Cascading 10/100 routers affect speed?

[lyndonguitar]

I have a router setup at home and I have a question, because of the way our house is setup. I have three access points in the house for the Wifi to cover most of it.

it goes like this. the Internet modem is connected to One main router(Let's call this router A), then one port on it goes to another floor which is connected to router B and then from Router B, one port is connect to Router C for another floor to cover.

so modem -> Router A -> Router B -> Router C all are 10/100 speed.

Would router C receive diminished speeds all the time?(due to 10/100 split into 4 ports in the 1st router, then a second split ensues between the 2nd and 3rd ones)

Or it would just get prioritized less but still reach close to 100mbps as long as there's not much traffic at router As and Bs?

I have a steamlink connected to router C and It's only operating great when set at 15mbps(set higher and higher and it will cause more lag) I wonder if this has something to do with it.

 

[brandonwh64]

Make sure DHCP and the firewall is turned off of routers B and C so you don't stack your NAT'ing. Also what is your speed you get from your ISP?

 

[lyndonguitar]

Make sure DHCP and the firewall is turned off of routers B and C so you don't stack your NAT'ing. Also what is your speed you get from your ISP?

15mbps DL 1mb UL, pretty bad.

thanks for the suggestion

 

[r9]

I have a router setup at home and I have a question, because of the way our house is setup. I have three access points in the house for the Wifi to cover most of it.

it goes like this. the Internet modem is connected to One main router(Let's call this router A), then one port on it goes to another floor which is connected to router B and then from Router B, one port is connect to Router C for another floor to cover.

so modem -> Router A -> Router B -> Router C all are 10/100 speed.

Would router C receive diminished speeds all the time?(due to 10/100 split into 4 ports in the 1st router, then a second split ensues between the 2nd and 3rd ones)

Or it would just get prioritized less but still reach close to 100mbps as long as there's not much traffic at router As and Bs?

I have a steamlink connected to router C and It's only operating great when set at 15mbps(set higher and higher and it will cause more lag) I wonder if this has something to do with it.

That only depends what you have connected on Router A and the bandwidth its using.
Definitely the latency will increase with every jump though.

 

[Kursah]

Considering 100Mbps equates to about 9-10MB/s, there isn't a lot there to begin with.

Setup the other routers in AP modes if possible, some router firmwares have the option stock, some routers need DD-WRT or OpenWRT or Tomato to have the option. This should disable any unnecessary services so that they only work as wireless access points.

You will be limited on your network by your router's switching speeds, and its processor performance. So if you have several file transfers going on between systems over Ethernet and Wireless, expect all of them to be far slower than your 9-10MB/s throughput. Wireless also has theoretical max speeds, but the realistic speeds achieved are usually far slower...expect closer to 50Mbps performance peak. Again this depends on the actual hardware and firmware implementations, configuration, and systems joined to the network.

It should work fine for a home-use situation, where file transfers are not a big deal or you're patient. Cheap gigabit (1000Mbps) hardware is widely available and can operate at up to 100MB/s, which is a great help for home systems looking for a cheap performance boost. Wireless devices may be able to improve with local wireless transfer speeds as well.

Aside from that, for Internet (WAN) facing performance, you should be fine...especially if you disable NAT Firewall, DHCP, DNS services on the wireless routers being used as AP's or set them to AP mode. Your Internet connection is still your slowest point, so expect that to be your bottleneck.

 

[Bill_Bright]

(due to 10/100 split into 4 ports in the 1st router)

You sure that is the case? 1Gbps (10/100/1000Mbps) routers have been around for long time. If your primary router is just 10/100Mbps, then it must be very old, or a super budget model.

If me, I would make sure Router A (if not all 3 routers) uses the latest and greatest (and fastest) technologies. That is, 1Gbps Ethernet and 802.11ac. Then I would connect both Router B and Router C directly to Router A. That is, I would not "daisy chain" Router C through Router B, if possible.

That said, assuming everything is working perfectly (including the cables), the biggest problem will be incurred as more and more devices connect - especially for those connecting through Router C.

 

[newtekie1]

(due to 10/100 split into 4 ports in the 1st router, then a second split ensues between the 2nd and 3rd ones)

That isn't how network switching works. You'll get a 100Mbps link from the router at the end of the chain to the modem. That 100Mbps is shared between everyone, but if they aren't actually using that much bandwidth, then it is free for anyone else to use.

 

[Bill_Bright]

That isn't how network switching works. You'll get a 100Mbps link from the router at the end of the chain to the modem. That 100Mbps is shared between everyone, but if they aren't actually using that much bandwidth, then it is free for anyone else to use.

That's one of the beauties of switches over hubs. But still, there will be some latency added with each hop. So avoiding the daisy chains would still be a good idea, if possible.

It would really be best if you can get rid of at least one of those extra routers. Note that 802.11n has an effective range of over 200 feet (depending on number of barriers - walls, floors, and ceilings - and nearby sources of RF interference) and a throughput up to 600Mbps. 11ac has about the same range, but throughput is up to 1.33Gbps. And 11n and 11ac can use both 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz bands. Just upgrading your Router A to a simultaneous dual-band 802.11ac, 1Gbps Ethernet router and dividing wireless devices on the two bands might greatly improve your situation with less hardware, latencies and complexity. Especially if the connected wireless devices have at least 11n.

 

[newtekie1]

That's one of the beauties of switches over hubs. But still, there will be some latency added with each hop.

Nothing noticeable.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I disagree. If there is only one device hanging off Router C, then probably not noticeable. But if there are several, and they using lots of bandwidth (streaming Netflix, watching YouTube, using Torrents, for example) then it sure could be.

 

[Gasaraki]

Are you sure they are routers and not switches?
Daisy chaining switches should be perfectly fine should have no noticeable increase in latency. This is how it works in companies. Between my clients and servers are multiple switches and the latency is still less than 1ms.

 

[Kursah]

In a business environment with heavier loads it is best to setup trunks on managed switches so you can implement a higher bandwidth backbone, adds a little more complexity than a simple daisy-chain operation and many companies can and do benefit from them, especially with a lot of users and data that needs to navigate the site or between said switches.

For home-use, it shouldn't really hurt anything nor add noticeable latency that could cause issues. If there is noticeable latency, odds are it is struggling hardware and questionable cables/connections.

For general home-use, using the extra routers as AP's with 4 or 5-port switches is kinda handy. How I have my Asus AC66u and AC68u routers setup. AP Mode. WAN is for the LAN signal, and the other ports are for switching. Folks need to remember, the LAN ports on a home router are a very simple layer-2 switch in most cases. That is why it is easy to make them function as super cheap switches in a pinch.

 

[newtekie1]

I disagree. If there is only one device hanging off Router C, then probably not noticeable. But if there are several, and they using lots of bandwidth (streaming Netflix, watching YouTube, using Torrents, for example) then it sure could be.

Nope. To notice a difference if people are using a lot of bandwidth like you suggest, then they'd have to saturate the 100Mbps LAN speed. That isn't going to happen on a 15Mbps internet connection. And the miniscule(sub-1ms) latency added by the extra hops won't be noticeable at all compared to the multiple-ms latency of normal internet traffic.

Are you sure they are routers and not switches?
Daisy chaining switches should be perfectly fine should have no noticeable increase in latency. This is how it works in companies. Between my clients and servers are multiple switches and the latency is still less than 1ms.

4 port routers just have integrated 4 port switches. So the same concept applies.

 

[Bill_Bright]

That isn't going to happen on a 15Mbps internet connection

I agree that the internet connection is going to be the bottleneck. The point I was trying to make is all the devices hanging off Router C and Router B are networked through just one cable on Ethernet Port 1 (for example) on Router A. That could be dozens of devices sharing that one port. Since I don't see where the OP has stated how many users (could have 6 teenagers living there) and devices (each streaming videos) are connected, it is hard to tell how this bandwidth is being distributed. But again, I agree the internet connection is going to be main bottleneck. That said, you sure don't want Router B and Router C issuing IP addresses too. So I would assign their IP address way out of normal ranges and disable DHCP on those routers. This should put them in full switch mode.

4 port routers just have integrated 4 port switches. So the same concept applies.

I agree with this too. But the 2nd and 3rd routers in the chain can be used as routers too, to set up isolated networks. I did this to isolate my shop from my home network, but that's for another discussion.

 

[lyndonguitar]

Thanks for the help guys! I guess i'll try tinkering with them a bit, theres not much people in the house, most of the heavy users are in router A, however the steamlink is in router C. and I found the culprit of the slow connection, the powerline adapter I am using. Now i am trying to find a way to put an ethernet cable across the house for the living room

 

[Solaris17]

However this ends up like the others have mentioned please turn off routing and NAT on those routers. If anything if you dont need them sell them so you can pick up a few cheap layer 2 switches and an AP.

 

[newtekie1]

I agree that the internet connection is going to be the bottleneck. The point I was trying to make is all the devices hanging off Router C and Router B are networked through just one cable on Ethernet Port 1 (for example) on Router A. That could be dozens of devices sharing that one port. Since I don't see where the OP has stated how many users (could have 6 teenagers living there) and devices (each streaming videos) are connected, it is hard to tell how this bandwidth is being distributed.

Even if every device in the house is running off a single port on Router A there will not be a performance degradation until the Internet connection speed itself exceeds 100Mbps. There could be 100 devices all running through that one port on Router A, it won't matter one bit.

That said, you sure don't want Router B and Router C issuing IP addresses too. So I would assign their IP address way out of normal ranges and disable DHCP on those routers. This should put them in full switch mode.

I definitely agree, you do not want more than one DHCP server on the network. So that needs to be disabled on the other routers. And more than likely the WAN port not used on those routers and the cable run between the LAN ports instead. Unless you are setting up a segregated network like you mentioned.

I usually reserve the first 10 IP addresses in the range for static networking gear. So the main router would be 192.168.1.1, the next router would be 192.168.1.2, the next 192.168.1.3. If I have wireless access points, they hare also in that first 10. Managed switches also go in this range. That way I know, if I need to access something, and I didn't record its IP address, I can just keep guessing and usually find it within 10 guesses. If I need more than 10, I adjust accordingly. Sometimes I have to go with the first 15 addresses.

After that, I start the DHCP range 10 away from the reserved area I set. So if I reserve 10, then the DCHP would start at 192.168.1.20. That way, if have a little buffer if I have to add to the network in the future. But they don't have to be way out of the normal range.

Then, any device on the network like servers and network printers or just computers that need a static IP address for some reason, those get reserved on the DHCP server(not hard coded on the machine), and they are reserved at the end of the DHCP range. So if my range is 192.168.1.20-150, then the first address I would use for a static DHCP IP would be 192.168.150, then 149, then 148, etc.

Also, just so you know, if you are cascading routers to try to create separate networks, they won't be completely separate.

If you have, for example, this setup:

Modem -> Rotuer A WAN Port - Router A LAN Port -> Router B WAN Port

You'd think Router A and Router B would be separate networks. But they aren't totally separate. Devices connected to Rotuer B will still actually be able to access devices connected to Router A. You can map network drives from a device on B to a device on A, you can map network printers that are connected to A on a device on B. But most of the time you have to use the IP address of the device, it won't be automatically found on the network, and you can't go from A to B only B to A.