Netgear FVS336Gv2 - Dual WAN Issues

Posted on 2011-10-15
Last Modified: 2012-08-13
I have an ongoing issue with a Netgear FVS336Gv2 Dual WAN Router in which I am utilizing the dual-WAN ports in “Load Balance” mode and we’re losing 20% - 25% of WAN Bandwidth as a result. Several “senior” Netgear Engineers have been working on this issue for over a month now and they seem to be clueless as to what is causing the loss of bandwidth, thus I am reaching out to the EE community for any possible assistance.

As a brief overview:

WAN-1 is connected to an AMBIT Broadband Cable Mode (DOCSIS 2.0) from Time Warner Cable Business Class and has a static-IP address @ 10Mbps down, 1Mbps up.  This modem has its own separate dedicated coax cable that does not service any other device.  The modem is set in Bridge mode.

WAN-2 is connected to a UBEE DDW3611 DOCSIS 3.0 Wideband modem provided by Time Warner “Signature Home” and has a dynamic-IP @ 50Mbps down, 5-Mbps up.  This modem has also has its own separate dedicated coax cable. The modem is set in Bridge mode.

The Netgear FVS336Gv2 has the most recent firmware (beta ver. 3.0.7-49)
WAN Mode is set to “Load Balancing”
WAN-2 Protocol Bindings has HTTP “enabled” as I want to take advantage of the 50Mbps down speeds for all Web Traffic.  Everything else, - Exchange Server Email, Static FTP, etc. goes through WAN-1 in order to use my static IP address for such services

I have this all running under Small Business Server 2011 Standard with SP1

In virtually every speed test, I get between 30Mbps to 35Mbps on WAN-2 and I test using a number of services (, Speakeasy, Time-Warner Servers, etc.) On a few very rare occasions, we have hit 40Mbps, but that has only happened 2 or 3 times in the past month.
We have tried every possible conceivable configuration including:
Disabling “load balancing” and using WAN-2 only for HTTP
Disabling “load balancing” and using WAN-1 only for HTTP (and swapping cable modems between ports)
Resetting the Netgear back to default Manufacturers settings (thereby losing all our Firewall security settings, port-forwarding, rules, etc. etc.  - later restored with backed-up .cfg file) -- it does not help.  

Nothing seems to help.  As soon as we remove the Netgear FVS225Gv2 from the equation and I connect directly to the Ubee modem (in bridge mode, NAT mode – it does not matter) we get the full 50+X5 every time (usually around 52-53Mbps).  Thus, the Netgear router seems to be the problem here.  The specs indicate that the LAN-to-WAN throughput is limited to 60 Mbps total – thus, are we hitting upon that hardware threshold? This is sold as a “Dual Gigabit WAN Router” – that’s just not true.

I am wondering if something like a CISCO RV042 would help?  It says that you can get 200Mbps on the dual WAN ports with that model, but unfortunately, the LAN ports are only 10 / 100 and we need 1000’s on the LAN.

Without spending a small fortune, does anyone know of a decent Dual-WAN Gigabit router that can handle over 60Mbps in Load Balancing mode?  Or, is there any known "fixes" for our existing  Netgear FVS336Gv2?

Thanks for any assistance!
Question by:BAmiller
    LVL 56

    Accepted Solution

    Unfortunately you are seeing the limits of that device. You can try manually setting the MTU on each link of the device and getting A LITTLE more, but I doubt you'll get 50. There is also overhead so even with a good device, expect to only get up to 47 or so. What you gain I redundancy you lose in performance, that is the trade-off.

    Secondly, you may already know this. But don't ever expect to see the sum of the two links. That isn't because of the device,mthat is a limitation of TCP/IP, or more accurately the stateful socket connections of http and how speed tests work. A link balance can attempt to balance on a per connection basis, but a speed test is a single connection, thus cannot be split over both links.

    Third, the RV042 is worse than the netgear. 'nuf said.

    Finally, this may fall into "breaking the bank" but if you need high speed link balancing, look at business-class devices. Especially at the speeds you are talking about. I've had great success with the Baracudda line of link balancing appliances. Reasonable price for what you get, and rock solid performance.


    LVL 1

    Author Comment

    Thanks, Cliff -- I figured as much.  However, the Netgear engineers were "100% confident" that since I had a 10X 1 + 50X1 = 60Mbps "max total" for the hardware, they thought that I would still be able to hit the 50Mbps mark since that was within the max parameters of the hardware.

    I did try tweaking the MTU settings (tried it both at the router, then at the NIC's; and like you said, it only resulted in nominal improvements).    I knew that there was "overhead" involved in the connection (provisioning, line noise, etc.) and that I would never get the full combined speeds (never expected that) -- but I was hoping for something over 40Mbps consistently.  I will explore the link balancing appliances as I was not familiar with those.  However, since this is a small home-office (less than 10 user setup) - we may just ditch the two WAN setup and use just the 50X5 in dynamic mode and then configure the SBS 2011 Server to use a service like which allows us to configure Exchange Server with a dynamic IP.  

    We really LOVE the 50X5 bandwidth and we hate to lose that -- even though we can only achieve that full speed by ditching the Netgear and using the Ubee on its own (and btw, the Ubee modem really sucks -- we wanted a Motorola SBG6580 but Time Warner would not allow it) - but it still gets the job done.

    Thanks for your input -- I'll wait to see if a few more responses come in and then I'll award points accordingly.

    Best regards!
    LVL 1

    Author Comment

    I've requested that this question be closed as follows:

    Accepted answer: 0 points for BAmiller's comment http:/Q_27398432.html#36973854

    for the following reason:

    Thanks for the input.
    LVL 1

    Author Comment

    I inadvertently accepted my own comment!  This award needs to go to Cliff!

    Sorry about that!

    LVL 1

    Author Closing Comment

    Thanks, Cliff!

    Write Comment

    Please enter a first name

    Please enter a last name

    We will never share this with anyone.

    Featured Post

    Top 6 Sources for Identifying Threat Actor TTPs

    Understanding your enemy is essential. These six sources will help you identify the most popular threat actor tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

    Hi All,  Recently I have installed and configured a Sonicwall NS220 in the network as a firewall and Internet access gateway. All was working fine until users started reporting that they cannot use the Cisco VPN client to connect to the customer'…
    You may have discovered the 'Compatibility View Settings' workaround for making your SBS 2008 Remote Web Workplace 'connect to a computer' section stops 'working around' after a Windows 10 client upgrade.  That can be fixed so it 'works around' agai…
    After creating this article (, I decided to make a video (no audio) to show you how to configure the routers and run some trace routes and pings between the 7 sites…
    After creating this article (, I decided to make a video (no audio) to show you how to configure the routers and run some trace routes and pings between the 7 sites…

    760 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

    Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

    Join & Ask a Question

    Need Help in Real-Time?

    Connect with top rated Experts

    8 Experts available now in Live!

    Get 1:1 Help Now