Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[licquorice]

The BT default gateway will be a 172.16.xx.xx private address which is the address of the BRAS. My gateway is 172.16.12.3

[mogsiewp]

Sorry what's Bras?

[licquorice]

Broadband Remote Access Server, where your broadband comes from.

[tubaman]

Google are talking total nonsense. Their article is to enable you to add VLAN tagging when required via a switch or modem/router because their box can't do it. If you have an HG612 and the connection is basically working then the HG612 is handling the VLAN for you and you don't need any more hardware. In fact if you added a switch and duplicated the VLAN 101 tagging it would break it.
If the base issue is that you are intermittently losing wifi connectivity then that can't be anything to do with the VLAN tagging as it wouldn't work at all, not just on an intermittent basis.
They are just on another planet!
 

[mogsiewp]

Hadn't considered it from that perspective.

I guess in some countries/configurations the router might connect direct but then can't be configured with vlan.

It's defo the router dropping, wired or WiFi.

Google support are aweful.

You get the impression they have zero techy knowledge but just read from scripts.
Thus they struggle with anything beyond America.

I will ask for a refund under a warranty and buy something like by mesh.

Thanks for all the help.
Super appreciated.

[burakkucat]

I will ask for a refund under a warranty and buy something like by mesh.

That is the sensible option.

Thanks for all the help.
Super appreciated.

You are welcome. 

[niemand]

What the heck are they on about?  I wouldn't EVER expect an actual WAN connection to end in .1 or .254

Bad news - about 1 in 128 of all broadband client WAN IPv4 addresses end in .1 or .254. Indeed .0 and .255 account for another 1 in 128 - ish.

Name:    cpc114124-lee213-2-0-cust255.7-1.cable.virginm.net
Address:  86.28.209.0

Pinging 86.28.209.0 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 86.28.209.0: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=52
Reply from 86.28.209.0: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=52

Name:    cpc114124-lee213-2-0-cust510.7-1.cable.virginm.net
Address:  86.28.209.255

Pinging 86.28.209.255 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 86.28.209.255: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 86.28.209.255: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53

Name:    51-148-174-1.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk
Address:  51.148.174.1

Pinging 51.148.174.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 51.148.174.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=58
Reply from 51.148.174.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=58

Etc.

Default gateways rarer as there are far fewer required but it happens, especially on networks using IPoE or straight DHCP where there are smaller IP pools than those you'd find via PPP.

Perhaps CarlT will offer an opinion?

I haven't a clue what they're waffling on about if I'm honest. If there's supposed to be a VLAN tag there, or there's an incorrect VLAN tag, it doesn't work full stop, it's not intermittent. None of my services expose a VLAN tag to my router so I'm totally lost to be honest. VLAN tags are placed on the traffic by my ONT/U, much as they are by Openreach modems as far as I'm aware.

A reminder neither the ONTs or modems are actually modems, they are bridges. Bridges can do things like apply VLAN tags. Only time VLAN tags need to be configured are when your own kit is being plugged straight into the copper line rather than a, pre-configured, Openreach modem.

[burakkucat]

I haven't a clue what they're waffling on about if I'm honest. If there's supposed to be a VLAN tag there, or there's an incorrect VLAN tag, it doesn't work full stop, it's not intermittent. None of my services expose a VLAN tag to my router so I'm totally lost to be honest. VLAN tags are placed on the traffic by my ONT/U, much as they are by Openreach modems as far as I'm aware.

Thank you. We are all in agreement. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

Bad news - about 1 in 128 of all broadband client WAN IPv4 addresses end in .1 or .254. Indeed .0 and .255 account for another 1 in 128 - ish.

I really need to pick my wording better as I was just thinking it would be extremely rare if at all, thanks for clarifying.

[niemand]

For efficiency WAN IPs usually come out of fairly decently sized ranges so apart from the first and last addresses in the range the others are treated the same.

With PPP don't even have a default gateway in the same segment, they can be anything, even privately addressed.

EDIT: I do see your thought process though and for the wider audience:

A 24 bit subnet mask / 255.255.255.0 uses network address .0 and broadcast address .255 - those are start and end. Normally you'd also need an IP address in the same subnet as a default gateway and this is usually either .1 or .254. This also means you lose 2 out of every 256 addresses to network and broadcast, and a further 1 for default gateway if you are using normal routing rather than PPPoE.

So for efficiency ISPs, especially larger ones, use the largest subnets they can reasonably use. In the case of the DHCP scope from Virgin Media I mentioned it's a /21, so 8 x /24, making the network address 86.28.208.0 and the broadcast address 86.28.215.255. VM use the first usable address as the default gateway as they use 'normal' routing:

Name:    cpc114124-lee213-2-0-gw.7-1.cable.virginm.net
Address:  86.28.208.1

This means all addresses from 86.28.208.2 to 86.28.215.254 may be allocated to customers whatever digit they end with, leaving 2045 out of 2048 rather than 2024 that would be available using 24 bit masks throughout.

It's also more efficient for network devices too - they see a single subnetwork not 8.

[Alex Atkin UK]

I was going to say I thought I had read something about PPPoE being able to be a private address range, while still having a public IP facing you, as its effectively a tunnel/bridge?  I'm just not sure I'm remembering that correctly.

[licquorice]

See message 15

[mogsiewp]

[tubaman]

You may wish to read this article on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl - as I don't think Google can just wash their hands of this as the product doesn't sound like it has ever worked correctly whilst in your ownership. In the first 6 months of ownership it is for Google to prove that it isn't faulty and I don't think they've done that at all.
Don't just give up on this as they have been telling you absolute rubbish about the VLAN tagging being the problem here.
 

[burakkucat]

I am in agreement with what tubaman has posted.

I'm wondering if some adverse publicity might be beneficial?  Rory Cellan-Jones, of the BBC Technology department, comes to mind.