Are router WAN/LAN ports that used as LAN ports on the same network and subnet?

KH6XX

I am looking at upgrading my ISP provided Citrix GigaBlaster u6.1 with a Citrix GigaBlaster u10xe model as I would like more then 4 LAN ports on the router to avoid using an external switch.

The general spec on the u6.1 is:

• 6x6 Wi-Fi 6 antenna array, with 4x4 @ 5 GHz and 2x2 @ 2.4 GHz 
• 4 x GigE LAN ports
• 1 x GigE WAN port 
• 2 x POTS ports  

The spec on the u10xe is:

• SFP+ cage (with options for GPON, 10 GBT, XGS, and GE and 10GE Active Ethernet)
• 10 Gigabit Ethernet 
• Wireless: 2.4 GHz (2x2), 5 GHz (4x4) and 6G (4x4)
• 10 GE WAN/LAN
• 4 GE LAN
• 2 Voice Ports
• MU-MIMO
• Dynamic beamforming
• Auto channel selection
• Node steering
• WPS push button

I would assume I need to configure WAN/LAN ports on the u10xe to be used as LAN ports. Would the devices connected to WAN/LAN ports that are being used as LAN ports be on the same network and subnet as the 4GE LAN ports? While the WAN/LAN is basically either a WAN or a LAN port, do WAN/LAN ports configured as LAN ports function just as the 4 dedicated GE LAN ports meaning the are capable of IP address reservations and port forwarding?

Randy KH6XX

Peter K1PGV

I don’t have one of these devices (that things is a ** beast**!) but from reading the description, I’d guess that the 10GigE ports and the 1GigE ports are all switched together. The only truly special ports are likely to be the 10GigE and the SFP port (which are listed as being actual WAN interfaces on the Calix web site).

Do you really run 10GigE on your home network? WOW… if not, why not just get a switch and plug it into one of your existing ports?

if you run 2.5GigE then you’ll want to check to see if the 10GigE ports on the u10xe negotiate down.

Ha Gei

Peter is right,

this is shooting a bird with a nuke…

Usually the LAN Ports are on the same subnet , but i guess a beast like this will allow setting up VLAN´s too on the LAN and WLAN side. These are made for heavy traffic public or business Access point , not at all for home use…

Harry

Mike-VA3MW

I have a commercial PFSense Router with 4 ports on it, but then I have one cable going to my TPLink 32port switch external to that. It works fine.

But, if this is something you want to try, then great. For me, I have learned that simpler is more reliable.

I come from the WiFi world. Beam Forming sounds cool, but it never really worked like it should. MiMo worked better.

KH6XX

After many iterations of trouble shooting with the Help Desk and ISP, finally determining my Cisco RV325 route was the cause of distortion when operating remotely makes that nuke sounds enticing.

KH6XX

Thanks all for your comments.

Peter K1PGV

For what it's worth: I had a truly horrible experience with a failing "Cisco" small biz switch. I have never seen a switch fail in a way that caused it to actively flood (mis-formed) packets onto a network. Until then.

I love Cisco gear. I've got a rack-full of Cisco switches at work. But it's got to be real Cisco gear.

KH6XX

I have a pair of stacked SG550x-48MP switches. When testing, I bypassed the switch and still had distortion.

Still, I would like to avoid the Cisco SG550X's when using the PC, 6600M, stacked AG's, TGXL and PGXL as I get occasions disconnects on the TGXL and PGXL apps. I don't know if this is a software issue or on my side. It is not a cable issue. These drops only seem to affect the app on the PC for it may momentarily disconnect but the PGXL and TGXL never seem to be affected. It can happen even during a transmission. I watch the readout of SWR from the FRStack and power and SWR is unchanged, so it looks to me like it is only the app.

I spoke to a Cisco engineer yesterday and was told the RV325 was really a low end router. It was something I bought years ago and is end-of-life. In fact, that RV325 was replaced with the Cisco RV345 and that too in now at end-of-life. The RV34xx line has since been discontinued. Perhaps we know why.

Peter K1PGV

I'm not sure I 100% understand your configuration, but when I setup MY station (which is far simpler than yours), my goal was to isolate my PC, Flex and Maestro on their own switch… all by themselves. This way, they never contend with anything else that's going on in my network for (switching) bandwidth.

So, in contrast to what I think you said your goal was (a couple of posts above), MY goal is to keep the radio-related traffic all on its own switch. And, because it really isn't high bandwidth, just about any reputable switch will do (I, personally, have had good luck with the Netgear ProSAFE switches).

KH6XX

That's were I was heading, just that I wanted to keep all radio equipment on the router itself and avoid an external switch.

David Decoons, wo2x

Being that the Cisco stuff is two generations old, are the ports all set for gigabit? It sounds like it is a managed switch. Did you factory reset it before configuring it for your network? Had a customer last week that swore his AG was bad only to find his hamfest special managed switch only had a handful of ports configured on the same VLAN.

Best test is get a dumb switch to connect everything and see if the problem goes away, then go from there.

73

Dave wo2x

KH6XX

I have since replaced the router due to other issues with it.

Might just try a TP-Link SG-108 with the new router, connect all the radio equipment to that switch and then connect the switch a router port. Am being told this eliminates communications between all the radio and computer equipment going all the way back to and through the router back through a separate switch and will be a straight shot to the other radio equipment. Also told it should improve performance.

Peter K1PGV

That exactly what I recommend.

Put JUST your radio-related stuff (including PC) on its own little switch… connect this switch back to the router. The switch will directly connect the systems that are communicating.

Mike-VA3MW

.The data moves pretty fast, so you will find that even if it has to go all the way back to the router/switch, you won't notice the difference. You can easily test this using Ping and watch the response time.

My guru's tell me a star topology is by far the most reliable

In the realm of network design, the "perfect" layout significantly depends on the specific needs, goals, and constraints of the environment it is intended for. The star topology, where each node in the network is connected to a central node (like a switch or a hub), is indeed popular due to its various advantages, especially in terms of simplicity, scalability, and ease of troubleshooting. However, whether it is the ideal choice depends on several factors:

Advantages of Star Topology

• Easy to Install and Wire: The star topology is straightforward to set up, with clear and simple connections from each device to a central hub or switch.
• Highly Scalable: Adding or removing devices is relatively easy and usually doesn't affect the rest of the network.
• Easy Troubleshooting and Maintenance: Problems can typically be isolated to individual nodes without impacting others, making troubleshooting more straightforward.
• Robustness: If one link fails, only that link and its associated device are affected, leaving the rest of the network operational.

However, even with a FlexRadio on your LAN so little data is actually moved when compared to the amount of data bandwidth available.

There is nothing wrong with Peter's solution either.

One thing I am working to debug on my remote network is that the Windows screen refreshes can bog down the uplink.

You can see it here. This is a worst-case example where the ping rates go high as they are not serviced due to other bandwidth issues. This is to be expected since Ping is always serviced almost last by any switch (ICMP-Layer 3).

tldr; try it… see what works.

Peter K1PGV

The data moves pretty fast, so you will find that even if it has to go all the way back to the router/switch, you won't notice the difference. You can easily test this using Ping and watch the response time.

Oh, quite right. It's not AT ALL about the DISTANCE your data's travelling. It's not like we need to get shorter Ethernet cables so we don't add extra latency 😂

My guru's tell me a star topology is by far the most reliable

In general, in a commercial environment, all things being equal and ignoring special requirements… I agree with @Mike-VA3MW. Corollary: Less hardware is good. There's less stuff to break. Less hardware means less expensive capital cost. And, when there's trouble, you don't have to go looking for the forgotten switch that some genius stuffed in the ceiling 5 years ago. Every drop is a home-run. Simple. This is how my company's offices are cabled.

But as Mike says, it depends on what you're trying to optimize.

In a home network, a star topology can require running A LOT more cable. Running cable in a home network can be particularly problematic: We don't usually have dedicated data raceways and risers. Thus, network cable winds up getting intermixed (parallel to) with the electrical service… which is bad for noise. Longer cable runs provide an opportunity for introducing other noise/disturbance on the cable.

Using a star topology in a home also requires that your central switch have enough horsepower to handle the maximum traffic you'll generate without introducing latency, blocking, or dropping packets. In a world where a lot of us have Internet speeds that exceed 1Gbps (sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot), and maybe even have high-speed LAN segments, that can mean you need a pretty beefy central switch. Also, what a lot of folks don't consider is that things can get ugly anytime your switched ports need to do "speed adaptation" (such as when you're coming from a port at one speed and going out a port that's a different speed). This means the switch may not be able to use "cut through" routing and has to resort to store and forward. Which introduces latency and potential packet loss.

So… that's why I say that there's really no need to trouble your central switch with your special-purpose, time-sensitive, radio-to-Maestro and PC traffic. Cable your PC, Radio, Maestro, Amp, and Tuner to a nice little switch. They'll talk to each other, point to point, right there on the switch. You can see the lights dance in front of your eyes. And only the things that need to actually go to the Internet get sent up to your central switch.

This way your household members can be on Zoom, watch Netflix in 4KUHD, and copy an ISO from your NAS to your PC at 2.5G or even 10G, all without having any potential for impacting your time-sensitive radio traffic.

KH6XX

Thanks Peter for the input. Yes, Dave and Mike are always very helpful.

frc2302

+1 to everything Peter said. And then make that uplink from the radio network to "the internet" be a fiber link, with everything on the ham side on its own power supply, connected to nothing else in the house, and bonded to the house ground only outside the house — and you will be a happy ham!