Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => ISPs => Topic started by: guest on April 16, 2015, 04:00:48 PM
-
It appears that roughly 18 months after they updated various older (ADSL) routers firmware to run a dual IPv4/IPv6 stack that Sky are finally ready to trial it.
I'd normally criticise the time they've taken but after the best part of 20 years its nice to see a major ISP outside the APNIC region (Asia-Pacific) finally bite the bullet & realise this HAS to be done. ISPs planning on running CGNAT (hello BT) need to get themselves out of the 20th century & employ core network staff who have a clue (BT currently don't, the beancounters got their way & anyone talented has long since departed).
The trial is initially only available to ADSL customers using a Sagem router and (obviously) only on LLU exchanges with Sky MSANs.
I would expect the SR101/102 to be the next trial phase - probably towards autumn.
The Sky TV box is already dual-stack although I don't know whether that firmware is updated to dual-stack only if you're a Sky BB customer or not. I only noticed it recently.
I was doing IPv6 presentations to Pipex network staff 13 years ago (using AAISP) & no major ISP in all that time has even offered IPv6 to customers. Talk about burying your head in the sand or what?
-
Perhaps (like we jumped XP to 7 and next to 10) they were hoping to jump straight IPv8! :P
-
I agree with rizla it is a sad state of affairs they have all just ignored it for so long.
-
One of the difficulties that A&A had to get past was the fight to get consumer router manufacturers to step up and offer a cheap IPv6 basic router.
Now there are a few cheap CPE offerings to be had, cheap enough to be given away even.
-
ipv6 I think is been rolled out within 1-2 months on sky, they are doing a soft launch in the next 2 weeks they said will last about 4 weeks.
-
Sky are asking for people on SR101 & SR102 hubs to sign up to trial IPv6. It said we would here back in September if we were accepted on the trial.
-
Well despite me telling them to opt me out of any beta-testing* it appears Sky don't listen as they have opted me into the IPv6 trial ???
Its a rather strange trial as well because it appears to be only active on the LAN side ::)
So I waken up this morning & notice exceptionally slow DNS resolution on my machine (which has been in sleep mode overnight). Takes a while to work it out as the Win2k3 server (yeah yeah I know) in the garage isn't throwing any errors up.
The reason for this is that Sky decided to enable an IPv6 DHCP server on the router ??? Edit - the LAN IPv6 DHCP server is set to use a pseudo-random link-local block rather than a globally routed IPv6 block which says "NAT" to me. Probably makes my gripe clearer ;)
This little gem strongly implies that Sky don't get the point of IPv6 at all as why in the name of sanity would I need a NAT interface on IPv6 if its done properly?
Anyway this resulted in my machine having two ipv6 link-local addresses (one from the Win2k3 server and one from the router) and the initial lookup was on the wrong address. The lookup obviously fails and after timing out several times it falls back to the other IPv6 link-local address which then immediately falls back to IPv4 as the server knows it has no external IPv6 connectivity.
To cut a long story short, Sky have set the default state for the IPv6 stack to supply DHCP services to the LAN. Now (ignoring the wtf are you using NAT with IPv6? elephant in the room) this would be reasonably logical except of course that my router has IPv4 DHCP services disabled - the logical course of action then would be for the upgrade agent to set IPv6 DHCP disabled as well. These sort of glitches are what beta-tests are for but when you're not even on the damn beta-test then its mildly annoying when it eats your time up.
For information the current firmware on the SR102 is 2.88.1086.R - which, despite the "R", does not necessarily indicate that its release firmware.
In retrospect I suppose I'm lucky that Sky hadn't assigned an external IPv6 address or I wouldn't have noticed that the SR102 was now resolving DNS lookups - which I really don't want.
Hopefully this is helpful to anyone else who runs their own caching DNS resolver.
*its utterly pointless as Sky won't fix anything other than "gamestopper" bugs, and often not even those - SR101 still has the bug I identified 3 years ago which crashes the http proxy daemon (used for the "Block Sites using keyword" options). Gave them step by step instructions & told them why it was happening but they didn't give a damn.
-
TalkTalk's newest routers also support IPv6 but when will they actually enable us to use it...?
-
When CGN becomes too much of an overhead would be my guess Alec. Sky are ahead of the curve for the simple reason that their "holy grail" is to reduce their dependance on satellite delivery of video/content & they were late to the party for RIPE allocations of IPv4 space.
I worked it out and it was February 2003 that I was doing IPv6 "rollout" presentations to Pipex. I feel even older now :P
-
So you think Sky's ultimate plan is to abandon satellite altogether and provide all content over a broadband connection?
-
Absolutely Alec as satellites are a single(ish) point of failure which can't be easily fixed/replaced.
Sky have more bandwidth between Birmingham & London than BT do.
That's one of the reasons they bought into Roku - edit the NowTV boxes are Roku with Sky firmware.
-
Sky would lose a lot of customers without satellite, as the tv service would be inaccessible for all the users who don't have several Mbps available to them.
-
They'd lose very few customers in the overall scheme of things (under 5% IMHO) but I doubt they have any imminent plans to turn off the satellites :)
It is however their "holy grail" and they've been working towards it fairly single-mindedly for at least the last 5 years - the York FTTP rollout is part of that plan, as is the huge investment in transit/backhaul between London (LINX etc) and points North.
-
Concerning the single point of failure thing with satellites. I read a long and detailed report produced for OFCOM about satellite internet and the document mentioned a solution to the single point of failure problem using a cluster of satellites in space which were interconnected somehow.
-
Yeah there's some being launched later this year/early next year as part of the NBN "upgrade" stuff in Australia (their version of BDUK, more or less). It remains to see how viable they will be in financial terms. They'll probably do OK in Oz as the latency is going to be broadly comparable to terrestrial backhaul anyway but it'd be painful in the UK.
Sky can sell a lot more "stuff" with less risk (in every way) is the basic reason they want to move as much as possible to broadband for their TV/video services in the UK. I think their current "downloads/streaming" requests are running at something insane like 2 billion+ per year and a hell of a lot of those requests are coming from Roku/NowTV boxes rather than SkyTV boxes, many of which are almost obsolete now.
Apparently I'm not on the IPv6 trial but they loaded the firmware anyway. This is why I don't do Sky beta stuff anymore.
-
rizla odd that you got added when you didnt apply.
I just got this in a pm, odd eh?
"I just wanted to let you know that we have taken the decision not to go ahead with the trial due to a low uptake from customers. Please stay tuned for other trial opportunities in the future."
I think it rather means I just havent been selected as I am sure the trial is going ahead.
-
I thought that BT Retail was intending to offer IPv6 right now?
-
Rizla, are you able to dump Sky's router and just use a suitable modem and your own router?
-
You can if you want Weaver but for the VDSL services it is technically a breach of the T&Cs - rather sensibly Sky believed it'd be a good idea to only have equipment which supported g.INP and vectoring connected to the line, as they are contractually obliged to do so (unlike some other ISPs/incumbents ;) ). Vectoring? Dream on, BT blew that with their cheap ECI junk anyway & we're going to be the only country in the EU which is incapable of using it.
Chrysalis - I can assure you that a trial IS ongoing as I know several people on the Sky forums who are on it. Edit - they spent ages trying to get me to change my mind about beta-testing; I got several phonecalls from various levels of engineering management including the product manager for the SR101/102 so I'm not very surprised it still happens.
-
@rizla - "suitable modem" would address that though, surely. Is this an FTTC service using normal BT hardware in the green cab?
-
You can if you want Weaver but for the VDSL services it is technically a breach of the T&Cs - rather sensibly Sky believed it'd be a good idea to only have equipment which supported g.INP and vectoring connected to the line, as they are contractually obliged to do so (unlike some other ISPs/incumbents ;) ). Vectoring? Dream on, BT blew that with their cheap ECI junk anyway & we're going to be the only country in the EU which is incapable of using it.
Chrysalis - I can assure you that a trial IS ongoing as I know several people on the Sky forums who are on it. Edit - they spent ages trying to get me to change my mind about beta-testing; I got several phonecalls from various levels of engineering management including the product manager for the SR101/102 so I'm not very surprised it still happens.
yeah its pretty obvious its ongoing, whats the point of asking of trialists when they put people who dont want to be on it instead, odd. Then pretend they cancelled it O_o
-
@rizla - "suitable modem" would address that though, surely.
How is the average Sky user going to know what is "suitable"? They wouldn't know what g.INP/vectoring/SIN498 was if it smacked them repeatedly in the face :)
For once Sky did the right thing. Had BT done the same then we wouldn't be in the utterly farcical situation we're in now re g.INP and vectoring.
-
yeah its pretty obvious its ongoing, whats the point of asking of trialists when they put people who dont want to be on it instead, odd. Then pretend they cancelled it O_o
That's Sky for you, they tend to select more of the "voluble" people on their forums rather than people who have a clue. They also like playing secret squirrel games....
-
@rizla - "suitable modem" would address that though, surely.
How is the average Sky user going to know what is "suitable"? They wouldn't know what g.INP/vectoring/SIN498 was if it smacked them repeatedly in the face :)
For once Sky did the right thing. Had BT done the same then we wouldn't be in the utterly farcical situation we're in now re g.INP and vectoring.
You are right when thinking about it, when FTTC was first launched it looked like BT were handling it the right way, distributing the modems, and putting documents online to state they had the right to kick end users offline if they were using unauthorized equipment.
This plan was obviously changed at some point I expect due to "cost" reasons from both openreach and CPs, and so they decided to stop supplying approved modems as well as even to stop supporting the existing ones by announcing an EOL for support. Also they clearly made a mistake when they started to supply modems mismatching the DSLAM chipset so ECI modems in hauwei areas and vice versa. Personally I have decided to make sure I use a broadcom device on my line to maintain compatibility that the hg612 had although I am on a ECI dslam, and hold my hand up to not using the sky hub (sadly its a poor spec'd device), however I would switch back if I found out I was causing a problem on the line due to the modem I am using.
Now not only do we have mixed up chipsets but we also have people using weird modems like the asus dsl-ac68 which ignores various parameters such as target snrm and UPBO if any modems need kicking off its those asus devices, but openreach have gone too far now, they have got past the point they can enforce their original intentions.
-
The thing is that this isn't rocket science Chrysalis. AFAIK every single other country in the EU has successfully implemented vectoring on VDSL2 (various profiles) - or have large-scale trials ongoing.
BT blew it because the beancounters/execs got their way & substandard ECI crud got installed. That's the truth of the matter.
I'm sure that was great in terms of bonuses for execs, many of whom are long gone - like the ex-head of Openreach, now running Severn Trent (not exactly an honest company to begin with) into the ground for her bonus.
In engineering terms it was and is completely risible & to hear the nonsense coming from Openreach now about how splitting them would make them WORSE is comedy gold :D
Anyway this is way too far off-topic.
-
I agree its simple, only BT can mess this kind of simple task up.
Clearly also when buying the ECI equipment they had no forward planning.
Sky and TT trialing their own FTTP suggests they lost faith in BT.
Do ECI have any other customers aside from BT? Before the UK FTTC rollout I had never heard of ECI.
-
It's not that simple but the bottom line for BT is that its capital expenditure which is currently in-place & unless demand/funding compensates for that then it won't happen. Nor should it as BT is a private company.
However BT control the sub-loop from FTTC to end user so arguably they ought to be booting non-compliant routers, even their own?
Shouldn't have happened and who is going to push for another "upgrade your stuff" drive?
tl;dr is dream on.....
-
How is the average Sky user going to know what is "suitable"? They wouldn't know what g.INP/vectoring/SIN498 was if it smacked them repeatedly in the face
Unfortunately I agree with you there. A lot of their customers dont have a clue. :no:
Had BT done the same then we wouldn't be in the utterly farcical situation we're in now re g.INP and vectoring.
Do you mean BTr or BTw? Its a bit trickier for wholesale as they have to cater for all ISP's some of whom are niche and use different routers. Therefore they cant really exclude or insist on 'xyz' equipment. The move to MCT is a step in the right direction... but then again how the heck did the ECI modems pass :(
Do ECI have any other customers aside from BT? Before the UK FTTC rollout I had never heard of ECI.
From memory they are/were big in France and Germany. iirc Germany used them for FTTC, I recall a search I did at the time of the g.inp issues showed another EU ISP showing similar issues re g.inp compatibility. I cant remember exactly now and Im too lazy to undertake another search. I think Duetch Telecom has some delay in rolling out vectoring until they upgrade the dslams in their cabs. Again I cant recall where I read it, but was something about the early FTTC cabs couldnt do vectoring, and a possible situation of upgrade M41 to V41 (dont quote me on that though because I dont know the actual dslam models).
-
This plan was obviously changed at some point I expect due to "cost" reasons from both openreach and CPs, and so they decided to stop supplying approved modems as well as even to stop supporting the existing ones by announcing an EOL for support.
I think that may have had more to do with the demand for self install and pressure from the SPs to be able to provide their own modem/routers.
Also they clearly made a mistake when they started to supply modems mismatching the DSLAM chipset so ECI modems in hauwei areas and vice versa.
IMHO this shouldn't matter, as long as the modem conforms the the standards then it should work regardless of chipset pair. The issue is someone in BTw not being foresighted enough to purchase the V41's rather than M41s. If they had purchased V41's then we wouldnt be having this conversation now.
I'm sure that was great in terms of bonuses for execs, many of whom are long gone - like the ex-head of Openreach, now running Severn Trent (not exactly an honest company to begin with) into the ground for her bonus.
This is an issue! Not too long ago Execs usually had a grounding in that particular industry, now it seems like they can swap and change between organisations regardless of what service/product they provide. Make the company profits look good for a few years by false economy get a decent bonus, move on, then watch the fallout from their decisions happen a few years later when they are installed elsewhere and let someone else mop up the mess :(
Sky have more bandwidth between Birmingham & London than BT do.
Whilst I dont have any figures to hand, Im not entirely sure if that is a good comparison to make.
iirc Sky only have a total of 4 core entry points based on a ring - London, Birmingham, Leeds, London.
BTw OTOH have 20 Core entry points and their core is heavily meshed. So say someone in Edinburgh/Manchester etc would hop on to the core at Manchester/Edinburgh etc which would have its own amount of bandwidth. ie Manchester to London is a straight link, whilst someone on sky would have to traverse Manchester > Birmingham before getting on the Sky Core, therefore Sky would need for bandwith from Birmingham to London. I cant recall Skys no of PoPs - but about 90? BT has a lot more PoPs too. Totally different type of network topology.
Sorry too lazy to go searching, to back this up, but I do have somewhere something that shows Skys Core looking like a square with only 4 entry points, whilst BTs Core is a mesh over the UK covering 20 core locations.
-
Well as proven matching chipset does help with compatibility.
In terms of blame I blame both BT openreach and BT retail, BT retail had 2 versions of the hh5, so should have sent the right ones to the right customers but instead it seemed random. I personally when on the trial got a matching model, but I guess that was due to luck, or maybe the hh5b wasnt available then.
Virgin Media this is the one thing they got right, they whitelist devices on their network (so blocked by default), and if people want to use their own router they can do so by setting the superhub to modem mode (bridge mode). So virgin media both allow custom routers and enforce modem's on their network.
I dont know if BT equipment allows to allow/disallow by MAC code but maybe they could have whitelisted chipset's at the very least.
-
Back on-topic....
I think there's a bug in the version of f/w for the SR102 I listed earlier in the thread.
We'll see in a couple of days but I reckon that after a certain amount of time connected the WAN port no longer has the IP address lease renewed. After six consecutive attempts (IIRC) have failed then the router will tear down the MER interface (ptm0.1) and reconnect (holds sync throughout). It fails to get an IP lease & then sits there "sulking" until you reboot the router. Looks like a buffer overflow issue to me but with no ssh access to the router who knows?
I hear "rumours" that there's also issues with the DSL firmware as well but I'm not totally clear as to whether the issues are with ADSL, VDSL or both or in fact whether that's limited to the Sagems.
-
does ipv4 lose connectivity as well?
-
There is no ipv6 connectivity as Sky aren't assigning addresses.
The lease issue is ipv4.
-
ouch
-
OK its not an overflow but it is a repeatable bug. Might as well tell the cat from up the road about it rather than Sky really :D
I know what its causing it (outputting syslog to a server) - but not why. Not going into details but I doubt any of the beta testers noticed this as I'm pretty sure 99% of them have no idea what syslog is.
-
Might as well tell the cat from up the road about it rather than Sky really :D
Know what you mean! My SR101 log is sent to a syslog server and I reported what I think is a bug that has been observed since the latest firmware release, but got no response from them at all.
-
Might as well tell the cat from up the road about it rather than Sky really :D
Know what you mean! My SR101 log is sent to a syslog server and I reported what I think is a bug that has been observed since the latest firmware release, but got no response from them at all.
There are various bugs with the the syslog output. This one is down to Sky enabling ipv6 internally & screwing up the link-local addresses by turning on ipv6 dhcp without checking whether there might be an existing dhcp server?
You could argue that this wouldn't be a typical Sky user but its Busybox that does most of that rather than whoever Sky pays to lock it down :D
-
Don't know if this is the same issue that you have observed, but the following gets written to syslog several times daily since the IPv6 enabled firmware arrived on SR101:
kernel: flwStatsAddNode: Can not create query. MAX=128