VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub

[qasdfdsaq]

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.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

I've gotten well above 90mbps on my 615 from WAN to LAN

How exactly? On what broadband service?

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

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.

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

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

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.

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.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Yes, existing modems are layer 3. 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 the routing system.

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

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

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

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.

[BenMcr]

though if they're fixing the routing bugs as part of implementing bridge mode then bridge mode actually becomes somewhat redundant.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

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.

Who said it was?

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

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

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.

Who said it was?

Nobody, but many people seem to assume it will.

As Masque would say...

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

[Chrysalis]

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.

[internetguy]

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

[qasdfdsaq]

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.

[KenK]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

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.

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.

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

True, although it doesn't usually take 6 months to fix bugs and omissions in a beta release.

[foddy]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

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.

Yes, but can it ever do what I 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. [...] If the Superhub worked the way it is expected to for everyone bridge mode would not be necessary.

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?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by foddy

Yes, but can it ever do what I need?


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.

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.

[zekeisaszekedoes]

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.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

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 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.