Maximising home network

neonplanet40

Active Member
Hi folks, I am due to get an upgrade to FTTP internet, and this led me to have a closer look at my current home network. I have tried to illustrate it as best I can. One of the wireless access points (the top right) are based upstairs. My Wi-Fi is provided by the two Asus routers as a mesh network and this was just recently upgraded to these two new routers. I don’t have any 2.5GBE equipment, so for me it is about maximising the 1GBE speeds across the network as best I can. One thing I forgot to add was another Asus router (ac68u) which has its own wifi network. However, this is only used as a backup should the mesh fail (as has happened once or twice).


I currently transfer a lot of files to my NAS (TB’s) and I am keen to maximise my speeds. I get around 60-70 MB/sec. If I could get this higher it would make a difference for me. I am worried that maybe my network has too many switches (if this is possible) OR I could have a potential bottleneck (with too much going through one switch that could perform slightly better if I split it over 2?). Could adding more switches to try and balance the load a bit further help? And if so, where would be best to add them? I have 2 spare D-link GB switches sitting around, hence my question :).


In the future, when I upgrade NAS etc I will likely make a move to 2.5GBE or higher if realistic. But 1GBE is the norm for now. It is not sometime I am doing right now.


However, I thought asking others more knowledgeable than me could have a look and provide some help and feedback? While I am working on my network, I just wanted to do what I can now given that it is already something I am going to be looking at as my internet gateway will be moved (as the fibre entry point is not the same as my current copper entry point).


Thank you for your help and I hope it makes some sense!

An illustration of my network is in the link below. When I get home, I will host the picture (work blocks personal storage etc etc so unable to do it here) and put that up instead.

Thanks for your help folks.
 

Attachments

  • My home network (1).jpeg
    My home network (1).jpeg
    164 KB · Views: 70
Last edited:

mickevh

Distinguished Member
I'm probably preaching to the choir, but for the avoidance of doubt, the speed of your Internet service has no bearing on the speed of your internal network. They are unrelated, but if you are surfing the Internet you will "feel" the effects of both.

Technically I don't know that you can have "too many switches" but it's not a case that there's a simple metric that "more than X is too many." It depends on things like the use case, the traffic levels, the topology and so on. The last "big" network I built had around 80-90 and there are plenty of other network admins who would regard that as "small."

The only hard and fast "rule" of ethernet topology is that you must not create any "loops" in the topology. If you do, you'll very soon have an unusable network as it gets gridlocked with endlessly circling broadcast traffic. (As illustrated, you don't have any loops.)

In order to know whether the network topology (or kit) is having any effect of the performance of your file transfers it would be useful to "baseline" the performance of such operation in the smallest network you can confect: Temporarily take you client device, your NAS and a single switch off to the "lab" and connect up nothing but the three (you'll have to manually assign some IP addresses when so doing unless you want to include your router also.) Then run some representative samples of your file transfers and see what the numbers are like. Thence having established the "best case" you are better informed as the any effect your network may be having. Ergo, if it's 60-70MB/s in test, then the "normal" network is having no effect and the bottleneck is elsewhere (most likely the source or sink devices.)

Every additional "hop" in the pathway between any given pair of communicating peers add some additional latency ("lag") but in ethernet switches the amount is so small you could bearly measure it let alone "notice" it in normal use.

A greater effect is more likely to be traffic levels and contention for the bandwidth. Each "hop" is a resource with finite capacity. If the demand for bandwidth is within that capacity, then everything is fine, if demand exceeds capacity they you get competition, congestion and collisions. Just like the road network.

Each switch has finite capacity to handle traffic across it's "backplane." But these days it's rare than the backplane switching capacity is not able to keep up with all ports operating at full capacity even for "cheap" gigabit switches. If you want to get into that "numbers game" check out the switch specs and see if they cite backplane switching capacity. A while ago it was popular to call switches that could handle all ports at full tilt "wirespeed" but I haven't seen that term for a while.

My fellow network admins and I could perhaps debate some of the daisy chaining if we were to get really anal about it, but superficially I see nothing glaringly "wrong" with your existing topology that is crying out to be "fixed."

To know for sure if there's any issues, we'd have to look at the stats for the usage of the switch-switch interlinks, but most SOHO kit lacks the ability to report on such things. If you have"managed" switches there may be something you could look at.

You could maybe get hold of something like iPerf or NetIO and run some of your own local "speed tests" if you really wanted to nerd out.

If you are experiencing congestion on the switch-switch interlinks, an option you could look at to increase that capacity is something called "Link Aggregation." LA allow you to run multiple physical links between switches (without LA that's a complete no no) and bind then together into a single logical link with double/triple/etc. the capacity. But note that's more "capacity" not more "speed" - it's more lanes on the highway, not double the speed limit. LA of course need the appropriate number of physical interconnect and switches that are LA compliant. If installing more cables is problematic, then it's a matter of waiting until 2.5/5/10GBe switches become a "thing" at a price point that justifies buying them.
 
Last edited:

Pugs1

Well-known Member
Looks to me like a lot of switches in that diagram for a SoHo home network. Why not one or two 16-24 port managed switches, physical constraint? What about separating IoT, WLAN into separate vlans, QoS, LAG to NAS etc?
 

leasty

Standard Member
Your NAS throughput speed does seem a bit low given you have a GbE network. I've got a Synology DS215+ with Netgear GS108 GbE switches and can consistently get 100MBs file transfers to either of my two desktop PC's which are one and two hops away respectively. Neither PC is anything special but they do have SSD's as their drives. I've just tried transferring a 2GB file from the NAS to my PC and got over 96MBs which, given there is quite a bit of other activity happening, is not too bad. It's slower going from the PC to the NAS - about 85MBs - due to the NAS being slower to write than reading.

I would try putting the PC and the NAS on the same switch, disconnecting or powering off whatever else is on the switch and seeing what transfer rate you get on a large file. It should be getting on for 100MBs. If it is, then neither the NAS nor the PC is the bottleneck and you need to look at the network. Anything much less that 90MBs and I would be looking at the PC as your NAS is very well specified. If you get upwards of 90Mbs you aren't likely to improve on that given that GbE maxes out at 100-105MBs. (For the avoidance of doubt, 1GbE is 1 gigabit per second, 100MBs is 100 megabytes per second, given 8 bits/byte plus overhead, around 115MBs is the theoretical maximum you are going to get over GbE)

My question is are all your switches from the same manufacturer? While, in theory it shouldn't matter, I've come across cases where an intermix of switches from different manufacturers don't get along well. I've gone for all Netgear GS105/GS108 switches (5).

Let us know how you get on.
 

neonplanet40

Active Member
Hi Folks, a few quick comments on some of the questions asked, and then I will go through the excellent detailed posts in more detail. Thank you to all who have contributed. It is appreciated.

The majority of the switches are bar the PoE) D-Link GO-SW-8G 8 Port Gigabit switches. I have 2 slightly older Dlink Gb switches. But all switches are the same brand. Are these suitable or are they missing something?

Regarding why I have so many switches:

Basically, the diagram doesn't show locations etc. I have a large 7 bedroom detached house. I currently use cable trunking along the skirting boards.

I don't have the large disposable income to get this professionally done in the walls - a messy and expensive job where multiple cables would be tracked to all the locations. There are a lot of things we want to do in our house over the years and it is highly unlikely that money would be diverted to this for another decade anyway.

So for me, it is easier and more cost-effective to track 1 or 2 ethernet cables to locations where I want a wired network and then attach a switch. That's why there are 5 switches. I could use my wifi more for this, but I prefer a wired connection. More reliable and free's up my wifi bandwidth for other things which can't be wired.

Regarding the NAS to PC speeds

I should say that the files are primarily sent from my HTPC (which is a Ryzen 6 MadVR build) to my Synology and they are on the same switch. (The switch on the left which has HTPC, receiver, UHD player and NAS - The only ones on 24/7 are the NAS and HTPC).
 

neonplanet40

Active Member
"What about separating IoT, WLAN into separate vlans, QoS, LAG to NAS etc?" - I am afraid my home networking skills are quite basic. I make my own cables which I was proud off haha. But there are lots to networking I don't know much about, to be honest, so I may need more noob-friendly help regarding your suggestions :D

I will have a look at turning other things on that switch off to see if it improves the speeds. Basically, it is WD Reds in the HTPC (for data is downloaded) and then passed to my NAS which is all WD Reds too). I only have an SSD for the windows drives.

One upgrade I will be doing soon is an SSD or NVMe with 2TB storage which will be used to download too and then transfer from it to my NAS when it fills. This may lead to slightly faster speeds or at least speeds which will just be dictated by the ability of the NAS drives. I have 47TB of storage (I use around half). In the future, I would hope to go full SSD, but the size/price ratio is too far behind at the moment.
 

neonplanet40

Active Member
I'm probably preaching to the choir, but for the avoidance of doubt, the speed of your Internet service has no bearing on the speed of your internal network. They are unrelated, but if you are surfing the Internet you will "feel" the effects of both.

Technically I don't know that you can have "too many switches" but it's not a case that there's a simple metric that "more than X is too many." It depends on things like the use case, the traffic levels, the topology and so on. The last "big" network I built had around 80-90 and there are plenty of other network admins who would regard that as "small."

The only hard and fast "rule" of ethernet topology is that you must not create any "loops" in the topology. If you do, you'll very soon have an unusable network as it gets gridlocked with endlessly circling broadcast traffic. (As illustrated, you don't have any loops.)

In order to know whether the network topology (or kit) is having any effect of the performance of your file transfers it would be useful to "baseline" the performance of such operation in the smallest network you can confect: Temporarily take you client device, your NAS and a single switch off to the "lab" and connect up nothing but the three (you'll have to manually assign some IP addresses when so doing unless you want to include your router also.) Then run some representative samples of your file transfers and see what the numbers are like. Thence having established the "best case" you are better informed as the any effect your network may be having. Ergo, if it's 60-70MB/s in test, then the "normal" network is having no effect and the bottleneck is elsewhere (most likely the source or sink devices.)

Every additional "hop" in the pathway between any given pair of communicating peers add some additional latency ("lag") but in ethernet switches the amount is so small you could bearly measure it let alone "notice" it in normal use.

A greater effect is more likely to be traffic levels and contention for the bandwidth. Each "hop" is a resource with finite capacity. If the demand for bandwidth is within that capacity, then everything is fine, if demand exceeds capacity they you get competition, congestion and collisions. Just like the road network.

Each switch has finite capacity to handle traffic across it's "backplane." But these days it's rare than the backplane switching capacity is not able to keep up with all ports operating at full capacity even for "cheap" gigabit switches. If you want to get into that "numbers game" check out the switch specs and see if they cite backplane switching capacity. A while ago it was popular to call switches that could handle all ports at full tilt "wirespeed" but I haven't seen that term for a while.

My fellow network admins and I could perhaps debate some of the daisy chaining if we were to get really anal about it, but superficially I see nothing glaringly "wrong" with your existing topology that is crying out to be "fixed."

To know for sure if there's any issues, we'd have to look at the stats for the usage of the switch-switch interlinks, but most SOHO kit lacks the ability to report on such things. If you have"managed" switches there may be something you could look at.

You could maybe get hold of something like iPerf or NetIO and run some of your own local "speed tests" if you really wanted to nerd out.

If you are experiencing congestion on the switch-switch interlinks, an option you could look at to increase that capacity is something called "Link Aggregation." LA allow you to run multiple physical links between switches (without LA that's a complete no no) and bind then together into a single logical link with double/triple/etc. the capacity. But note that's more "capacity" not more "speed" - it's more lanes on the highway, not double the speed limit. LA of course need the appropriate number of physical interconnect and switches that are LA compliant. If installing more cables is problematic, then it's a matter of waiting until 2.5/5/10GBe switches become a "thing" at a price point that justifies buying them.
This is an excellent post and I really thank you for taking the time to do it. It is very informative. As I have said, I am still learning about home networking/networking so there is lots I don't know.

Regarding your first point - internet speed - network speed. Getting FTTP pushed me to upgrade my wireless to wifi 6 so I could make better use of the increased speeds. This then made me think about my home network - and question if it was running as best it can (regardless of internet speeds). It just seemed like a good time to do this as a network is (unless something goes wrong) just left to bash on when it's set up.

Regarding loops - I didn't actually know this :D It's a fluke I've never run into this :D

I will run the tests you mentioned by isolating and reducing the network to base devices and check that. That won't be easy to do haha. probably a weekend job. Thanks for the help.
Regarding 'backplane switching capacity - ( D-Link GO-SW-8G 8 Port Gigabit switches Amazon product )These are my switches and I couldn't find what you referenced. Does that mean they don't have this and I should possibly look at changing them?

Regarding Link Aggregation - This is something I'd like to delve into further. I think my NAS would support it (Synology DS2415+) and I would hope my main PC and HTPC would as they are relatively new so newish motherboards (Asus Strix B450 & Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7). What I don't know is if my switches support LA. How many more cables would I need? For example, if my HTPC does most of the data transfers and they are connected via the same switch - can the extra cables just be connected between them? Or do I need to double up all links between switches in the network? Sorry if that's a silly question! Just trying to figure out exactly how it works.

Thank you again for your help!
 
Last edited:

mickevh

Distinguished Member
I've just had a look at the datasheet for your switches (link below) and the "numbers" are the same as everyone else's for gigabit switches. 1,448,000 (actually plus some change) Packets Per Second is as fast as gigabit ethernet goes using minimum ethernet frame size (which is what everyone uses when citing this metric.) However, it's likely that's the forwarding rate "per port" and if one "runs the numbers" that is as fast as (any) gigabit ethernet can go. They do not cite the "backplane" capacity which is a measure of how many packets the switch as a whole can handle - it's a metric not often cited on cheap kit. So there's no definite indication that they could handle this throughput on all ports concurrently.

However, it's highly unlikely a SOHO LAN would ever get anywhere near that "busy," so I wouldn't worry about it. If you wanted to test, you could isolate a single switch and use something like iPerf for NetIO to run some trials.


Wiki's article on Link Aggregation is quite a good primer on the subject, though it's a bit technical. Your switches do not support LA, so you would need to replace them. LA operates on a "per lobe" basis so it can be implemented (for example) host--switch or switch--switch or both (and independently of each other.) I've implemented both in my "day job."

The number of physical cables per LA group (LAG) is usually a function of the equipment capability (and/or drivers/software.) The biggest I've seen is a max of 8, the biggest I've built had 4, 2 was typical (simply because I mostly had 2 cables in situ) and most of the host--switch LAG's I've built had 2 physical links generally because the hosts (which were big boy's servers) were dual NIC (you can buy enterprise servers with even more NIC's!)

For the purpose of debate, let's confine the discussion to 2 physical links using gigabit ethernet to save me having to cite lots of caveats. Chances are that's the most common use case for SOHO.

It is important to understand that a LAG does not give you a link "twice as fast:" A LAG comprised of 2x 1GBe links is not going to be a "2GBe link" (though some drivers report it as such.) It will still perform as a 1GBe link for any given stream running over it, it's just that now you can have two 1GBe transfers running concurrently thereby increasing the capacity. It's a highway with more lanes, not double the speed limit.
 
Last edited:

neonplanet40

Active Member
Excellent, thank you! If I wanted to upgrade two of my switches (so the ones which link the main pc to the Nas and HTPC. And set up LA between those bits of kit, what you are saying is this is possible? If so, can you recommend any switches for my needs? Even managed ones if that helps. I am happy to spend a little bit of money. Just not crazy amounts. But this seems like something that could be doable in my situation.

Again, thank you for taking the time to go through all of this with me. I am currently reading the wiki article now!
 

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
I get around 60-70 MB/sec. If I could get this higher it would make a difference for me.

As others have said you need to look at this before you start spending money upgrading your switches, as this is well under the limit of gigabit speeds.

Is this from copying a series of small files or one big. So say a big movie file you would expect to saturate a gigabit connection at around the 115-120MB/s mark assuming both your PC and NAS can keep up. If it is small files then the transfer rate will often drop substantially.

The issue with your network will come as you try and shove over a gigabit/s down that. Realistically in a home network that is going to come from a file copy or two going on at the same time. Some UHD streams off Netflix and the like will be in the order of 40Mbps or 5MB/s which is hardly going to stretch it. What bandwidth do your cameras use?

The other thing to look at is, do you really need to get WiFi 6, what benefits are you going to get on the WiFi devices, is there something that is broken\slow at the moment. By that I don't mean does speedtest.net et al not report your max connection speed over WiFi but does stuff stream fast enough etc.

There are a lot of people chasing headline speeds but most use cases don't need that particularly when you go past 100Mbps on mobile devices.
 

mickevh

Distinguished Member
Excellent, thank you! If I wanted to upgrade two of my switches (so the ones which link the main pc to the Nas and HTPC. And set up LA between those bits of kit, what you are saying is this is possible? If so, can you recommend any switches for my needs? Even managed ones if that helps. I am happy to spend a little bit of money. Just not crazy amounts. But this seems like something that could be doable in my situation.

May I suggest you annotate your diagram so as to uniquely label each switch (a simple letter or number will do) which will assist contributors in describing where they might think a LAG (or some replumbing) would be beneficial.

I don't recommend kit on the basis I don't see enough of it (let alone test it) to have any useful opinion of what's good or bad, particularly for the SOHO marketplace.

However, I agree with ChuckMountain and others - I think it would pay you to do some testing and benchmarking to see if you have a "problem" that need fixing. It could potentially save you spending time and money unnecessarily.
 

neonplanet40

Active Member
Thanks for the help folks. I'll do some tinkering over the weekend :)
 

Gavona

Novice Member
I am not an expert - came here looking for help. However my situation is not very different to yours and I have a few suggestions/questions.
  1. Is your current NAS GB?
  2. You are making your own cables. I suggest that you speed test each one. I made one at the weekend that seemed to work fine but on checking it limited speeds to 100mbps. I just needed to re-crimp it.
  3. Do your switches have lights on them that indicate the speed of the connection?
  4. What I did to test various scenarios was to buy a 30m pre-terminated cat5e cable so that I could run between the switch supporting my NAS and each wired device in turn. Unplug everything along the route between router and that switch.
  5. I use a LAN speed test from "OpenSpeedTest" to test the speed . Experts here will no doubt be able to suggest other options. (The version I use is linux based hosted on my NAS).
  6. Question: The router allocates the IP address and seems to have to be in the circuit in order for the LAN speed test to work. Does that mean that the traffic flows through the router or does it flow PC-Switch-NAS? I have assumed the latter but would like confirmation. I guess if that is right then the link to the router could be 100mbps with no impact on the speed within the LAN.
 

oneman

Active Member
- For home networks daisy chaining switches shouldn't make any difference. Unless you have multiple servers and multiple clients then you should be fine.

- I see you have CCTV, is that recording to the NAS. Shouldn't make too much difference as each camera should be about 1mbps depending on resolution, frame rate and compression but it is something to be aware of.

- What type of files are you transferring, lots of smaller files are going to slow down the transfer. Especially true if using spinning disk.

- How are you doing your copies, file explorer or some other method ? I am guessing you are running Windows 10 on your PC, have a look at Robocopy which does multi-threading copies.

- Link aggregation (NIC teaming) isn't going to do much for you, its designed for servers where multiple clients connect as each client gets the speed of one NIC. So its great if you have 2 or more PC talking to one server but no benefit for one pc talking to one server.

- You Synlogy model doesn't appear to support 10gb and no option to upgrade it.

- If your main concern is data transfer between NAS and the one PC then you could put an extra NIC in the PC and put a direct cable between the PC and a spare port on the NAS, give them 10.x.x.1 and 10.x.x.2 address and map a drive by IP address. That way you will remove that traffic from home network and both on your NAS, PC can talk to other home devices / internet on the other NIC at 1gb. But you will still be limit to around 110MB/sec transfer.

- If you upgrade your NAS and PC to 10gb then you can have 10gb between those two using direct cable without the expense of upgrading the switches as well. 10gb switches aren't cheap Netgear have just bought out a 5 port, 10gb copper switch for around £250 to £300 I think or they do this with 8 x 1gb ports and 2 x 10gb ports.
Amazon product
- For 10gb you will need Cat6 up to 50m or Cat 6a for up to 100m, don't bother with home made and stick with major supplies (I suggest Cable Monkey), too much cr*p on places like ebay.
 
Last edited:

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
Question: The router allocates the IP address and seems to have to be in the circuit in order for the LAN speed test to work. Does that mean that the traffic flows through the router or does it flow PC-Switch-NAS? I have assumed the latter but would like confirmation. I guess if that is right then the link to the router could be 100mbps with no impact on the speed within the LAN.

In the home, the ISP router tends to be a one-box solution and a jack of all trades but a master of none. So it tends to do the Modem bit (convert the signals over the phone wire to something meaningful), DHCP (allocates IP address to devices requesting them), WiFi, Switch (provides switching for hardwired (ethernet) devices), firewall (stop the nasty internet from giving you a bad day).

Depending on how your network is configured if your router is plugged directly into both the NAS and computer, like so (excuse the crude diagram)

Router ----> NAS
----> Computer

Then yes the router needs to be on and traffic flows through the router's switch. The speed of which will be determined typically by its ports. A lot of routers these days have gigabit ports, however some will be be limited to 100megabits.

If you have

Router ----> Switch ------> NAS
------> Computer

Then your speed between NAS and computer will be limited to the speed of the switch. It does not depend on the speed of the router.
 

oneman

Active Member
  1. Question: The router allocates the IP address and seems to have to be in the circuit in order for the LAN speed test to work. Does that mean that the traffic flows through the router or does it flow PC-Switch-NAS? I have assumed the latter but would like confirmation. I guess if that is right then the link to the router could be 100mbps with no impact on the speed within the LAN.
The switches builds up a little table of MAC addresses and ports so it knows which port has which MAC address. So in OP case NAS sends a packet to PC by MAC address, the switch knows the PC MAC is not on one its ports so it broadcasts the packet meaning it sends it to every port on the switch including the ones the daisy chained switches are on. The daisy chained switches will broadcast the packet, etc, etc until eventually the correct MAC is found. That switch now knows the NAS is on a daisy chained switch and notes that. When the PC talks back to the NAS, the reverse will happen.

Eventually every switch knows every MAC addresses of devices connected to daisy chained switches as devices talk to each other and no need to broadcast and use the most efficient route. That also frees up network bandwidth for more devices to talk at the same time. Its also why its vital never to cause a loop between switches.

Hopefully that makes sense.
 

mickevh

Distinguished Member
I am not an expert - came here looking for help. However my situation is not very different to yours and I have a few suggestions/questions.
  1. Is your current NAS GB
  2. You are making your own cables. I suggest that you speed test each one. I made one at the weekend that seemed to work fine but on checking it limited speeds to 100mbps. I just needed to re-crimp it.
  3. Do your switches have lights on them that indicate the speed of the connection?
  4. What I did to test various scenarios was to buy a 30m pre-terminated cat5e cable so that I could run between the switch supporting my NAS and each wired device in turn. Unplug everything along the route between router and that switch.
  5. I use a LAN speed test from "OpenSpeedTest" to test the speed . Experts here will no doubt be able to suggest other options. (The version I use is linux based hosted on my NAS).
  6. Question: The router allocates the IP address and seems to have to be in the circuit in order for the LAN speed test to work. Does that mean that the traffic flows through the router or does it flow PC-Switch-NAS? I have assumed the latter but would like confirmation. I guess if that is right then the link to the router could be 100mbps with no impact on the speed within the LAN.

2. 100mbps only operation is the "classic" symptom of a link/cable where some of the wire cores are not correctly terminated. 100mbps ethernet only uses 4 f the wires in the cables, 1000mbps need all 8.

6. "Routers" sit at the edge of networks joining networks to other networks, they don't sit in the middle "bossing" it. Others here have described excellently the mechanism of how switched ethernet works, the upshot being that once the switches have learned what endstations can be reached through which of their ports, traffic takes the shortest path (least hops) possible between source and sink. It is not at all requried for everything to "go via a router" and in larger more complex networks, very little does (network managers often try to "design out" the need to.)

IP Address allocation using DHCP is a separate distinct mechanism from ethernet switching (and routing,) they are not interdependent. A DHCP Server can literally be anywhere on each network. If you were really masochistic, you need not have a DHCP Server at all and assign all IP address manually like we had to in olden days before DHCP got invented. Of course, the automation of DHCP is a lot less effort.

For SOHO "get-you-on-the_-Internet" omni-boxes, a DHCP Server is bundled inside with everything else. Again, on big corporate networks, it's highly likely the DHCP Server(s) would be a completely separate "thing" from the router(s.) In a big "Windows" shop, most likely one or more of the Windows Servers would be running the role of DHCP Server (as it integrates well with something called "Active Directory" which most business networks use.)

DHCP is a fairly "passive" process in that it doesn't do much. It really only does anything when end stations are acquiring and/or renewing their DHCP Leases, typically every 12-24 hours using default setting (big boys DHCP Servers let you customise the time outs, SOHO router often do not,) even then it's only a few packets per device. Just like routing, it's not necessary for all traffic to transit through the "thing" that gave them their IP address.
 

Gavona

Novice Member
Thanks, that's all very clear and understood. Apologies to OP - I didn't intend to hijack - hope the info helped you too.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 First Thoughts, plus TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom