Skip to main content
AT&T Community Forums
openfaint's profile

Contributor

 • 

7 Messages

Sun, Jun 28, 2020 5:42 AM

BGW210-700 degregation of speed while in IP-Passthrough

I am seeing a issue of great speed decrease when in IP Passthrough mode to my equipment , To vouch ahead of my complaint I am a network Engineer, CCNP routing and switching certified, NET+ certified, CISSP, CCNA Security, CCNP Wireless. so on so forth, so I know what I am talking about when I address my opinion and complaint. My current configuration is the BGW210-700 in passthrough to a PFsense built on a poweredge R710 with 24 cores 48 threads, 2x 12 cores xeons. 84Gbs PC3 ECC memory, 4x 10 G NICS 1x 1gig nic. This does not have any hardware restrictions on it for the 1000/1000 I pay for and when placed in passthrough I get 94/17 Mbps as my best result. ATT you need to resolve this solution as the blame can not possibly be the fault of both open and closed sourced vendors. I an greatly considering changing back to cox Fiber and also running OEC fiber as a redundancy., This is on a residential 1000/1000 plan. I have had new equipment and technician all who came out and said it works just fine. However it does not. Not even close. There should be no reason that your equipment should offer a passthrough that limits bandwidth. and limits it greatly I could understand having around 900/900 but 94/17 is unacceptable. If anyone can address this issue with an actual resolution that would be outstanding. As even the depths of the internet define the resolution to this issue being switch ISPs.

Responses

Contributor

 • 

7 Messages

10 m ago

So I've done some more researching into the issue, I am being sent a NVG599 instead of the BGW210-700 as a alternate step. Now one thing I have strong beliefs on is this is a Firmware related issue as in ATT has the duplex mode locked when placed into Passthrough. Pictures will follow for explanation as well. So I saw through my pfSense that the WAN port was only seeing 100BaseTX which is weird because I have a 10Gbe network and all ports are either SFP+ or 10Gbe Rj45. So I physically plugged my laptop into port 1 on the BGW210-700 Port 4 leads to my pfSense. From here I logged into my device and changed the 4th interface to 1G Full Duplex and kept MDIX as auto this shouldnt matter. When I saved the configuration I saw a watchdog error pop up on the pfSense and the WAN port went down, and was no longer discovered. So I restarted both devices and retried, same result no WAN found Watchdog error. At this time  i changed the MDIX configuration to both on and off and no different result. Followed this up with a changing from Passthrough to NAT again and boom had 1000BaseTX read out on my pfSense. But the second I placed the BGW210-700 back into passthrough mode the interface was undiscoverable. Fixed this by placing it into auto negotiate for duplex and once again it negotiated at 100BaseTX. leaving me with a 94/17 speed again. This leaves two options, A their is a firmware bug that needs to be patched, or B AT&T has locked down the duplex speed when placed into IP Passthrough on their equipment, which is rather unethical as we don't have an option to not use it. I'm hoping that upon receiving the NVG599 that I will no longer have this issue as it has a completely different firmware associated with it. 

Contributor

 • 

7 Messages

9 m ago

So update: upon a failed delivery of the NVG599 a tech came out, the technician listened to what i stated about a possible firmware issue. After this discussion the tech came back in holding a Pace 5268AC. This is a tad bit of an older piece of equipment but it resolved the issue. After configuring it into its DMZ mode I was able to utilize the full 1000/1000 and my public IP was handed off to the pfSense device. You are able to request from a technician the Pace 5268ACs and they do work. The issue has been resolved after almost 2 years of issues it has finally been resolved. 

Brand User
ATTHelp

Community Support

 • 

154.7K Messages

9 m ago

Hey, @openfaint. Glad to hear you were able to get it fixed!

 

Sorry it took so long to reach a resolution, but if you have anymore questions or concerns in the future, please feel free to reach back out. Thanks for choosing AT&T!

 

Ramses, AT&T Community Specialist

Still need help? Ask a question! Our 1.4 million members typically respond within 1 hour.

*I am an AT&T employee, and the postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent AT&T's position, strategies or opinions.
browndk26

ACE - Professor

 • 

3.7K Messages

9 m ago

@openfaint be careful with the 5268. Several firmware updates broke it to 50 mbps in the past. This is the first I’ve heard of the bgw210 limiting speeds in ip passthrough. 

FWIW, My bgw210 in ip passthrough has the Ethernet ports on auto. I get around 300 up down wired. But this is due to my PC’s network card. 

Award for Community Excellence 2020 Achiever*
*I am not an AT&T employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
tinslwc

Teacher

 • 

158 Messages

9 m ago

For what its worth, I have both a NVG599 and BGW-210 and the negotiated link speed for the LAN ports is 1000BaseT.  Both are operating in IP Passthrough to a pfSense box.  The 599 is going to a virtualized pf while the 210 is going to a physical pf.  Both are going through a switch with VLAN segregation to get to the pf box.

 

All that said, I only have DSL available at both locations, so no where near the limits for even 100, but the negotiated speed is 1000.

 

Good luck with the 5268ac.  It's firmware has been riddled with issues since the 11.x release.  If you ever implement IPv6 with it, expect nothing but problems.  I switched mine out for a NVG599.

 

I've been tossing around the idea of using a RamNode VPS as a VPN exit point for $3-5 /month.  That would basically give me an unfettered connection without the NAT connection limits or ATT tracking everything I did.  It would also be local hardware agnostic (since we cannot use our own modems).

 

Just a couple thoughts.

Get started...

Ask a new question