Question Can routers go bad over time?

[z1ggy]

Over the past week or so, my pings have spiked up a lot while gaming, I'm lagging like crazy and most of my videos are buffering. I can barely watch anything in 1080p without constant buffering during the video. I've reset my modem and router at least 10x and checked my connection speeds, which vary from 13-25mbps.

If the ISP says nothing looks unusual on their end, I'd suspect maybe my router is going bad? It's about 4-5 years old now and does get pretty hot to the touch while in use. Could it be anything else? I haven't changed anything with my games or hardware.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I didn't know my ISP can make my pipe bigger... thought they made pills for that now a days... lol.

It's all about the e-peen, my friend.

At least, that's what I thought "she said".

 

[z1ggy]

Also, I just ran the wifiinforviewer tool and things seem to look okay. Not going to post a screen shot because it lists out mac addresses of all the routers near me and what not but, it says my signal quality is 99 for both my 2.4 and 5.0, and I'm on channels 8 and 44. Only one other router is on channel 8 around me, and I'm the only one on channel 44, so I don't think it's a signal interference issue.

Edit: actually, RSSI looks really low, it's only -8 and -19 respectively. All the other routers in the area are seeing inputs of at least -55. so... Maybe the modem is the issue???

 

[VirtualLarry]

Why channel 8 for 2.4Ghz? You know that overlaps with channel 6 and channel 11 routers, right? It basically makes a mess of things to use channels other than 1,6,11, because it means that the routers cannot negotiate with their neighboring routers for airtime, but instead, just stomp on a portion of the signal, raising the noise floor for all involved. Bad idea.

 

[z1ggy]

Why channel 8 for 2.4Ghz? You know that overlaps with channel 6 and channel 11 routers, right? It basically makes a mess of things to use channels other than 1,6,11, because it means that the routers cannot negotiate with their neighboring routers for airtime, but instead, just stomp on a portion of the signal, raising the noise floor for all involved. Bad idea.

I'm not sure... I remember switching the channels years ago when I first moved here, maybe at that time the people around me weren't on those channels. I'll move the 2.4 to chan1 and see if that helps at all...

I think my PC usually defaults to my 5.0 though...? I doubt moving to channel 1 will suddenly make my average pings go from 80-90 ---> <40 (where I usually like to get). There's only 2 or 3 other routers on channel 6 and 11, soo... meh. I'll probably end up doing a combo of upping to 50/10 50/10, and a new modem and router. Might change modem first since I think it's the oldest component. At least 6 years old, if not 7.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Have you seen @LOUISSSSS 's thread(s) about his 200/200 FIOS and TP-Link AX / Wifi 6 PCI-E card, and possible router?

He's seeing good results with a TP-Link AX3000E PCI-E wifi card, although he's using a Verizon FIOS G1100 AC router.

I look forward to seeing his results, if he gets the TP-Link AX1500 / AX10 router, those are $80 at Amazon and Walmart.com.

I would probably suggest same router to you, it's fairly inexpensive. I wouldn't go for an all-singing / all-dancing AX router that was more than $150 right now, until the 6Ghz band stuff gets released, then go whole-hog on something like an AX89U or something, with 6Ghz support added. ($450, has twin 10GbE (-T/-SFP) ports, among others.)

Edit: My current router, is an AC68U hardware clone, the Tenda AC18 router, running FreshTomato 2020.1 or .2. Runs pretty nicely, never needs reboots (thus far), and generally the wifi doesn't drop out either. (Was a small problem with my actual Asus AC68U-class routers, most of them, I think all of the ones I own, are refurbs. The Tenda was a "new" purchase.)

 

[z1ggy]

Have you seen @LOUISSSSS 's thread(s) about his 200/200 FIOS and TP-Link AX / Wifi 6 PCI-E card, and possible router?

He's seeing good results with a TP-Link AX3000E PCI-E wifi card, although he's using a Verizon FIOS G1100 AC router.

I look forward to seeing his results, if he gets the TP-Link AX1500 / AX10 router, those are $80 at Amazon and Walmart.com.

I would probably suggest same router to you, it's fairly inexpensive. I wouldn't go for an all-singing / all-dancing AX router that was more than $150 right now, until the 6Ghz band stuff gets released, then go whole-hog on something like an AX89U or something, with 6Ghz support added. ($450, has twin 10GbE (-T/-SFP) ports, among others.)

Just changed 2.4 to chan 1 and the 5.0 to 48... just for keks since it was on auto assign.

I haven't seen it but I'll go lurk around in it. Yeah I don't need anything fancy because the wifers pays for the interwebz and she's a cheap-o..Speaking of Fios though, I should look at if it's offered in our neighborhood yet and probably it's time to give Optimum one of those "lower my bill or else" calls. I think she's paying $160 a month for cable and internet, and obviously this 25/5 shouldn't be costing more than... $40 a month, tops. Maybe less now a days?

I made sure the card I got now could handle any kind of speeds I'd throw at it for the foreseeable future. Until my kid (and probably future ones) start needing wifi of their own.. I should be set.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, as far as ISP pricing goes, I've got Gigabit FIOS + Custom TV for ~$90/mo, and Comcast Internet Essentials (25/3, provisioned as 30/3.7) for ~$10/mo. Was thinking of cancelling the FIOS, I could probably use the money, even though my deal is actually a pretty sweet deal for double-play. A lot of people pay more than I do for both services.

Edit: Yes, FIOS is worth it. You can get 200/200 service (provisioned at 300/300, so I hear) for $39.99 with their "Mix and Match" plan selections, for internet-only, no taxes and fees (except possibly for NY state).

 

[z1ggy]

Well, as far as ISP pricing goes, I've got Gigabit FIOS + Custom TV for ~$90/mo, and Comcast Internet Essentials (25/3, provisioned as 30/3.7) for ~$10/mo. Was thinking of cancelling the FIOS, I could probably use the money, even though my deal is actually a pretty sweet deal for double-play. A lot of people pay more than I do for both services.

Edit: Yes, FIOS is worth it. You can get 200/200 service (provisioned at 300/300, so I hear) for $39.99 with their "Mix and Match" plan selections, for internet-only, no taxes and fees (except possibly for NY state).

Luckily I'm in the.. dare I say it... state of NJ, just outside of NYC, so maybe I can find a deal. Thing is.. my wife is in the stone-age, even though we have LITERALLY EVERY STREAMING APP, she still wants cable. She's one of those reality TV people, and MUST watch it live.. so.. I make her pay for it lol. I'll do some digging, maybe I can get better speeds and save us a few $$.

 

[z1ggy]

NO FIOS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD... nnnnNnnNooooooooo!

 

[z1ggy]

This can happen if your node is congested (and with COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, and everyone on the internet, who's cable internet node ISN'T congested these days), and you don't have enough channels supported in your modem to "Spread the load around". (Find an uncongested channel that you're locked on to, to send you the data from the head-end.)

If you don't believe me that this is an issue, ask around on the Comcast, or if there's an Optimum forum, on dslreports.com . It's a real thing. You have an obsolete modem, too, that also needs replacement.

In lab conditions, sure, it will give you 172Mbit/sec down, but in the real world, on a real, congested, cable plant, you won't get squat. Get at least a 16x4, or a 24 or 32x8 modem. Or just go for a DOCSIS 3.1 modem, and be future-proofed for gigabit downstream.


Hmm, maybe I'm wrong about the modem. I've got a 16x8 or 24x8 TP-Link gateway, which is pure overkill for a 25/3 plan, but I took those comments I read about having more channels, making nodes "work better", by more evenly spreading the load around, seriously.

And I generally don't get slowdowns at all. Then again, my LAN is wired.

I'm about to buy an Arris 32 x 8 docsis 3.0 (not sure if 3.1 will work with Optimum? Too lazy to call and their website directly says 3.0 Arris modems will work). I'm also going to follow the one poster's advice and go pick up at my Best Buy. Makes 100% sense... I can get it today and I don't help support the alleged sh!t working conditions going on right now in Amazon warehouses.

Edit: Actually, what would be better, the Arris 32 x 8 with a Netgear AC1750, or the all in one Netgear AC1900 with in 24x8 modem? Price between the two scenario's is about the same, like $180. Kind of leaning the all in one because I'll never need that much speed anyway, plus it's less wires and hardware.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, most enthusiasts would say, "get separate modem and router", and for the most part, I agree.

However, I'm using a combo unit myself, an (obsolete?) TP-Link 24x8 modem and AC1750 or AC1900 router. Pure overkill for my 25/3 connection, but I have limited space in my networking shelf for routers and modems and things, as well as limited electrical outlets, plus this combo unit has a button to disable Wifi. Unfortunately, the router portion is lacking in many features that other "router only" TP-Link routers have. It's very stripped-down.

I've never used Netgear combo modem/router ("Gateway") units. I guess, look at reviews? Check out if DongKnowsTech or SmallNetBuilder has done a review? Ask in dslreports.com 's hardware/device section, or their Optimum ISP section?

There may also be a security liability with going with the all-in-one modem/router combo unit, with regards to firmware updates. Cable modem firmware, is NOT updated by the end-user, but by the ISP. Some ISPs have a policy of updating user-owned equipment, like Comcast. Others, which may include Optimum, will NOT touch user-owned equipment at all. Which means, if your modem/router is in need of a firmware update, due to a security exploit, and you're on one of those (cable) ISPs that don't update user-owned equipment as a policy, then you're screwed.

For that reason ALONE, you may be better off going with separate units.

Edit: Btw, instead of the Netgear AC1750 (they have several different ones with that rating, I would only get the R7000, not the R6400), consider the TP-Link AX1500 at Walmart.com for $80. (Unless you want to run 3rd-party firmware, then various Netgear routers usually play nicer in that area.)

 

[z1ggy]

Well, most enthusiasts would say, "get separate modem and router", and for the most part, I agree.

However, I'm using a combo unit myself, an (obsolete?) TP-Link 24x8 modem and AC1750 or AC1900 router. Pure overkill for my 25/3 connection, but I have limited space in my networking shelf for routers and modems and things, as well as limited electrical outlets, plus this combo unit has a button to disable Wifi. Unfortunately, the router portion is lacking in many features that other "router only" TP-Link routers have. It's very stripped-down.

I've never used Netgear combo modem/router ("Gateway") units. I guess, look at reviews? Check out if DongKnowsTech or SmallNetBuilder has done a review? Ask in dslreports.com 's hardware/device section, or their Optimum ISP section?

There may also be a security liability with going with the all-in-one modem/router combo unit, with regards to firmware updates. Cable modem firmware, is NOT updated by the end-user, but by the ISP. Some ISPs have a policy of updating user-owned equipment, like Comcast. Others, which may include Optimum, will NOT touch user-owned equipment at all. Which means, if your modem/router is in need of a firmware update, due to a security exploit, and you're on one of those (cable) ISPs that don't update user-owned equipment as a policy, then you're screwed.

For that reason ALONE, you may be better off going with separate units.

Edit: Btw, instead of the Netgear AC1750 (they have several different ones with that rating, I would only get the R7000, not the R6400), consider the TP-Link AX1500 at Walmart.com for $80. (Unless you want to run 3rd-party firmware, then various Netgear routers usually play nicer in that area.)

I haven't used Netgear in prob 15 years, I do trust TP link a good amount. So.. with the AX1500 & the Arris SB6190 , that brings me to $150 and I can go pick it up at Wallyworld today.

Now to just call Optimum and ask why my 25/5 is $90 a month, according to the bill.

 

[killster1]

I haven't used Netgear in prob 15 years, I do trust TP link a good amount. So.. with the AX1500 & the Arris SB6190 , that brings me to $150 and I can go pick it up at Wallyworld today.

Now to just call Optimum and ask why my 25/5 is $90 a month, according to the bill.

maybe shop around for a better isp of course they jack you after you stop paying attention to the bill
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/nj (just a random google link)

 

[SamirD]

There is a term known as load. It pertains to the amount of computational power needed by the processing unit inside cheap routers. The switch aspect adds to the load. If you have only one or two devices connected to the router. You probably will not notice a difference. The standalone switch reduces the load on the router. Most people do not use managed switches. The standalone 8 port switch is not only cheap but inexpensive much like the cheap router.

I've actually used routers for their switch in many commercial applications where they're hammered 24x7 and there's never been an issue. An unmanaged switch is an unmanaged switch--even when part of a router.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I've actually used routers for their switch in many commercial applications where they're hammered 24x7 and there's never been an issue. An unmanaged switch is an unmanaged switch--even when part of a router.

I've used them for years as well. I did some testing and found the speeds were actually faster while using an external switch. I should point out that unless you have a very high speed connection. You probably will not notice a difference.
If you have speeds pushing 1gbps on the download. You should look into an 8 port or 16 port switch.

I have a Netgear R6400 router. It's pretty well regarded for a cheap router. I noticed speeds were up to 100mbps slower using the router vs. directly connected to the modem or an external switch. I only figured this out when I needed more ports than the 4 gigabit ports on the netgear router.

1gbps is a very fast connection. Almost to the point where you need to consider the performance of your HDD's if you are running spinner drives. 900mbps is 113MB throughput for your hard drive.

 

[mxnerd]

If you have speeds pushing 1gbps on the download. You should look into an 8 port or 16 port switch.

What difference does it make to have more ports? Will 24 or 32 ports makes it even better?

 

[SamirD]

I've used them for years as well. I did some testing and found the speeds were actually faster while using an external switch. I should point out that unless you have a very high speed connection. You probably will not notice a difference.
If you have speeds pushing 1gbps on the download. You should look into an 8 port or 16 port switch.

I have a Netgear R6400 router. It's pretty well regarded for a cheap router. I noticed speeds were up to 100mbps slower using the router vs. directly connected to the modem or an external switch. I only figured this out when I needed more ports than the 4 gigabit ports on the netgear router.

1gbps is a very fast connection. Almost to the point where you need to consider the performance of your HDD's if you are running spinner drives. 900mbps is 113MB throughput for your hard drive.

Ah, I misunderstood. Theoretically, this shouldn't happen, but bad coding is everywhere now so I could see that happening.

However, if you're not using a router as a router and just using it as a switch, there's absolutely no difference ime.

 

[Hans Gruber]

What difference does it make to have more ports? Will 24 or 32 ports makes it better?

In theory it would probably make no difference. People do not realize switches have firmware. They have memory to manage all the ports and connections. The managed switches have CPU's to balance the load and software to maintain the switch. 24 port switch or more is probably overkill unless you have a need for that many ports.

 

[mxnerd]

"Switches have firmware. They have memory to manage all the ports and connections" Unmanaged switch only have buffers, no one call them memory, unless you insist. And they don't have firmware that you can update. You have to have at least a smart switch to have upgradable firmware to begin with.

"The managed switches have CPU's to balance the load and software to maintain the switch. " Managed switches does have CPU and you can manage the switch through CLI (and web gui too now). You can set QoS but you can't balance the load. There is no such feature.

==

And a router is only a switch circut + wifi circut+ routing circuit.

If you are not routing, it's just a switch (+ wifi).

 

[z1ggy]

@VirtualLarry so is that arris modem and tp link ax1500 a solid combo? need today. Had to hardwire again last night in my competitive game, and I was on the router first, got chirped so hard for lagging uncontrollably lol.

 

[Hans Gruber]

"Switches have firmware. They have memory to manage all the ports and connections" Unmanaged switch only have buffers, no one call them memory, unless you insist. And they don't have firmware that you can update. You have to have at least a smart switch to have upgradable firmware to begin with.

"The managed switches have CPU's to balance the load and software to maintain the switch. " Managed switches does have CPU and you can manage the switch through CLI (and web gui too now). You can set QoS but you can't balance the load. There is no such feature.

==

And a router is only a switch circut + wifi circut+ routing circuit.

If you are not routing, it's just a switch (+ wifi).

View attachment 19374

If what you are saying is true. Then why do routers have limited but a significant ability to implement QoS within a switch in a router? You make it sound as if like a bottle of coke. You can simply dump it through the switch and all is well, Vs. a stand alone switch with with memory which you refer to as buffer. And firmware which you cannot upgrade. Yet the router firmware/software is updated often and the limited software management of the router switch has to be processed by the internal CPU in the cheap router.

If you have a heavy wireless and wired load of data through many devices. Tell me that a switch that is a stand alone device not connected to a router is inferior? It lacks any overhead, software and CPU controls which could inhibit both throughput and speed. Yet a router switch is controllable through the router software. But it's just a switch. If you put in DD-WRT on your router you would have a fully managed switch with an under powered processor.

I figured a few things out through incidental learning. If you have 10 or more wireless devices hooked up to the router. If you add 4 wired devices running through the router switch. Then add features like gigabit switches not because they built the router to be a powerhouse server device. But because the consumers are looking for gigabit ports. I doubt they designed a cheap router to managed a gigabit connection with more than a dozen devices. These are not Cisco routers. These are home brewed designs. Look at how poorly 2.4 and 5ghz routers do with clogged airwaves today.

I am not making an argument. More or less a statement as to personal observations of my router switch vs. stand alone 8 port switch. I still use a router gigabit switch in the garage. The only reason I bought an 8 port gigabit switch, I ran out of ethernet ports for computers and needed more. I noticed that the switching and wifi router ran much smoother when I put all the wired connections in the 8 port switch.

Let's not forget that most routers have processors that are typically weaker than a celeron or atom CPU. None are server grade processors.

 

[ch33zw1z]

@Hans Gruber , SOHO router (which are a router, switch, and WAP all in one) are often not equipped for heavy loads processing, memory, or buffer wise. Theres any number of combination devices out there that are simply not made for more than the ports on it and a few users. It's impossible to say with certainty without more details about a particular setup.

A switch is a smart enough unmanaged switch to create separate collision domains on each port, and it keeps local traffic local, only forwarding off the switch port connected to the router that's broadcast or something off that port. They will definitely help make a network faster. But unmanaged switches can't get firmware updates, obviously.

Moving to a managed switch will create more flexibility in the network config, which can increase network efficiency even more, but adds a layer of complexity that average users will never surmount.

Bottom line. SOHO "routers" aren't designed (for the most part) for heavy loads. A few users, some gaming, streaming, ok yes...but you have to be mindful of what you buy

 

[mxnerd]

@Hans Gruber

All I can say is that most people here replying questions either works in the computer field or has a computer related backgroud, and they all agree home router is just a router + switch + wifi and a mini OS based on Linux, which all of us didn't mention. Because when 2 devices connected to the same router, yet only communicate with each other (after their MAC addresses identified), the traffic will not go through the router part at all and no CPU or OS is involved.

Wi-Fi routers suck because it's wifi. When everyone owns so many wifi devices, each device is competing with each other, why wouldn't the performance suck? If terrestrial TV works so well, why do people get cable or fiber at all?

Just believe what you believe. And don't tell me QoS = load balancing.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If what you are saying is true. Then why do routers have limited but a significant ability to implement QoS within a switch in a router?

But generally, they don't. Implement QoS on LAN ports, I mean. It's just a hardware switch. QoS is generally implemented on the CPU, between the WAN port and the LAN switch, and not between LAN and LAN ports, those are handled at line speed in hardware.

If you put in DD-WRT on your router you would have a fully managed switch with an under powered processor.

This isn't true either. Traffic between LAN switch-ports does NOT go through the router CPU, but rather, the LAN switch "fabric". Some routers have LAN switch chips that can implement VLANs, but that's far from what I would call a full-managed switch, which DD-WRT will not give you, over and above VLANs, or whatever the switch hardware actually supports as far a features and management.
It can't even implement LAN-LAN QoS, for reasons that I've stated.

 

[z1ggy]

uhhhh so I picked up the Arris modem and I plug her in... Go to the optimum self register page and.... internet just doesn't work? The one green light is blinking still. Even when I connect via hot spot and the page to register the modem comes up, I get an error that says "make sure you're at the home address".

I reset the modem and I'm hardwired right into the PC. Even restarted PC after just to double check... Still does not work. Am I going to have to call these mofo's tomorrow (if anybody is even there)?

I should add... the PC knows it's connected to something but just says "unidentified network".