VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

here.

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...de/td-p/341483

asking for testers.

they havent stated how to apply tho.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

They have said when they hope to release it, tho - May. And it includes "a number of bug fixes". 6 months between release and fixing the first bugs :rolleyes:

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

is a locked thread.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Well start either PM Mark Wilkin or start a volunteer thread.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I already pm'ed.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Yeah because fixing bugs and testing new software is a quick and easy job.:rolleyes:

It takes time to fix and test software to a stage where it can be released, not always an easy job.

jj

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Keep us updated then as others may do the same.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

6 months to add one basic feature (which is, in fact the turning off of an existing feature) is still pretty damn slow.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

also they done that feedback thread alex promised me as well. But the feedback thread isnt sticky. sorry I didnt notice the other post mod's but might be idea to not merge this so people are aware of the chance to trial easier.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Now here is a GREAT opportunity for VM to claw back some respect over this Superhub fiasco.

If the Firmware upgrade attracts a lot of interest, this should be a clear sign to VM, that customers would prefer the choice of having a standalone modem?

I, personally, would have even paid an small extra cost to get a modem in lieu of the Superhub!

It would not be beyond VM to have Netgear produce the Superhub, and a proper DOCSIS3 standalone modem?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

The transparent bridge mode, once in, will make the SuperHub act exactly like a standlone modem, so there will be no need to produce an physical seperate modemIt probably would have been possible, but not cost effective.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Problem of providing a standalone cable modem is then there is a requirement for a router again, therefore two seperate bits of kit to be posted. As Ben said, not cost effective.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Not if a stand alone modem was only available to those who did not want a router from VM.

However once bridge mode is available as said it would be unneccessary.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Maybe they should have possibly tested it before sending it out ?

My plan of waiting 6 months before upgrading to from 10MB to 20/30MB seems like a good idea. Same with anything new IT wise, wait till all the bugs are fixed.

Paying customers shouldn't be used as testers.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

The SuperHub does actually work (for the most part) as it was designed to do as a combined modem and router. Bridge mode is designed to turn off the majority of what is in the SuperHub, so likely isn't part of the original design from Netgear

Pingtest.net fails because it sends a flood of packets down the connection to test it, so IP Flood detection blocks them as it should.

Some of the other issues that have been identified, like all computer equipment, won't show up until there is a large enough userbase. There is no way to test every single setup with a limited test base

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

It was internally tested for months before being rolled out to cutomers.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Personally I've used the Super Hub since November with no issues and I'm a heavy user with our household never having less than half a dozen devices online at any given time. My connection speeds and throughput are constant, so how so many people are quick to point the finger at the Super Hub as the cause of their issues does surprise me somewhat.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

My Superhub so far is fine but many people will not quite believe us because we are staff members.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Mine's fine too. Wireless still not quite reaching the furthest point of the house, but performance wise it's great (if you ignore the occasional wi-fi drop outs).

Due to where the modem was bodged in - sorry installed - I'll be glad to be able to use a separate router I can place myself more 'house central' as I had before with a separate modem and router combo. The modem can go anywhere really, with no consequences. Not quite the same with a wireless hub. At present, due to the location of the hub being close to the front of the house I can connect to my wireless network from my friends house across the street, but I lose it in the back of my own house..

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I use my own Edimax router by just logging into it and disabling DHCP, works fine.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Yeah, I saw that mentioned a few times. I've yet to experiment.
I had to install a 4 port switch yesterday for a few days with something we're doing here. I don't want to over complicate things just yet!

Thing is, I got the damn thing (the superhub) for it's gigabit ports.. :(

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

For the most part it isnt working as designed ;)

custom firmware that disables about 80% of the spec sheet for the hardware.

---------- Post added at 17:20 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------

I believe its good for your own use style.

However given that so far every VM staff member here has perfect VM service, no congestion, no shub issue etc. is why people may not take your word freely.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

The estate I live on was dug up and cable laid in one ongoing installation around 16 years ago and we signed up as soon as the salesman knocked at the door.

In my time with them I have had no phoneline issues at all.

We had the analogue TV boxes to start and we had 2 of them because one developed a fault, then we went digital and got a Pace 4200 which we replaced with a V+ once I got a job with the company.

Broadband issues have been cutting the cable twice and each time repaired quickly and for free, well before I worked here.

An outage last August that lasted 5 days.

No real issues with speed or connection apart from occasional blips as it is very stable around here.

BT would be pointless as they cannot get above 1.5Mb on this estate due to the distance from the exchange.

So a customer 16 years and staff 3 years and during those 16 years we have tried SKY and got rid within 4 months after 3 replacement boxes.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I have no issues with the Superhub, I actually prefer it to the previous modem router combination I had. In my view it actually looks quite nice.

Anyway this is good news right, people who want bridge mode can apply to be a tester and help VM improve the hub.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I remember pip telling me they usually let people apply in thread, but beta tester thread is locked and I got no reply to PM yet.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Quite correct and if you actually read the post instead of presuming and trying to jump the gun.

"we'll be looking for volunteers from the forum for testing in April."

IE the invitation will be made in Appril and the thread most likely opened for applications.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I assume the testing started in april, thats a very late start date if they want to release in may. So it seems a long delay before testing and then a rushed release from testing.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I do believe you masque!

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Mine's been brilliant, big downloads via ftp, http and torrents all fine. VPN into my workplace also fine. All in all a very satisfactory piece of kit for me. My speed is around 19.5Mb/s in the day and around 17Mb/s in the evening.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I agree, totally. It's just a pity they didn't get it to that stage before release. And all because ...
... the testing wasn't good enough. Get a bigger test base if it's known to be "limited".

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

That wasn't what I meant.

Any test base is going to 'limited' compared with the final customer target. That's the way testing works.

However, even if you have a test base of thousands, tens of thousands or millions you are never going to pick up every single senario that could cause an issue. You also have to balance the amount of test users against costs of supplying the test units.

I have yet to see a computer product launched that has never required some form of update

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Every test base is limited, yes. But you don't need a test base of thousands or millions to spot fundamental problems with the basic design of the unit. You don't need an unlimited test base to be able to simulate basic network functions. One technically competent person could do it. A good test base of 10 is better than a bad test base of 100.

In the end most of the problems are with the router part, not the cable modem part, and these are issues other comparable routers don't have. In the end whatever test base they had they were well aware of some of the problems before release and also of how to solve them (and how customers wanted to solve it themselves - bridge mode). Other Netgear routers don't have most of these issues, the old DIR-615 didn't have these issues either. It's not like the DIR-615 had any bigger a test base, and that didn't have nearly as many problems.

As for consumer products without updates - the vast majority of consumer devices get by without any firmware updates. TVs, monitors, home phones, digital cameras, microwaves, printers, network cards, network switches, computer peripherals, to name a few. Even mobile phones until recently were not able to be user updated, and got on just fine without.


I don't think VM ever issued an update for the DIR-615 either, since they all still come with 1.00VG on them.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

@ qasdfdsaq - I've had this same discussion with BenMcr over on the VM forums, and it was explained there is a Commercial implication with this as well. If VM can get thier hardware base down to a single product, i.e. the 'Super'hub(sic), then the cost savings on training Helpdesk etc. are huge.
At present, there are various CM's and users own routers to be 'assisted', and this must be a big overhead in support costs, and like any other business VM are always striving to cut costs.

VM was never going to be happy supplying both CM and Router to customers, as to the average joe, it's too complicated. By sending a single plug and go unit, they save a lot of grief, get good Customer feedback, and easier an Helpdesk life.

Don't get me wrong, I would love nothing better than a good quality stand alone modem, and dump the Shub. However reading between the lines in various forum threads, I think, this will never happen. The firmware bridge mode is just an attempt to placate the 'few people' who want to supply their own hardware on the LAN side.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I've got 50Mbit with the original standalone modem that was supplied when 50Mbit came out. What's it capable of, speedwise? I wonder because I discussed whether I'd have to ditch it for a Superhub when 100Mbit comes to my area and he thought that it'd still be okay to use. I said that I'd heard that everyone was being moved over to the Superhub, however if the original 50Mbit modem is capable of 100Mbit+ could I keep it?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

me too, it is relativeky new tech and docsis so you would have thought it could handle it. I don't want more crap forced on me like when I had to have the netgear router when I got 50mbit

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

It depends what you mean 'capable'. The 50Mbit modem can do 100Mbit, however it is limited for some channel bonding - which means it's not actually capable to do Virgin's 100Mbit product based on how they want to deliver it on the network

That's why all 100Mbit installs come with the SuperHub

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Dont volunteer then. :dozey:

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I don't disagree with this, I work in support as well and we have various different "supported" systems as well as a "managed desktop" which we maintain on behalf of all users. It saves a lot of headaches, but there's a reason we're rolling out Windows 7 to the supported desktop this summer rather than 2 years ago - it takes time to get stuff right and some of us want to ensure things are as close to perfect as possible *before* release rather than after.

There are many benefits to VM and the customer about having a single integrated unit, there's a reason almost all DSL providers do it too. The issue is VM releasing said unit onto the masses before it was ready, and giving them no choice about the matter.

I was actually quite supportive of the Superhub to begin with, and still acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of feedback was positive for the first few weeks after release, then it turned sour... I still don't have one myself, but all I see these days are complaints about it. Clearly it's not doing something right, since again, competitor products of the same class and the old DIR-615 VM handed out didn't have these problems.

(And apparantly they're still sending out DIR-615's to some people, whether or not this is in error I don't know, but clearly there is no reason why they cannot give customers a choice)

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------

It's capable of 200mbps, but VM are unlikely to ever allow it in this configuration.

It's also capable of 100mbps in the same configuration the Superhub uses, so there's no technical reason VM wouldn't allow it, saying you "need" a Superhub for 100mb is only correct insofar as it's the way VM say they want it to work but it would perform exactly the same (and generate the same strains on the network) as the 50mb standalone modem.

---------- Post added at 14:37 ---------- Previous post was at 14:35 ----------

This is incorrect.

100mb is currently delivered down 4 bonded downstream channels and 1 unbonded upstream channel. This is exactly the same as the 50mb and 30mb services, and the 50mb modem is perfectly capable of this configuration.

This may not always remain true, and could change in the future. But at this point in time the 50mb modem is not at all limited as far as how VM want to deliver 100mb is concerned. The Superhub does indeed have more bonding capability (8 DS) but this is unused.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

See I'm not so sure on that. Personally I think that there is concentration of issues that happens with the SuperHub that doesn't with the previously issued routers.

If you type in DIR-615 into Google, then you are likely to hit other sites and information about an issue you may have i.e. the overall userbase to resolve queries is global

However type in SuperHub or VMDG480 and you are only going to hit a Virgin related site (here/Digital Spy/Community Forums etc), so of course you are going to see 'more' complaints than you would do otherwise

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

I'm well aware of how the service is delivered now. The reason the SuperHub is issued is so that Virgin have the ability to alter how it is delivered in the future without the hassle (and cost) of writing to some customers to swap equipment at a later stage (as they've had to do for the upstream increase).

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

You may be right about the concentration of issues, it's going to be impossible to tell via standard searches though. The different revisions of the DIR-615 (A,B,C,D, etc.) were completely different hardware platforms and AFAIK the D revision was the one offered by VM and only by VM, might as well have been custom designed. The firmware, and any problems with the firmware would have been specific only to VM customers.

Anyhow the issue is not giving customers the choice when they quite clearly could. The Superhub isn't quite mature enough yet to satisfy everyone, and until it is, people who want a standalone modem should be given the choice to use one (and support their own router themselves).

There is simply no reason to force it onto everyone right now. Maybe in 12 months time when it actually becomes neccessary for 100mbit services, but until then...

Good, I would have been concerned if you weren't. But as far as your post goes, it is simply not neccessary right now. A customer would not experience degraded service by being given a 50mb modem, nor would the network be disproportionately loaded. People however *are* suffering right now due to the shortcomings of the Superhub, and for no good technical reason.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

How do you know when Virgin may change the number of downstream channels (or upstream) used for 100Mbit, or whether all areas will be done in the same way?

Of course the other reason 100Mbit requires the SuperHub is Virgin had no seperate routers that would work with it - the DIR-615 only has 100Mbit ports compared with the Gigabit for the SuperHub

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I don't know when they'll do it or if they'll do it, all I know is they haven't done it now. Until they do, there are users getting an unnecessarily poor experience now.

True, the 615 only has 100mb ports, but IMO that's perfectly sufficient for a 100mb service; most of the industry considers 100mb ethernet ports to be 100mb, every 100mb service I've ever had has been delivered over a 100mb ethernet port. VM wanting to do it differently is not an excuse for giving customers no choice or a broken service. I'm sure the people having problems with 100mb and the Superhub would rather have 98.4mb with the ability to use their own router or no router at all (last time I joined VM you still had to pay for your own router on all tiers).

And don't forget the much higher number of people on 50mb and 30mb for whom that's all irrelevant anyway.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

According to this page http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/index.php?option=com_chart&Itemid=189 the DIR-615 only manages 87Mbit between the WAN and LAN interface, so not sufficient it seems for a 100Mbit service.

Wireless kit has been included by default for 50Mbit since launch.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I personally don't trust any figures Smallnetbuilder report, as their numbers have always been consistently well below what I get with the same devices.

I've gotten well above 90mbps on my 615 from WAN to LAN, and on wireless tests I can get over 180mbps on devices that they claim don't go above 80mbps.

Even if the 615 is incapable *and* 100mb requires the Superhub (which it doesn't right now) we've still got the issue that VM are not giving users with problems the option to get a standalone modem - even for 30mb and 50mb - and properly use their own router or no router at all. Until the Superhub is mature enough to work for 100% of users instead of just 95%, those last 5% should be given a choice.

Also I don't know of any other consumer ISP that actually doesn't give users the option of using their own modem or router at all, granted VM have never let users supply their own modem but for now own routers don't work properly either. And even when bridge mode comes out, it won't be a true layer-2 bridge device, it will still still function as a layer-3 router (even if only in a minimal capacity) and could still have routing bugs if they don't implement it properly.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

How do you know that? I wasn't aware you were writing the firmware?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Because cable modems by their very nature have to be layer 3 devices. A cable modem with no layer 3 functionality would not be able to function at all. All modems (including the 50mb modem) also have routing functions, and unless they're radically changing the way the GUI works (or removing the GUI entirely) the Superhub will be the same.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

How exactly? On what broadband service?

So that means the existing modems will be layer 3 then? So the SuperHub will bridge in exactly the same way. Which is what everyone is requesting

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I've tested via my JANET connection at work as well as in a synthetic environment at home. Neither of these qualify as a standard "broadband" service but neither was Smallnetbuilder's test environment. Point is their numbers are consistently wrong in my experience, so I wouldn't take them as a reason to not supply a unit without doing your own tests. In any case "because it has 100mbps ports" does not mean it is incapable of 30/50/100mb service.

Yes, existing modems are layer 3. They're actually layer 4, 5, 6, and 7 as well. And existing modems have layer 3+ bugs too (few and far between, and very rare, but they do exist). Only with the Superhub the bridging will be going through a device that already has known bugs in it's routing behaviour. There is no guarantee that it will suddenly become perfect thanks to bridge mode; though if they're fixing the routing bugs as part of implementing bridge mode then bridge mode actually becomes somewhat redundant.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

So you don't like the bridge mode, and now you don't like the standalone modems?!

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I never said I didn't like either. I said bugs exist, and with the Superhub, there's many of them, and bridge mode in itself is not a guarantee to fix all bugs.

I experience bugs on my standalone modem less than once a week and a reboot always resolves it. I'm fairly happy with it but not to say I wouldn't be happier if I didn't have to reboot it at all. My old DSL service easily managed months of continuous uptime without needing reboots.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

The bridge mode is about giving people choice as to how they use their service, which I thought it was you wanted

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

Who said it was?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I don't want it, people with a broken service want it. As far as people who want it are concerned, they want to use their own equipment because the Superhub doesn't do what they need. The majority of them right now are complaining about it failing at its more advanced routing functions, which bridge mode is only a workaround for. It gives people the choice to use a product that should do what they want but doesn't, or pay for their own device which does. On the other hand, it does not give them the choice to use a product that actually does what they want without having to supply their own standalone router and people would probably choose to use a Superhub that worked the way they need it to if the option was there. If the Superhub worked the way it is expected to for everyone bridge mode would not be necessary.

Again, I used to think it was all over the top at first, but now I'm beginning to agree with the people who say bridge mode should have been there from day one.

Nobody, but many people seem to assume it will.

As Masque would say...

Quote:

your post was a perfect sounding board and the comment was for readers in general.;)

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

qasdfdsaq is right on 100mbit routers, the ones I own I am able to do 100mbit throughput on the lan.

benmcr I dont know why you wont just hold your hand up and say VM got this wrong. This I find very frustrating that noone in VM will do this. The advantages of the superhub are primarily for VM to cut costs in tech support. This is why they even giving it out probably at a loss to customers.

Numerous questions to be raised tho, one is as to why VM felt the need to force superhubs out to existing customers who already had a modem+router setup and should at least have some awareness of how that works. I would have started to brand new customers only and allowing a optional alternative.

I also do feel as if talking to a brick wall still on the VM forums.

Alex responded to snmp requests by stating it wont come back due to security concerns on the cable network, I replied reminding him we were talking about the router/lan side of snmp and not the built in cable modem, the bulk of routers on the market today have snmpd.
In addition a VM staff member replied saying the reason they dont allow tuning is that they want it to work out of the box and to not need to tune to fix, again I had to reply saying the ability to tune has zilch affect on if it works out of the box, thats what default configuration does. But what tuning does do is allow the end user to tune to fix problems rather than be stuck with those problems. So VM so far dont appear to be very flexible. Of course when superhubs have massive issues activating then it dont exactly work out of the box ;)
VM appear to be treating their customers like children, by removing the ability to change anything as they think people will tune for the sake of it and break things. Everyone I know who isnt technical minded doesnt just randomly login to their router GUI and start clicking on random things, they leave it alone as they scared to break it.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Just thought i'd add that I read about the argument over the DIR-615 being capable of 100Mbit. This may be so but in that case the ports would be maxed out by your broadband connection, there should always be at least a bit of room.. for example if you wanted to do a lan transfer at the same time or if Virgin increase the speed later on.

Gigabit ports should be standard practice now anyway, most computers have gigabit NICs :)

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

It's a switch. Each port has it's own dedicated 100+100mbps of bandwidth. There's plenty of room.

But the point is if the user wants a standalone modem, VM have one they are able to supply. If they want a standalone modem and standalone router, they have one they are able to supply. The 615 isn't the only router in the world, but since it can do 100mbps, there's absolutely no reason for VM refuse to provide it + a 50mb modem to 20, 30 and 50mb customers.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Not every single scenario, but this forum alone has thousands of posts in threads about the Superhub. No, I haven't read them all, but most I have read are discussing problems; and of course very few people post to say it's been a great success. But all these posts - that says to me that it's not been a success, the device was not ready for launch, and the testing was not sufficient.
True, although it doesn't usually take 6 months to fix bugs and omissions in a beta release.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Yes, but can it ever do what I need?

That may be true for the majority, but not everyone. I have a number of issues with it as a concept:

1. Security

2. Functionality

3. Performance

1. Security is an unknown. It may be fine, but may not. People always call these devices routers, when they are really firewalls. If someone finds a hole in a superhub, that's a LOT of holes.

2. Simply put, the feature set will be aimed at the majority of users. It'll be simple to use rather than technical and functionally complete. I don't see there ever being a "one size fits all" solution for this.

3. Just because it has a gigabit port, doesn't mean it can cope with a gigabit of traffic. Generally, for the purposes of throughput, packets/second is more important than bandwidth. Does Virgin list its performance? No. Even Netgear for its equivalent model doesn't.

Basically, to me it's an unknown. If it works as well as a cable modem in bridge mode (or preferably better!) then that's fine. But if it doesn't, then it will be a problem for me.

I moved away from VM (then NTL) for a year due to network problems. After my year was up I had no problems switching back. A large part of this was due to Netgear ADSL routers which don't look so dissimilar to this. It wasn't the ADSL part that was the problem ...

Right now, I'm happy with my cable modem, and there's no way I'm going to upgrade and risk a superhub. When bridge mode is available, I might consider it, but what do I do if it doesn't work as expected?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

The solution is already out there, add as many features as possible to cater for as many people as possible. I have never heard of someone complain about too many features before alex brown mentioned it.

As for making it suitable for the majority, making tcp timeout after only 60 seconds is not doing that, I think others as well as myself are curious why that is such a low value, I suspect they set low so torrent users wouldnt be complaining about the superhub dieing as I suspect its set like that to hide a small NAT table. A timeout value to ensure compatability with apps would have been something along the lines of 1800secs or 3600secs. or even 7200secs. I tend to tune routers down to a lower number like 180, 300 or 900 seconds but I would only ever go down to 60 or lower if I was getting a high pps ddos. Of course the problem here is I cannot tune the superhub to fix the breakage, as VM have decided I am too dumb to do that.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I think perhaps VM staff are getting too defensive here, and trying to shoot down all the negative criticism the Super Hub has been getting. IMO, that just confirms they know about the many problems.

I'd have no problem sourcing my own kit (seperate modem and router) if VM would allow it. In fact they could say what it requires and it could be up to you to use their provided Super Hub or shop around for something better that can connect to the cable network in the way VM want. Just because they're a big business looking to cut costs doesn't mean they can't accomodate some of the "indie" values smaller providers like AAISP pride themselves on. In fact, from a business point of view it makes sense to do this to stay competitive! Maybe some sort of "backbone only" deal where the fiber optic network is what you use, and provide your own kit instead of being supplied it. Plus, no technical support on the LAN side etc.

The reason people want this is EXACTLY the same reason VM want the Super Hub rolled out so quickly... less problems for tech support, much easier for the home user. Both sides win and don't waste time wrangling with situationally inferior gear and/or bickering.

Personally even if the Super Hub was made perfect it still wouldn't do what I want on the routing side, which is why I'm looking forward to the bridge mode. I need advanced routing features and I need them to work all the time, including stuff like IPv6 tunnelling support while I wait for VM to roll that out natively.

Shame the testers have to wait another five or so weeks, but I'd love to do it and provide detailed notes on what works and what doesn't. Anything to stop other more tech savvy broadband customers having the headaches I've had with the Super Hub. :D

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I have a Superhub and I am using my own Edimax BR6504N router, all I did was disable DHCP in the Edimax and it is working fine.

Is that defensive enough for you.;)

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I'm not sure what you mean, because it doesn't seem defensive to me. Unless you mean "I'm not happy with the routing, even as a VM staff member, so I'm using my own kit ". Even then, if you're doing the DMZ thing it's a stopgap solution that doesn't work too well for most people. ;)

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

yes because you ignoring that other's have issues with it. Also you been generous in your own review as why are you even needing to use a 2nd router at home? it must mean the superhub isnt doing something you need it to do.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I prefer my own router as I can have it centrally located on a long ethernet lead to increase my wifi coverage in my house and I can connect to either router if and when required.

I only received mine last Friday and wondered if I could still keep my router in its normal position and be able to use it after reading all the posts saying otherwise and happily it works in conjunction and gives me even more coverage in the house.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Except you're not actually using it as a router, and it's doing no routing. Please stop telling people you're using your own router when you are in fact using your own wireless access point/switch.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

It does the job and it is my original router which people seem to think cannot be used so are awaiting bridge mode before continuing using their routers when they can do so now.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

It is not functioning as a router, regardless of what was on the box when you bought it. Saying you're using your own router is misleading and incorrect. The job it's doing is not the job of a router. Calling it a router when it only works because you've modify it to not be a router is deliberately misleading.

People think they cannot use their own router as this is in fact correct. The people who have actually used their own router as a router have had limited success and a number of problems. All of them who have shared there experiences here think it remains broken and are still asking for bridge mode.

People including yourself have had success in using your own wireless access point and/or network switch, but this is not the same thing. There is a major difference between the hardware itself and what you're using it for. A router with the router switched off is not working a router.

It's like saying you can use a foreign driving license in the UK. Which is only true if you want to use it as photo ID, but you can't actually drive with it (permanently), which funny enough happens to be what a driving license is for... If you can't use your driving license as a driving license, it's misleading to say you can use your driving license. It's the same for your router. If you cannot use your own router as a router then you should stop implying you're having no problems using your own router.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Well oddly enough I went back into the Edimax and reenabled DHCP and you know what it is working exactly the same as it was with DHCP disabled so I will leave it running like that for now.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Doesn't change the fact that you're still not using it as a router though.

DHCP isn't routing.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

It still works either way and I have 2 wireless networks as they use different names and passwords and they work.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

The reason it's working is because you are still not using it as a router, so it is still misleading to say you're using your own router. It's only working because you are not using it as a router.

The wireless has nothing to do with routing.

If you were to use it as a router, it would work just not very well, and you'd lose half the benefits of using your own router to begin with.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Then all my posts have been missed then. I'm using a Superhub with a Linksys 320N. The Superhub us set to a subnet of 192.168.0/24, Linksys LAN side set to 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, WAN interface of the linksys is 192.168.0.2, with this address set as the DMZ IP on the Superhub.

As i've posted before on the forum, everything works fine, all portforwarding is done on the Linksys, bittorrent, FTP/HTTP servers etc, it all just works. Granted my experience may be a one off, it does work for me. An inspection of the routing tables on the Linksys confirm this. Yes the superhub is doing some routing by re-writing ethernet frame source IP addresses etc, but the Linksys is most certainly performing NAT/Firewall functions.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Yes, certain functions do work, and basic connectivity works through the double NAT. However nothing you've mentioned actually requires the use of your own router, all these functions are things the Superhub could have done fine on it's own.

One major issue is the idle timeout on the Superhub (for e.g. SSH connections) - which will not be solved by using your own router. Other things the Superhub doesn't do well (e.g. UPNP) can be solved using your own router without bridge mode, but not everything.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

yeah the superhub works if you dont tell it to route anything inbound :p, just respond to outgoing requests and its stable. :) even double NAT bombs out on it after some days.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I think you are forgetting the important point here being that anyone can still carry on using their own router regardless of it now being an access point, if you continue to say otherwise then posters reading that will still assume that it is not possible.

Advice on how to use your own router would be much better than trying to put down someone is is saying try using your own router if the are problems.

You seem to know your stuff so why not start a thread offering basic instructions and advice on using your own router which no doubt would be appreciated by many other people.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I think that's a little misleading. You're right that people might assume that their old router is useless, when it probably isn't, but if you don't clarify "use your own router", then people will assume that it can be used in the same way it always had. That's just as bad an assumption.

With VM, only one device can receive the external address allocated, and that device can't currently be your own router if you have a superhub. You can, however, daisy-chain the routers or possibly reduce the functionality of it to be a simple ethernet switch/wireless access point to complement the superhub.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

As I said we need one of the recognised techy guys to start a thread about using your existing router.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I think you're missing the point. People CANNOT continue to use their own router as it doesn't work properly (some may have limited success and others will have endless problems). The bit about the access point is not regardless, it's key to the whole principle. When it's an access point it is NOT a router. To say that you are using your own router without problems is misleading. Technically speaking, it wasn't even a router to begin with - the device you have plugged in is a residential NAT gateway but the terminlogy is so ingrained to most people it'd be futile trying to change it.

Since I don't have a Superhub I cannot give properly tested advice on how to set up their own router with it. I had originally been advising people it should work fine with the Superhub based on standard networking principles. However following evidence to the contrary from people who have actually tried my advice now is to not bother at all as it is difficult and doesn't always function as you'd expect. Starting a thread titled "using your own router" would also be misleading as the only way to use your own router is to use it in a partially-broken configuration or to not use it as a router.

I would appreciate if you'd stop confusing the issue by saying you are using your own router with no problems when you are not using your own router, period. I don't care what you want to call the embedded device you have plugged in but calling it a router is incorrect both in the technical and common language terms of the word. All you would need to do is qualify your statement as "I am using my own router as a wireless access point, not a router and have no problems."

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Problem with that is, when such advice is offered it usually comes with the caveat "and by the way, double NAT'ing often screws things up". The problem being that the Super Hub has a weak routing side and won't play well with other devices trying to do that job instead. In my experience it really doesn't like having say two or three other routers connected to it, even if said routers have DHCP disabled and are just acting as switches.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

qas, you really must let go of that bone :D, I think you have made your point dude. :Yes:

I've been reading Masques comments regarding using his router, and new exactly where he was coming from, and I'm definitely not classed as a technical person,just basic knowledge gleaned from this very forum.

I also understand where your coming from but you have to remember, you have more knowledge on subject's like this than your average Jo Shmo.

The majority of people probably wont understand what is meant by a wireless access point because to them its just a router/modem thingy majig.

:tiptoe:

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Try offering help rather than be a sad nagger, I really do not care one way or another what you think as my router is up and working and providing a connection in my property, it maybe only as an access point but it works and why should be people not be aware that they can do this with their existing kit.

So either wind your neck in or offer something constructive advice until the bridge mode firmware is released.https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2012/09/18.gif

Another so called "professional" being unhelpful why does that not surprise me in the least.https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2012/11/13.gif

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Well it looks like you're completely ignorant and are now trying to avoid the issue entirely, turning it into personal remarks with siilly emoticons. Your router is not up and working because it's not a router.

You're completely refusing to acknoledge you're giving misleading incorrect information out and instead calling me unhelpful by pointing out you're disappointing people. Please. Grow up.

All I asked it that you stop telling people you're using your own router when you're not, because it's misleading and I have seen people being misled by your comments. This was a perfectly reasonable request backed up by facts and instead you resort to sarcasm and insults.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Offer help instead of trying to undermine others who are offering advice with regards using existing wireless kit.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/02/41.jpg

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I offered help - to you - and you're in complete denial and insult me instead.



Admit you're wrong and misleading people or offer a logical explanation why you're not instead of posting silly cartoons and denying facts.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Why not start a thread to help people use their own router with the Superhub rather than moaning about someone actually using their own router, I think many people would appreciate that more than this stance you have that it cannot be done even when other people have proved otherwise.

Does it really matter if it is working as a router or a an access point as long as it is actually working, the vast majority would say no.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

You're missing the point yet again, which seems to be something you're quite adept at. I have no problems with people using their own router. I have not moaned about people using their own router. You are not using your own router.

Double NAT through the Superhub does not work reliably for everyone and you still lose many of the benefits of using your own router, hence you're not really using your own router. You're not even getting this far, because you do not have a router connected to your Superhub. I'm not starting a thread about it with the Superhub as there's already plenty of threads by people who actually own a Superhub.

It matters a lot if it's working as a router or an access point because calling it a router when it is not a router is misleading and confusing people. Your comments in other threads have shown this to be clearly counterproductive as at one point you told someone to break their network by calling your non-router a router.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

If it works then it is a workaround nothing more but it works for me and many others which is what many people want, so advise them how to rather than saying it is not the correct way to use your kit.

I expect you could offer such advice if you wanted to even though it is not a perfect solution in your eyes.

People are more interested in getting their connection now.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

You're missing the point yet again, which seems to be something you're quite adept at.

I have no problem with people using their own kit and advising them to do so. In doing so I advise that there are multiple ways of doing so, including your solution which is not using your router as a router.

My problem is you telling people you're using your own router (and to turn off DHCP to make it work 'fine') which is utterly incorrect. It'd be alot easier to give people the correct advice if you didn't start it off by giving them incorrect and misleading advice.

For example if this guy didn't already know better than you, taking your statement at face value would have resulted in him breaking his network:

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

He is using Linux so I would expect him to know how to set up his own network for which he would need bridge mode for due to what he wants from his network, also he had not upgraded as yet because it had to work the same as before, so remember to include all information.

I am talking about a standard network such as the average person had before they upgraded and took delivery of the Superhub and they want back, but you know that already but keep trying to find reasons why not.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

And yet, you still managed to confuse him by using the wrong term. Lets find the problems with this. First, you cannot assume all linux users are networking buffs. Plenty of them know less than your average Windows user. "The guy uses linux" is not an excuse for giving out wrong information, which clearly confused him and will no doubt mislead other readers of the thread.

Secondly, you make it sound like they will be able to get their old network configuration back. They will not. You might get close with double NAT but since you're not doing that you should not be telling people it "works fine" when it clearly doesn't for many.

No matter how many times I say this you seem to continue missing the point and changing the subject, I don't understand why you continue to bother avoiding such a simple point:

You are not using your own router with your Superhub. Telling people you are is misleading

You cannot make it work by turning off DHCP. Telling people they can is misleading

Please stop giving people confusing and misleading information. You are not using your own router, saying you are is wrong.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Even if it working as an Access Point it is still working and providing a connection which is what people want so why not let people know that it works in that way, so nothing misleading with regards giving a connection.

As for the Linux OP he realised it was not for him and will probably wait for bridge mode and then come back to enquire again due to him wanting his own Linux based router to run his network on.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Because it is not working as a router

By your logic I could call my bike a car, because it gets me to my destination. Or maybe I should start selling switches as "routers" because it is "providing a connection". What yours is actually doing is NOT what people want, but you're incorrectly claiming it is.

You're not letting people it works that way, you're telling people it works a way that it doesn't. It's confusing and misleading to say you are using your own router when you are not. You're making a false and exaggerated statement, but that's no surprise coming from someone working for VM...

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I have already said even if working as an Access Point but you appear ti be unable to read.

So it is false and exaggerated to say that my Edimax Router ( it does call it that on the box and the case strangely enough;) ) is providing me with a wireless connection, as it is providing me with a wireless connection very successfully I see no issue.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

No, you're the one who appears unable to read. All I asked right from the beginning was that it is false to state you are using your own router with no problems when you are not using it as a router.

This, is in fact exactly what I was asking you to do before you resorted to bickering and insults - i.e. state that you are using it only for wireless and not as a router.

I'm glad you seem to have understood the concept, even if you haven't realised yet. This is all I have to say on the matter for now but if I see you claiming again you're using a "router with no problems" I'll correct you again.

For now it remains that until we get bridge mode, using your own router with the Superhub (as a router) does not fully work the way it should.

It'll work fine if not used as a router.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Do not ignore requests from Mods - last warning.

The Loving Mallet of Correction™ is on standby mode.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Masque come on hold your hands up and admit you wrong on this.

Is a FACT people cannot get their own wan ip on their own router's now with the superhub.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I said from the start that you can use your own router and regardless of if it becoming an Access Point it was originally bought as a router and that is the word everyone understands, mention access point and peoples eyes glaze over.

I have connected it to a Lan port on the Superhub and you will be shocked to learn that it has 4 of them and it works fine using any of them, but as someone wants to be pedantic rather than help posters so they have to argue the finer points that the majority of people do not care or even give a hoot about.

All they want is the ability to turn on their laptop or Xbox in any part of the house and get a wireless connection and if they can use their original router then they are happy.

My router has always been on a long ethernet cable to ensure good coverage and it works connected to the Superhub which give me even more range for wireless access.

I could have just bought an access point but the was no need as my original router fitted the bill and saved me any expense.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

...we hope. ;)

That boils it right down to the fact of the matter. If the router isn't getting the WAN IP, the Super Hub is and no amount of fiddling with settings on either will change that.

Bridge mode, bridge mode, where art thou? :D

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

This attitude is why isp's should stop supplying custom routers.

A normal router has features to try and cater for everyone, even if only 1% use it.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I am using my original router and the Superhub is also broadcasting so I have 2 connections in my property.

Off course my own router only has a 192 ip because it is connected via a LAN port, but when I had my modem it received a public ip address which is very different from the 192 ip range.