Im using a JNC9KDL-2700 which is the previous version of the Jetway JNC9KDL-2550

I'm running Ubuntu server on it. If I max out my 43Mb/s connection with bittorrent, then it's using about 10% of both cores. Thats using the latest PPPoE with an MTU of 1500.

The fan never kicks in. Very pleased with it.

Have you looked this one?
Up to 800Mbps WAN throughput (ideal for FTTx services)
http://www.draytek.com/user/PdInfoDetail.php?Id=111
Don't know about pppoe speeds so best to contact [email protected] (they helping a lot) as i am happy draytek user but never used this model

The Jetway looks to be a pretty decent product - though it's a shame about the Realtek Ethernet controllers, which are not the best. Under FreeBSD (and hence pfSense), Intel controllers are usually regarded as the best, with the higher end Broadcom controllers often being not too far behind. The 32 bit PCI slot of the Jetway will act as a bandwidth limit on an external gigabit Ethernet card.

Soekris net 6501 boards have Intel Gigabit controllers, but they're relatively low end 82574 parts. These boards are also expensive, have a maximum of 2GByte RAM (a possible problem if you want to use RAM heavy packages such as Snort) and only have single core processors.


FreeBSD - and therefore pfSense - doesn't currently support RFC 4638, so is limited to a 1492 byte MTU on PPPoE. I've scoped out what needs doing to add this support, and hope to get round to implementing it and ultimately submitting patches, but I have no timescale for this work as I'm very busy at the moment.

PPPoE uses mpd for PPPoE, which does a limited amount of work in userland but the majority using the kernel's netgraph system. The use of netgraph means I can't recycle any of the work on implementing RFC 4638 in NetBSD and OpenBSD, which implement PPPoE very differently.

I'm 99% certain I will need a modest patch to ng_pppoe.c, as much of the PPPoE negotiation is done in the kernel without calling the userland callback. The necessary kernel patch is no more ambitious in scale than a patch I've previously had accepted for inclusion in FreeBSD. The userland support is pretty straightforward once the kernel support is in place.


If you want to use RFC 4638 for a 1500 byte MTU on BT Openreach FTTx, you need to select a network controller that supports jumbo frames of at least 1508 bytes. Many gigabit controllers do support jumbo frames, though the FreeBSD 8.1 manpage for the re(4) driver isn't drawn on whether jumbo support is available for the 8111EVL controllers on the Jetway board you mention.

If you want the user manual, send me a pm with your email address. I just got the manual today.

In reply to a post by David_W:

If you want to use RFC 4638 for a 1500 byte MTU on BT Openreach FTTx, you need to select a network controller that supports jumbo frames of at least 1508 bytes. Many gigabit controllers do support jumbo frames, though the FreeBSD 8.1 manpage for the re(4) driver isn't drawn on whether jumbo support is available for the 8111EVL controllers on the Jetway board you mention.

I have another jetway board with a RTL8111E and it supports jumbo frames. Although I can't tell if the FreeBSD re(4) driver will support jumbo frames on that particular device (I use NetBSD and Linux), and as you say the documentation is not clear.

In reply to a post by kitcat:

If your problem with the HH3 is just the FON ( BT WIFI sharing) why not just go to the BT site and turn the FON off?

It seems to be a very good router considering it is free to you and delivers all the speed you have got. 310Mb on a 330Mb product is all you can expect after headers etc .

It's not just that. I want to have a PPTP server so I can VPN from my iPhone and laptop when I'm at work. The Wifi on the HH3 is pretty basic, and for the few days I was using it, I noticed regular interruptions (brief, but still). And just in general, I dislike having a BT-controlled device on my home network. I'd rather have complete control of my edge router. It's just a personal preference.

In reply to a post by gmoorc:

This one looks more powerful.

Re a PC for PFSense how about this dual lan mini itx board.

I emailed Mikrotik support asking which was more powerful between the RB450G or the RB951G, and the response was "it depends", that the RB951G has a newer generation CPU, and that they are seeing better performance on the 951G with larger packets.

In reply to a post by gmoorc:

How about adding this and then 2 of these.

I've come across these, which seem ideal, but no idea on price, I haven't been able to find anyone selling them in the UK (a couple of them are "coming soon").

NANO831
http://www.axiomtek.com/products/ViewProduct.asp?vie...

CAPA830
http://www.axiomtek.com/products/ViewProduct.asp?vie...

CAPA831
http://www.axiomtek.com/products/ViewProduct.asp?vie...

In reply to a post by babis3g:

Have you looked this one?
Up to 800Mbps WAN throughput (ideal for FTTx services)
http://www.draytek.com/user/PdInfoDetail.php?Id=111
Don't know about pppoe speeds so best to contact [email protected] (they helping a lot) as i am happy draytek user but never used this model

Yes, it is on my shortlist. I had a Drayek 2820 Vn which served me well for four years, but it maxes out at around 70 Mbps on my new connection. I ended up going for the Asus RT-N66U because it was cheaper than the 2130n, had MUCH better Wifi, and was theoretically faster than the Draytek 2130n. In the raw WAN-LAN benchmarks, the Asus beats the Draytek slightly (this is without PPPoE). So now that I know the Asus is not capable of handling the throughput, I have my doubts about the Draytek too. I might end up ordering that anyway and returning it if it doesn't fit the bill.

In reply to a post by babis3g:

Have you looked this one?
Up to 800Mbps WAN throughput (ideal for FTTx services)
http://www.draytek.com/user/PdInfoDetail.php?Id=111
Don't know about pppoe speeds so best to contact [email protected] (they helping a lot) as i am happy draytek user but never used this model

I've just emailed them, let's see what they respond.