Superhub Superhub & Virgin Media Business - Page 16

Stephen · 14-03-2012, 17:55

I heard heard about this a couple of weeks ago, and although it will pose a few problems short term, it is better for the long term that they get Netgear to sort out the issues and get a new firmware out ASAP.

itcomms · 14-03-2012, 20:11

can you provide us an ETA on the release of the new firmware?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

I heard heard about this a couple of weeks ago, and although it will pose a few problems short term, it is better for the long term that they get Netgear to sort out the issues and get a new firmware out ASAP.

Stephen · 16-03-2012, 13:05

Sorry, no can do. Its in the hands of Netgear to sort out.

itcomms · 16-03-2012, 13:12

If Netgear do not class VM as a priority customer and provide a fix then maybe VM should look at other solutions or stick with Cisco.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Sorry, no can do. Its in the hands of Netgear to sort out.

General Maximus · 16-03-2012, 16:20

absolutely, they should be emarrassed with the number of problems they have had with the shub and if i was one of the head honchos at Netgear I would tell them to put everything on hold till it was fixed. Fiascos like the shub not only tarnish VM's reputation but also Netgears.

craigj2k12 · 16-03-2012, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Maximus

absolutely, they should be emarrassed with the number of problems they have had with the shub and if i was one of the head honchos at Netgear I would tell them to put everything on hold till it was fixed. Fiascos like the shub not only tarnish VM's reputation but also Netgears.

its true

queue the idiots who have a perfect superhub

qasdfdsaq · 16-03-2012, 18:29

The only way a Superhub would be perfect is if it was shaped like a boob.

ccarmock · 16-03-2012, 18:50

It has been embarassing for VM for sure. And now to cause them to withdraw their new business broadband services is very bad. But I have to say VMB have done the right thing here as they don't want to make the situation worse. However for business services it makes me think they should ditch the superhub and go with a Cisco device.

The business superhub runs different firmware, and so far I have been hit by two problems with it - high latency & jitter compared with the older 10 MB/s business service I had on a Scientific Atlanta modem.

The other problem is the MTU size issue, which actually might not be a Superhub issue at all, but a limitation of using an L2TP tunnel. However setting MTU to 1460 on the router behind the superhub does workaroudn the problem, so I no longer get delayed email.

Hopefully VMB will push Netgear hard to get new firmware out for these devices so they can start to sell the new services again.

Sephiroth · 16-03-2012, 19:09

I'm wondering whether your interleave factor on the SH has changed frpm the 10 meg modem. The interleave stats used to be displayed on the VMNG 300, but they are suppressed on the SH (I say cynically to prevent knowledgeable customers from seeing what's going on). That would affect latency.

I also think you're giving credit to VM for an obviously needed decision without chiding them for yet another debacle of releasing something that was not fit for purpose.

Regarding the MTU size, if it woeks on a router behind the SH, then it must be got working by VM on the SH itself. It's why it's there. Why those idiots didn't put modem mde onto the business SH is beyond me; false reasoning I'm sure.

ccarmock · 16-03-2012, 19:24

Good point about interleave. However I also have the static IP subnet option, which means the Superhub forms an L2TP tunnel to the VM network in Birmingham (I am in Surrey), so my breakout point on the internet is Birmingham, so that will add some latency. Interleave would affect it too as you say.

What I have is a Cisco router behind the Superhub. Since I have a routed subnet the Superhub is not performing any NAT, so that is done on the Cisco 892W I have behind it. On the WAN interface of that router I have the ip mtu set to 1460 and my delayed email issue has gone away.

I had understood that a future firmware release for the business superhub will add modem mode. However I am not sure if the formation of the L2TP tunnel comes from the router or modem side of the Superhub. If the router side it would likely not be viable for the static IP options.

Current business superhub firmware is: V5.5.2R04-BU which is the same base as the residential version. I wonder if this means it's derived from R04 of the residential firmware!

craigj2k12 · 17-03-2012, 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm wondering whether your interleave factor on the SH has changed frpm the 10 meg modem. The interleave stats used to be displayed on the VMNG 300, but they are suppressed on the SH (I say cynically to prevent knowledgeable customers from seeing what's going on). That would affect latency.

I also think you're giving credit to VM for an obviously needed decision without chiding them for yet another debacle of releasing something that was not fit for purpose.

Regarding the MTU size, if it woeks on a router behind the SH, then it must be got working by VM on the SH itself. It's why it's there. Why those idiots didn't put modem mde onto the business SH is beyond me; false reasoning I'm sure.

interleaving on cable doesnt make as much difference as it does on adsl, a matter of 1 or 2ms on cable, whereas the same increase of interleaving on adsl would put it up 30 or 40ms

Sephiroth · 17-03-2012, 00:39

Craigie

I suppose you're right about the amount of latency added in DOCSIS purely down to interleaving.

So it's back to that buffering tjing. Bonded channels complicate matters. Data doesn't arrive in sequence, and each channel can have different impairments; hence the high amount of buffering necessary to assemble a packet. Then there's the interleaving to further assist the FEC functions which adds to the buffer requirements.

So you can't avoid higher latency in DOCSIS and my sense tells me that it would increase further with 8 bonded downstream channels.

Or have I misunderstood something?

qasdfdsaq · 17-03-2012, 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccarmock

Good point about interleave. However I also have the static IP subnet option, which means the Superhub forms an L2TP tunnel to the VM network in Birmingham (I am in Surrey), so my breakout point on the internet is Birmingham, so that will add some latency. Interleave would affect it too as you say.

Actually it's in Bradford, after going through Manchester.

ccarmock · 17-03-2012, 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Actually it's in Bradford, after going through Manchester.

Sorry yes you are absolutely right. Been a long day!

craigj2k12 · 17-03-2012, 01:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Craigie

I suppose you're right about the amount of latency added in DOCSIS purely down to interleaving.

So it's back to that buffering tjing. Bonded channels complicate matters. Data doesn't arrive in sequence, and each channel can have different impairments; hence the high amount of buffering necessary to assemble a packet. Then there's the interleaving to further assist the FEC functions which adds to the buffer requirements.

So you can't avoid higher latency in DOCSIS and my sense tells me that it would increase further with 8 bonded downstream channels.

Or have I misunderstood something?

so are we saying here that the superhub uses additional buffering becuase it bonds more channels? I also thought the added buffering compared to the VMNG was on the upstream, which goes back to not making sense as the VMNG has the same amount of upstreams

Iggie would know but it seems the mods here have peed him off, maybe time to make use of the better moderation over at the alternative cable forum?