Comparing RFCHOST T1 JINX and CTC | Hong Kong Landing Nodes | International Connectivity Review

These two RFCHOST Hong Kong models are older products, so most people are probably already familiar with them. I originally wanted to write this while Push was open for readers who did not know them, but Push has now been closed.

Since I already wrote it, I might as well publish it.

Contents

1. Configuration
2. Node Quality
3. Mainland Three-Network TCP Ping
4. International Connectivity
5. Summary

1. Configuration

JINX is shown with its original configuration; mine was upgraded through the spin-wheel promo, so refer to the actual machine.
There is DNS unlock, but it was not included during testing.

🔗 Quick Links

BGP.TOOLS

🇭🇰 JINX	🇭🇰 CTC

2. Node Quality

bash <(curl -sL https://run.NodeQuality.com)

💻 Basic Information

🇭🇰 JINX	🇭🇰 CTC

🎬IP Quality

🇭🇰 JINX	🇭🇰 CTC

🌐 Network Quality

🇭🇰 JINX	🇭🇰 CTC

📍Return Routes

🇭🇰 JINX	🇭🇰 CTC

3. mainland ChinaThree-Network TCP Ping（itdog.cn, 2025-12-09 20:00）

Neither supports direct mainland connectivity; I heard China Mobile could connect directly a long time ago?

JINX

China Telecom	China Unicom	China Mobile

CTC

China Telecom	China Unicom	China Mobile

4. International Connectivity - iPerf3 TCP IPv4 Single-Thread Speed Test (single 10-second run, 2025-12-09)

Within Hong Kong, CTC seems to perform a little better and has slightly lower latency. CTC is almost stably full-speed both ways in Hong Kong, while JINX download speed to the local machine is clearly lower, possibly because it has less bandwidth headroom.

Toward Asia-Pacific, JINX has lower latency, but upload and download speeds are asymmetric and download is lower; CTC is more stable in speed.

🇭🇰 JINX

[Test Record]

🇭🇰 CTC

[Test Record]

Hong Kong-Japan Routes

🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇯🇵 DMIT	🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇯🇵 BAGE JPS	🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇯🇵 BAGE JP	🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇯🇵 RFCHOST T1
Outbound	Outbound	Outbound	Outbound
Return	Return	Return	Return

🇭🇰 CTC <-> 🇯🇵 DMIT	🇭🇰 CTC <-> 🇯🇵 BAGE JPS	🇭🇰 CTC <-> 🇯🇵 BAGE JP	🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇯🇵 RFCHOST T1
Outbound	Outbound	Outbound	Outbound
Return	Return	Return	Return

Hong Kong-Singapore Routes

🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇸🇬 BAGE SGS	🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇸🇬 BAGE SG	🇭🇰 JINX <-> 🇸🇬 RFCHOST T1
Outbound	Outbound	Outbound
Return	Return	Return

🇭🇰 CTC <-> 🇸🇬 BAGE SGS	🇭🇰 CTC <-> 🇸🇬 BAGE SG	🇭🇰 CTC <-> 🇸🇬 RFCHOST T1
Outbound	Outbound	Outbound
Return	Return	Return

5. Summary

The tests show each has its strengths. At the moment CTC is slightly better in speed, while JINX has better Asia-Pacific latency. Both machines have very large ports, can pull Asia-Pacific nodes easily, and often serve as my speed-test endpoints when writing reviews. As landing nodes, as long as they are not attacked they are still fine.

IP quality is hard to guarantee, so if you are buying mainly for the IP, forget it. The DNS unlock plus included Emby is a matter of personal preference.

CTC connects China Mobile through Lumen, but current IPv4 Lumen is generally poor, and neither machine can be used for direct mainland connectivity.

6. About the Tests

The machines used in this test, including all machines used for iPerf3 speed tests, were purchased at my own expense; results may be time-sensitive.
Kernel parameters of the test machines (/etc/sysctl.conf) are as follows.

fs.file-max = 6815744
net.ipv4.tcp_no_metrics_save=1
net.ipv4.tcp_ecn=0
net.ipv4.tcp_frto=0
net.ipv4.tcp_mtu_probing=0
net.ipv4.tcp_rfc1337=0
net.ipv4.tcp_sack=1
net.ipv4.tcp_fack=1
net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=1
net.ipv4.tcp_adv_win_scale=1
net.ipv4.tcp_moderate_rcvbuf=1
net.core.rmem_max=33554432
net.core.wmem_max=33554432
net.ipv4.tcp_rmem=4096 87380 33554432
net.ipv4.tcp_wmem=4096 16384 33554432
net.ipv4.udp_rmem_min=8192
net.ipv4.udp_wmem_min=8192
net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
net.ipv4.conf.all.route_localnet=1
net.ipv4.conf.all.forwarding=1
net.ipv4.conf.default.forwarding=1
net.core.default_qdisc=fq
net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control=bbr
net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1
net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding=1