Hello, I'm using the Flint 2 as my primary router, which is directly connected to my fiber modem. For my secondary device, the GL-SFT1200 (Opal), I've connected it on a the WAN/LAN port of the Flint 2, using it as LAN. On the Opal, I believe I've configured a static IP address and successfully disabled its DHCP server.
However, I'm noticing an unusual performance issue: the download speeds on the Opal are significantly slower—about half or less than its upload speeds. The Flint 2 doesn't have this issue, so the problem doesn't appear to be with the incoming fiber connection.
It seems like a misconfiguration on the Opal might be causing these slow download speeds. Can anyone suggest what might be wrong with the current settings or recommend a potential fix?
And I am not wanting to use the secondary router as an access point.
The rest of the internet seems to say differently, as far as I can understand. I followed this: duck://player/J5QJb3O19zI but with different routers, obviously. It’s not LAN/LAN to my understanding, it’s WAN/LAN. Thanks!
So, by disabling DHCP on the secondary router (Opal), assigning it a static IP, and connecting it to my primary router (Flint 2)—I understand this is a common method for employing a router as a switch or access point.
In this configuration, the secondary router (Opal) isn’t performing NAT or routing; it simply extends my LAN. Many have used this approach to add extra wired or wireless connectivity within a network.
Connection details (LAN-to-LAN vs. LAN-to-WAN): The Opal is plugged into one of the Flint’s LAN ports.
For proper access point/switch mode, the standard method is to connect LAN port to LAN port and disable DHCP on the secondary router. I believe connecting the Opal’s LAN to the Flint’s LAN is the correct approach in this scenario. Which I have done.
Only If the connection were made from the Opal’s LAN to the Flint’s WAN, would it typically create a double NAT scenario to my understanding. But since I’ve disabled DHCP on the Opal, I’m essentially running it as a switch/AP, so wouldn't LAN-to-LAN connection be preferable?
I followed the setup instructions here: duck://player/J5QJb3O19zI that many appear to have used for similar configurations. The “diagram” is simply what I have stated above. The fiber coming into the WAN port of Flint 2. Then, the Opal is connected via one of Flint 2’s LAN ports.
I’m not seeking general opinions on this setup but rather from those who have practical experience with it or similar, specifically regarding the issue where download speeds are lower than upload speeds on the second router (the Opal). IS that a common thing when setting up routers this way? Specifically, it would be great to know if it’s a known thing with the Opal router. Has anyone experienced this imbalance in speeds with this configuration or with the Opal in general? If so, could you please share any insights on potential causes for lower download speeds in this configuration?
Always use the WAN input on any GL.iNet routers if you want to connect them to a network which is controlled by another router. It's not a switch and there is no real switch mode.
Ok, I will try this, but nothing else says this that i have found. Is this specific to GL-iNet devices? Isn’t this going to result in Double NAT? or will it not because DHCP is disabled?
I have my Flint 2 connected to my old Slate router via Ethernet, and my internet speeds are fine since the Ethernet link between them is connected at 1000baseT on the Slate’s switch page in the advanced LUCI GUI, and 1000Mbps on the Flint 2’s network port management page in its GUI.
Is your Ethernet link between your two routers at 100baseT/100Mbps perhaps? If so, then auto-negotiation would be the problem. In that case, have you tried a different Ethernet cable?
I haven’t tried a different Ethernet cable. Both these routers are brand new and I’m using the CAT 6 cables they came with. I’ll look into it thought, thanks. But here’s a question for you, are your speeds wireless that you’re talking about, or wired? Thanks again!
Interesting, then hopefully it’s just negotiating at 100mb for whatever reason since that should be easier to resolve than something else.
Both, but I'm not connected LAN to LAN, I’m connected Flint 2 WAN to Slate LAN with the Slate's WAN connected to the internet. Everything from my Flint 2 Wireless and Wired connections, and my second Slate wired connection obtain the speeds I’m paying for from my Internet service provider.
Yes, I have to because they are two different networks since the Flint 2’s WAN is connected to the Slate’s LAN, and not LAN to LAN.
So, I take it that you’ve checked and the LAN to LAN Ethernet connection between them and it’s at 1000Mbps on both sides then.
When you ping from the Opal side to the Flint 2’s gateway, or from the Flint 2’s side to the Opal assigned IP, do you see any packet loss, or ping response times higher than 1ms?
I see one difference between my Flint 2 and my Slate’s LAN side network configuration. The Slate’s network switch configuration uses the native VLAN 1 untagged on its LAN ports. The Flint 2 doesn’t have any VLAN configurations at all natively.
I’ve experienced situations where one end of a layer 2/3 device’s connection has a native untagged VLAN assigned on a port connected to another layer 2/3 device on the other end that didn’t have any VLAN configurations. That caused a native VLAN mismatch issue on the link between them which caused network degradation with ping response times across the link to be high. So, I created the same VLAN ID on the other layer 2/3 device and untagged it on the port connected between them. So then since the native VLAN matched between the two layer 2/3 devices, the ping times across the connection dropped down to 1ms.
If native VLAN mismatch is the problem here, then you might try creating the same VLAN ID on the Flint 2’s LAN bridge device (br-lan natively) and untag that VLAN ID on the LAN(n) port that’s connected to the Opal.