slow broadband on cisco router (long)

cisco 2651XM router with wic1-adsl card IOS: c2600-ipbase-mz.123-11.T.bin (12Mb) broadband = bog standard 8Mb adsl on BT line

I've discovered to my dismay my cisco router only gives me half the broadband speed of a cheap plastic router (Billion 5200G). If I connect my PC straight to a Billion 5200G adsl router I am getting about

3800kbps download at speedtest.net, and a file download from microsoft.com came down at about 450Kb/sec. However if I swap the Billion for my cisco router I only get about 2500kbps at speedtest.net and the same file from MS downloads at approx 290KKB/sec. This is quite a difference and I never expected cisco gear to give such poor performance - unless I'm doing something wrong that is. In testing the cisco I used two different IOS's - a minimal IOS (above) and a larger IOS with a bare bones running-config (below), no firewalls or anything and still the speed was slow. Next thing I did was change the adsl card (I've got two cards) but that made no difference. Another thing I tried was I took the adsl card out of the cisco router and configured a route through it out into the Billion router, so effectively the internet traffic was still going through the cisco router and the speed was back up to 3800kbps again, which would indicate the problem is with the WIC1-adsl card. So either these cards aren't much cop or I haven't configured it correctly. I duplicated the above test on a second 2651XM router I have and I got the same results. Below is a copy of my running-config and a bit extra so if anyone can see frailties in it that would cause adsl slowness I'd be grateful for some tips. Thanks if you can advise and sorry for the long post but I wanted to give as much info as possible.

vpn#show int ATM0/0 ATM0/0 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) MTU 4470 bytes, sub MTU 4470, BW 448 Kbit/sec, DLY 1140 usec, reliability 5/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM, loopback not set Encapsulation(s): AAL5 AAL2, PVC mode 23 maximum active VCs, 256 VCs per VP, 1 current VCCs VC Auto Creation Disabled. VC idle disconnect time: 300 seconds Last input never, output 00:00:00, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters never Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: Per VC Queueing 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 12 packets input, 343 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 10 packets output, 256 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 unknown protocol drops 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

vpn#show int Dialer0 Dialer0 is up, line protocol is up (spoofing) Hardware is Unknown Internet address is xxxxxxxxxxxxx/32 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 56 Kbit/sec, DLY 20000 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation PPP, loopback not set Keepalive set (10 sec) DTR is pulsed for 1 seconds on reset Interface is bound to Vi2 Last input never, output never, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 00:07:38 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: weighted fair Output queue: 0/1000/64/0 (size/max total/threshold/drops) Conversations 0/0/16 (active/max active/max total) Reserved Conversations 0/0 (allocated/max allocated) Available Bandwidth 42 kilobits/sec 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 8 packets input, 252 bytes 8 packets output, 196 bytes Bound to: Virtual-Access2 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is Virtual Access interface MTU 1500 bytes, BW 448 Kbit/sec, DLY 20000 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation PPP, LCP Open Open: IPCP PPPoATM vaccess, cloned from Dialer0 Vaccess status 0x44 Bound to ATM0/0 VCD: 1, VPI: 0, VCI: 38, loopback not set Keepalive set (10 sec) DTR is pulsed for 5 seconds on reset Interface is bound to Di0 (Encapsulation PPP) Last input 00:00:25, output never, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 00:01:31 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 21 packets input, 517 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 18 packets output, 356 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 unknown protocol drops 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out 0 carrier transitions

router running config: ! version 12.3 service timestamps debug datetime msec service timestamps log datetime msec no service password-encryption ! hostname vpn ! boot-start-marker boot-end-marker ! no logging console enable secret 5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx enable password xxxxxxxxxx ! no network-clock-participate slot 1 no network-clock-participate wic 0 no aaa new-model ip subnet-zero ip cef ! ! ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.199 ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.241 192.168.1.255 ! ip dhcp pool 192.168.1.0/24 network 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 default-router 192.168.1.254 dns-server 212.23.3.100 212.23.6.100 ! ! ip name-server 212.23.3.100 ip name-server 212.23.6.100 ! ! ! ! interface ATM0/0 no ip address no atm ilmi-keepalive dsl operating-mode auto pvc 0/38 encapsulation aal5mux ppp dialer dialer pool-member 1 ! ! interface FastEthernet0/0 no ip address shutdown duplex auto speed auto ! interface FastEthernet0/1 description $ETH-LAN$ ip address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 ip nat inside duplex auto speed auto no mop enabled ! interface Dialer0 ip address negotiated previous no ip redirects no ip proxy-arp ip nat outside encapsulation ppp dialer pool 1 dialer idle-timeout 0 dialer persistent dialer-group 1 no cdp enable ppp authentication chap callin ppp chap hostname zzzzzzzzzzzz ppp chap password 0 zzzzzzzzzzz ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer0 permanent ! ip http server ip nat inside source list 100 interface Dialer0 overload ! access-list 100 remark internet access-list 100 remark SDM_ACL Category=2 access-list 100 permit ip any any ! control-plane ! ! line con 0 line aux 0 line vty 0 4 password xxxxx login ! ! end

Reply to
tg
Loading thread data ...

Should not be using T train for IOS versions, bugs could be common.

Can we see a show interface FastEthernet0/1

Reply to
Artie Lange

Hmm, I wonder what kind of limitations the WIC bus may have on the Cisco. Usually I've done things with lower 2600's like the 2610 which is going to crap out about 3Mbps anyway. But your 2651XM should have enough steam for at least 25Mbps.

I couldn't find a reference on bus speed for the WIC bus, only this in a Cisco patent for the HWIC bus..

::: The legacy WICs were conceived several years ago, and originally ::: targeted PHY devices with a maximum bit rate of a few Mbps.

Maybe I should pop a WIC-1ADSL in a bigger router and see what I can push at work off my test DSLAM. Would be an interesting test. I know some of the max packet rates of some of my lab stuff, and know my test DSLAM is about as clean a DSL line as I can get.

There isn't much you can configure on the router for the WIC-1ADSL card. I'd start suspecting more of a physical hardware limitation. The 2600 series is *not* a very speedy or very big router, even by the standards of $60 consumer routers. Afterall, the 2600 series was designed in the '90s to push a T1 or maybe two.

Even an 857/877 should run circles around a 2600, even being it a 2651XM.

Reply to
Doug McIntyre

Interesting ideas.

formatting link
"WIC-2T Supports one port at 8 Mbps when used in NM-1FE1R2W, NM-1FE2W, NM-2FE2W, or NM-2W, or Cisco 2600 chassis WIC slots. All other WIC ports on that network module or Cisco 2600 chassis must not be used.

Supports two ports at 4 Mbps each when used in NM-1FE1R2W, NM-1FE2W, NM-2FE2W, or NM-2W, or Cisco 2600 chassis WIC slots. All other WIC ports on that network module or Cisco 2600 chassis must not be used."

There is more so read the original. Note especially comment about "other WIC ports must not be used". I forget what is in the router in question.

While limits exist it seems that the WIC 'bus' can support 8Mbps in each direction at least.

I used the OP's test site with an 877 (12.4(15)T with latest DSL firmware) and got 6.5Mbps down.

I would say that it was definately worth a software change to the latest. I don't know anout the WIC-1ADSL but the 8[57]7 and HWIC-ADSLs have had numerous software changes, some listing fixes for performance problems.

Please post results from the following.

reboot router - to clear ALL counters - ideally carry out speed tests when completed gather sh int sh dsl int sh buff post results.

Reply to
bod43

ok thanks. What IOS would you recommend? - please note that if I can resolve this speed problem with a different IOS I also want to run a small ip phone system on the router with outgoing sip trunk.

gladly - this is from a fresh boot of the router.

vpn#show int f0/1 FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is AmdFE, address is 000c.31ee.67e1 (bia 000c.31ee.67e1) Description: $ETH-LAN$ Internet address is 192.168.1.254/24 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit/sec, DLY 100 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set Keepalive set (10 sec) Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input never, output 00:00:05, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters never Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 0 packets input, 0 bytes Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 7 packets output, 1299 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 unknown protocol drops 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

Reply to
tg

ok thanks for your feedback Doug and I suppose a more immediate solution would be to throw the adsl card back in the drawer and use a consumer level one-port router as a gateway to the internet. I have to use a cisco router however as I run a small ip phone system on it with outgoing sip trunk as well as several PC's. If you do the wic-adsl speed tests you spoke of I'd be interested to hear what results you get.

Reply to
tg

After a bit of other stuff going on, going back to a 3640, I don't think its worth $200 to upgrade it to enough Flash to run an IP+ image for the card, and the bootrom doesn't support TFTP on a 3640. Sorry, but I wasn't going to do an XMODEM download of 28MB of IOS to try it out.

BUT, going through searches on things, I found something interesting that I haven't seen before that could be very relavent to you.

formatting link
The 2nd post. The clockrate of the ATM controller on his 2620 was set to limit it to 2.6Mbps max.

He could change the clockrate with an int atm 0/0 clockrate aal5 5300000

on his 3640, but the 2620 could do a clockrate of 8000000.

That sounds completely relavent to your issue.

I've installed plenty of these cards, but almost always in something like a 2610 which is about 3Mbps-4.5Mbps max anyway, and as backup solutions, that was good enough.

Reply to
Doug McIntyre

| After a bit of other stuff going on, going back to a 3640, I don't | think its worth $200 to upgrade it to enough Flash to run an IP+ image | for the card, and the bootrom doesn't support TFTP on a 3640. Sorry, | but I wasn't going to do an XMODEM download of 28MB of IOS to try it out.

The 3640 bootrom will use pretty much any handy IOS image in flash as an rxboot loader to boot another IOS by tftp, ftp, or rcp. This is handy since the last 12.4 jk9o3s image didn't fit in flash even if you had the maximum supported. :) Of course, you have to have enough RAM...

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

Yeah, probably not enough RAM in these boxes either to attempt that either.

Its still interested me enough to try to cycle something out of production to test with though.

Reply to
Doug McIntyre

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.