switch should always be behind a router, never in front of it - or else it's useless. The devices connected to a switch need IP addresses, and that will only happen (ordinarily, in a home network) when they connect to an upstream router.

TL,DR: Rip everything out and plan your network again. Connect the Super Hub (in modem mode) directly to the router via an Ethernet cable. Now connect your switch to the router, and all your local devices to the switch.

Modem > Router > Switch > Local devices.

Now, the router will snatch up the single public IP address from VM via the modem and act as a gateway to the public Internet for everyone else behind it. The switch will allow all your local devices to connect to the each other and the router. When the local devices want to talk to each other (eg sending files) they will do so through the switch. When they want to get to a website or whatever, they will do so through the switch to the router, which will use NAT to proxy the web request for them.

Job jobbed.

If this was too much for you, check out a 'How does the Internet work?' video on YouTube - it can be easier to understand when presented visually.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,891
Location
Cheshire
Ahoy hoy. Wow! Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation I will re-read and let that wash over me and watch the video you refer too.

Got it - Modem - Router - Switch - Hardware

I am very grateful indeed for Pro advice. Kind regards pod
 
Associate
Joined
22 Aug 2010
Posts
166
Still find it highly amusing that almost no-one with VM has the new SuperHub5, which includes a 2.5gb ethernet connection.

If you are stuck with the Hub4, then you are essentially capped at 1gb anyway (presuming you are running it in modem-only mode, and not doing some fancy magic with running it as a router and bonding connections together..)
 
Back
Top Bottom