Virgin to give new Superhub out.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Masque

The is a reason behind the post if you think about it and not one you are supposed to write about on here but at least my point has been put to the poster.

Unfortunately it's wasted as VM will do pretty much anything to keep a customer.

Oddly enough they won't spend say 15 times that to keep 150 people happy.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Unfortunately it's wasted as VM will do pretty much anything to keep a customer.

Oddly enough they won't spend say 15 times that to keep 150 people happy.

I had other reasons for the post .

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Wow nice attitude... not.

From what i read the superhub isnt fit for purpose out of the box people having to disable the flood protection to get a useable net connection for a start.

Not quite true.

The Superhub works fine for most average customers out of the box.

Flood protection really only affects large numbers of stateless packets, i.e. where somebody is pinging your connection from outside. This isn't typical use, and really only affects pingtest.net and similar tests, it has virtually no effect on actual internet usage. Most internet activity is TCP, which is unaffected by flood protection, you don't need to disable flood protection to get a useable net connection. You only need to disable it for test sites that send a hundred pings to your modem per second.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Not quite true.

The Superhub works fine for most average customers out of the box.

Flood protection really only affects large numbers of stateless packets, i.e. where somebody is pinging your connection from outside. This isn't typical use, and really only affects pingtest.net and similar tests, it has virtually no effect on actual internet usage. Most internet activity is TCP, which is unaffected by flood protection, you don't need to disable flood protection to get a useable net connection. You only need to disable it for test sites that send a hundred pings to your modem per second.

However for some reason IP Flood also detects LAN side flooding????????????

Description Count Last Occurence Target Source
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 04:44:54 2010 192.168.0.2:0 24.128.136.198:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 1 Sun Dec 12 04:44:58 2010 92.124.19.123:45578 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 04:45:01 2010 192.168.0.2:0 24.128.136.198:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 3 Sun Dec 12 04:45:06 2010 194.168.8.100:53 192.168.0.2:56370
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 04:45:07 2010 192.168.0.2:0 24.128.136.198:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 1 Sun Dec 12 04:45:12 2010 206.48.228.157:29122 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 3 Sun Dec 12 04:45:26 2010 192.168.0.2:0 24.128.136.198:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 8 Sun Dec 12 04:46:09 2010 194.168.4.100:53 192.168.0.2:50398
SYN Flood 1 Sun Dec 12 04:48:50 2010 192.168.0.2:13459 67.168.3.56:54577
Illegal TCP header 4 Sun Dec 12 04:58:08 2010 192.168.0.2:0 79.254.133.128:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 3 Sun Dec 12 04:58:47 2010 94.242.135.59:18575 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 04:58:49 2010 192.168.0.2:0 79.254.133.128:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 5 Sun Dec 12 04:59:00 2010 71.72.82.14:54591 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 04:59:04 2010 192.168.0.2:0 79.254.133.128:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 5 Sun Dec 12 05:00:05 2010 224.0.0.252:5355 192.168.0.2:62422
Illegal TCP header 14 Sun Dec 12 05:13:15 2010 192.168.0.2:0 87.14.229.225:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 20 Sun Dec 12 05:14:35 2010 70.239.249.207:53020 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 78 Sun Dec 12 05:23:12 2010 192.168.0.2:0 24.29.68.168:0
SYN Flood 1 Sun Dec 12 05:25:15 2010 192.168.0.2:13459 67.63.96.230:40241
Illegal TCP header 2 Sun Dec 12 05:26:01 2010 192.168.0.2:0 212.183.88.81:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 25 Sun Dec 12 05:29:01 2010 111.254.121.200:17625 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 05:29:42 2010 192.168.0.2:0 110.174.192.78:0
SYN Flood 1 Sun Dec 12 05:30:12 2010 192.168.0.2:13459 83.87.90.84:3604
LAN-side UDP Flood 7 Sun Dec 12 05:30:34 2010 121.54.22.249:16846 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 05:30:35 2010 192.168.0.2:0 212.183.88.81:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 2 Sun Dec 12 05:30:38 2010 124.150.101.151:57344 192.168.0.2:13459
Illegal TCP header 1 Sun Dec 12 05:30:38 2010 192.168.0.2:0 212.183.88.81:0
LAN-side UDP Flood 46 Sun Dec 12 05:34:26 2010 95.211.88.51:80 192.168.0.2:13459
Teardrop or derivative 36 Sun Dec 12 05:37:24 2010 192.168.0.255:137 192.168.0.3:137
LAN-side UDP Flood 285 Mon Dec 13 19:28:06 2010 87.19.104.98:45950 192.168.0.2:13459

Why? I don't know and look for an answer. The above is from someone elses Superhub.

[jb66]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Not quite true.

The Superhub works fine for most average customers out of the box.

Flood protection really only affects large numbers of stateless packets, i.e. where somebody is pinging your connection from outside. This isn't typical use, and really only affects pingtest.net and similar tests, it has virtually no effect on actual internet usage. Most internet activity is TCP, which is unaffected by flood protection, you don't need to disable flood protection to get a useable net connection. You only need to disable it for test sites that send a hundred pings to your modem per second.

You obviously don't have a hub, I couldn't browse and use torrents at the same time with it enabled. Even the Internet on it's own ground to a halt with it on

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Not quite true.

The Superhub works fine for most average customers out of the box.

Flood protection really only affects large numbers of stateless packets, i.e. where somebody is pinging your connection from outside. This isn't typical use, and really only affects pingtest.net and similar tests, it has virtually no effect on actual internet usage. Most internet activity is TCP, which is unaffected by flood protection, you don't need to disable flood protection to get a useable net connection. You only need to disable it for test sites that send a hundred pings to your modem per second.

also speedtest.net seems to be affected, which is only 4 download streams, that should not be triggering flood protection.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

also speedtest.net seems to be affected, which is only 4 download streams, that should not be triggering flood protection.

Even support (or at least one of) over at the VM site is advising turning off IP Flood detection and the firewall.

Looks like the firmware needs more than just bridge mode enabling!

Is this your fault Ben???

[qasdfdsaq]

I know there's a "bug" where LAN side packets are also picked up by the flood protection, but again this still only affects stateless packets and is a rare occurrence, most LAN traffic, like internet traffic is still stateful TCP which is ignored by the flood protection. Still *most* of the feedback on this forum about the Superhub is positive so clearly it still works for most people out of the box.

Barring any other "bugs" with the flood protection, speedtest.net traffic would be completely ignored by it so flood protection should have nothing to do with your speedtest problems.

Originally Posted by jb66

You obviously don't have a hub, I couldn't browse and use torrents at the same time with it enabled. Even the Internet on it's own ground to a halt with it on

Do you use uTorrent by any chance? uTorrent recently (in the last year or so) implemented a new UDP based protocol (uTP) that is on by default. Like I said, the flood protection is easily triggered by stateless packets (i.e. UDP) so if you're torrenting with UDP, then this is why you have problems.

Most internet traffic (95%) is not UDP and would not trigger flood protection. Not to say it's particularly useful or well implemented, but to be honest it's still way too easy to DoS someone with an ICMP flood attack these days. You don't even have to use a DDoS.

As for the firewall, I've already made my opinions on NAT router firewalls clear many times - they're pointless and unsuccessful gimmicks that shouldn't be there in the first place, on any device. The Superhub's firewall is really no worse than your average crappy consumer router firewall.

[Chrysalis]

Normal dumb firewalls are fine, where they block based on rules, its IDS type firewalls that are the problem.

Of course on NAT firewalls are pointless. As NAT itself is effectively a firewall for inbound traffic.

[Lister of Smeg]

The problem with a Superhub is you cannot without problems attach your own router to the superhub. personally, i think it's silly that Virgin have moved in the same step as ADSL. It was fine as it was with 2 devices.

[Nopanic]

Originally Posted by Lister of Smeg

The problem with a Superhub is you cannot without problems attach your own router to the superhub. personally, i think it's silly that Virgin have moved in the same step as ADSL. It was fine as it was with 2 devices.

Its easier for VM to support one device ..

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Nopanic

Its easier for VM to support one device ..

[Nopanic]

Originally Posted by Masque

ok.. its cheaper .. there I said it .. happy now

[deuse]

I got a superhub today as a freebie and it's ok.

Does anyone know why the Ethernet light is always blue and flashes like mad.
I thought is was surpposed to be green then turn blue when I was downloading.

I'ts like a frigging disco here

EDIT= I read on page 15 for my answer...

[Skie]

Received my Superhub too. Activated ok. Disabled IP Flood Detection and mucked around with the ssid's so everything wireless connects straight back up.

It seems ok, and speeds are great, though I don't think the activity summary it shows is actually working. Just downloaded 7.7Gb (yay, steam!) and it claims 3.6gb. Not good for those bods on STM'd tiers. I'm missing Tomato's bandwidth monitoring already! Though hopefully I wont need the QoS it provided now I have a higher upload.

All in all, OK, and great CS from Virgin for accommodating me with my router then being good enough to send out a superhub gratis when that didn't pan out.