VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub - Page 9

qasdfdsaq · 19-02-2011, 22:25

Nope, it's a NAT. You'd point the DMZ at your games console anyway, so it'd be your console not your PC that is exposed. Aside from that, everything else on your network is in private address space that can't be reached from the internet, firewall or no firewall.

foddy · 19-02-2011, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Nope, it's a NAT. You'd point the DMZ at your games console anyway, so it'd be your console not your PC that is exposed. Aside from that, everything else on your network is in private address space that can't be reached from the internet, firewall or no firewall.

But is the games console completely exposed? People do play games on PCs ...

**Hugh** · 19-02-2011, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenK

I'll see your 30 years, and raise you to 34

Now, what's VM's offer for us?How many settings do "most people" use on their camera - or even their washing machine? But they're all there.

I'll see your 34 with my previous six in the RAF in cryptography, and raise you an IT Director's post...

And household washing machines have been about for about 90 years, and household modems about 20.

(and with the washing machine you have soap powder, clothes, electricity, and the machine - modem/routers you have the cable infrastructure, the modem/router, the PC, the multitude of software on PC, wireless/wired connection, the site being connected to, etc etc...)

qasdfdsaq · 19-02-2011, 22:34

The console is as exposed as it would be if you directly connected it to a modem with no router in-between. While not totally ideal, it's a console. It should have built-in security fit for the task. If it doesn't, meh. Your PC will have a built-in firewall that's superior to the router one anyway. If it doesn't it's far more flexible in terms of being able to install one, so you're still no worse off.

Back in the old days of 56K modems, everything connected directly to the internet so no router/NAT protection, and we didn't panic.

foddy · 19-02-2011, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

The console is as exposed as it would be if you directly connected it to a modem with no router in-between.

Ahh, thanks. That's what I was wondering.

Quote:

Back in the old days of 56K modems, everything connected directly to the internet so no router/NAT protection, and we didn't panic.

Yes, but KA9Q didn't give access to much at all ;-)

Times have moved on. I certainly wouldn't leave a Windows PC directly on the Internet these days without a firewall. Not that ANYONE should disable the Windows firewall ...

pip08456 · 19-02-2011, 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by foddy

Ahh, thanks. That's what I was wondering.

Yes, but KA9Q didn't give access to much at all ;-)

Times have moved on. I certainly wouldn't leave a Windows PC directly on the Internet these days without a firewall. Not that ANYONE should disable the Windows firewall ...

I've disabled the Windows firewall. No reason not to as I have my own. Pointless having 2 firewalls running and can actually cause problems.

Chrysalis · 20-02-2011, 00:17

I use the windows firewall for the reason its simple and basic, no SPI packet inspection rubbish and I can cleanly define rules.

---------- Post added at 01:17 ---------- Previous post was at 00:52 ----------

something for VM staff to think about whilst they defend VM.

VM have done this as a way to reduce tech support calls from the newbie users who cannot plug a cable in between a modem and router. The endgame will be for cost savings, if call volumes go down then ultimately there will be loss of jobs in call centres. Otherwise there is no cost saving.

BenMcr · 20-02-2011, 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

VM have done this as a way to reduce tech support calls from the newbie users who cannot plug a cable in between a modem and router. The endgame will be for cost savings, if call volumes go down then ultimately there will be loss of jobs in call centres. Otherwise there is no cost saving.

Except that's not the whole story.

Virgin want to grow the business, and have been doing quite well over the last few years, but at somepoint the amount of calls coming in from customers wanting help with their services means it's uneconomical to continually add more and more support staff to answer the calls

Therefore Virgin have to look at ways of reducing the calls that shouldn't really be coming in in the first place.

One of these call types is Wireless setup issues. If Virgin can introduce hardware which gets ride of the majority of these types of calls, it frees up the existing call centre staff to answer those calls that they are trained to do. So rather than waiting 5/10 mins to get through to a tech support agent because there is an actual technical problem, and you are queuing behing someone who can't configure the SSID and WPA correctly, you are instead through to someone who can resolve your issue quickly

THAT is why Virgin are doing this

Chrysalis · 20-02-2011, 00:42

So you go from newbie unable to configure wireless, to customer unable to get signal due to poor superhub performance.

incidently I havent waited for tech support to answer phone, but more all the silly menus have to navigate and then getting agents who I cant talk to properly.

The end game will be loss of staff, obviously they wont inform agents of that end game till it happens.

BenMcr · 20-02-2011, 00:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The end game will be loss of staff, obviously they wont inform agents of that end game till it happens.

Well that's yet another point we shall have to agree to disagree on.

foddy · 20-02-2011, 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

I've disabled the Windows firewall. No reason not to as I have my own. Pointless having 2 firewalls running and can actually cause problems.

Which firewall are you using? Have you checked that it protects teredo tunnels?

zekeisaszekedoes · 20-02-2011, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

One of these call types is Wireless setup issues. If Virgin can introduce hardware which gets ride of the majority of these types of calls, it frees up the existing call centre staff to answer those calls that they are trained to do. So rather than waiting 5/10 mins to get through to a tech support agent because there is an actual technical problem, and you are queuing behing someone who can't configure the SSID and WPA correctly, you are instead through to someone who can resolve your issue quickly

It's funny you should choose wireless because that's the most conspicious problem with the Super Hub so far is precisely that. Dropouts, poor range etc. I actually have a couple of the routers VM used to send out (WGR614v9/DIR-615), running stock firmware they are way more stable and reliable.

I suppose the easiest way to put it is, if VM want fewer n00b calls then perhaps they should spend more time testing their gear rather than rushing it out, causing more problems than they solve because they're clearly not made well enough. Whether that's a hardware or software issue - or combination of both - remains to be seen, but it wastes everyone's time and makes customers lose faith.

pip08456 · 20-02-2011, 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by foddy

Which firewall are you using? Have you checked that it protects teredo tunnels?

Eset. Yes it does.

BenMcr · 20-02-2011, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

It's funny you should choose wireless because that's the most conspicious problem with the Super Hub so far is precisely that. Dropouts, poor range etc. I actually have a couple of the routers VM used to send out (WGR614v9/DIR-615), running stock firmware they are way more stable and reliable.

Yet I found it to be the otherway around. Before the SuperHub I had the DIR-615, and I had problems with Wiress range, and the speed I got when I could connect. I also could not get my Windows Home Server to work correctly with it no matter what I tried

Since I've got the SuperHub I've had none of these issues

vulcan · 20-02-2011, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

It's funny you should choose wireless because that's the most conspicious problem with the Super Hub so far is precisely that. Dropouts, poor range etc. I actually have a couple of the routers VM used to send out (WGR614v9/DIR-615), running stock firmware they are way more stable and reliable.

Disappointing really. I have had the WGR614v9 on 20Mb for more than 2 years, and it runs months on end with no problems. 90% of the household internet use is wireless and we are heavy users. Bad comments about the superhub is why I have stick with 20Mb and not upgraded to 50Mb, or indeed the new 30Mb. The new firmware would allow me to use a superhub as just a modem, and retain the WGR614v9. But that would be totally pointless because the WGR614v9 "g" wireless is maxed out with 20Mb anyway, I would see no effective speed increase...