View Single Post
Old 16-02-2011, 15:02   #48
qasdfdsaq
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr View Post
How exactly? On what broadband service?
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.

Quote:
So that means the existing modems will be layer 3 then? So the SuperHub will bridge in exactly the same way
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.
qasdfdsaq is offline   Reply With Quote