I have an ADSL Modem/Router from the ISP, and my PC is connected to it. Just one PC connected to the Router.

The Router has a [PPPoE] mode and a [Bridge] mode.

Which mode gives me fast and low latency internet?


With your case, Bridge mode will always be faster.

PPPoE mode requires that your ADSL Modem/Router do three separate things to the Ethernet Frames coming off the ADSL modem.

  • Encapsulation (PPPoE)

  • IP Routing


The later two are both computational expensive and completely unnecessary for a single computer to access the internet.

In Bridge mode the raw PPPoE frames come off the ADSL modem, zero CPU usage.

You PC can handle the PPPoE directly and join the ISP network (segment/subnet) directly. With your client PC directly on the ISP network, there is no need for routing or NATing.

If you don't believe me, try opening 10k TCP connecting when using the Router in PPPoE mode (for example by running a few torrents). The router will quickly exhaust it's memory on the NAT table.

However. One side effect of running a NAT is that you have an implicit firewall setup. If you directly connect your PC to the internet using bridge mode, you should install a good firewall on your client PC.

  • thank you, what is best firewall ? i using bitdefender , is it good firewall ? – amy programmer Aug 8 '18 at 13:18
  • No idea...mind you the latency diffences will not be noticeable for most applications. Your biggest difference will come from not having a tiny NAT table. – Aron Aug 8 '18 at 13:46

Both options are virtually the same fast and low latency internet, the difference is that in PPPoE mode the router will be a Router (literally...) while if in Bridge mode the device (not-a-router) will expect another device to be the router (or you'll need to configure the PPPoE credentials on the PC itself which is not ideal).

So in your case that you do not have another router there I would say that PPPoE mode is definitely the way to go.

(What I mean by being "a router" is basically taking in it the PPPoE credentials and doing NAT to the local network.)

  • Nope. Completely wrong. You've conflated the terms routing encapsulating and NATing, all separate distinct concepts with different needs and requirements. Just because you use a single appliance to achieve all three does not mean that you need to, nor do you need to do all three. – Aron Aug 8 '18 at 6:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.