Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

Hello all,

I have read almost every thread I can find on this topic and haven't yet been able to piece together the answers to my questions. Please don't direct me to the search function -- I have been hammering it for a good few hours!

I have tried to lay out all my questions below in the hope someone might be able to help easily.

[Q1] I understand that in the past the 50 Mb/s service with a static IP block was delivered via a routed subnet. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean the following two things are true?

(a) There was no GRE tunnel.
(b) The modem was assigned a dynamic IP and a subnet was routed to it by virtue of a routing table entry in the VM network, i.e. just as the BT Infinity service works.



[Q2] There is lots of documented examples of poor performance on the 350 Mb/s service with a static IP block (this is what I, as of last week, am on). There is also lots of the the "fix" coming in August or early September. Is the fix expected to be:

(a) Replacement of GRE tunnels with routed subnets that work as above.
(b) A firmware fix that keeps GRE tunnels, but improves packet handling so to alleviate the problems.
(c) Something else.



[Q3] What relation is the Puma 6 fix to the 350 Mb/s service with static IPs? My sense is 'none', but I can't find that stated explicitly and some people seem to be be conflating the issues.



Thanks in advance to anyone that can help!

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

The 50mb service using the sh1 did have a routed subnet. It wasn't a GRE tunnel but I believe it was L2TP, so a different protocol.

I'm told the fix is due in August. But as with anything this can change. What the fix may or may not involve, I don't particularly want to talk about as I'm not sure what I can and can't say.

Correct, Puma6 and static IP issues are completely unrelated. I don't think the puma6 issue is a massive deal, I've certainly not had any customers mention it to me

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

The older (no longer on sale) 50 Mb/s routed subnet option was delivered on a SuperHub1 with business firmware. As vm_tech says the tunnel was indeed an L2TP tunnel not GRE. The SH1 was assigned a further IP address via DHCP but from a 'static pool' (!) that acted as the L2TP tunnel endpoint. The same thing happens with the Hitron based service, except the tunnel is a GRE tunnel.

Several people have indeed reported an issue with the static IP address service, which seems to affect some, but not all customers.

I had reason to talk to tech support last week due to a performance issue, but that was related to an SNR area fault not fragmentation. I did enquire about the 'fix' and was told there is a target date of 19th August to roll out that fix. Of course that could change.

What I was told by a product manager was that the fix was mainly with core infrastructure, though I do know people have mentioned a firmware update for the Hitron as well.

The Hitron does use a PUMA 6 chipset. The latency / jitter issues seem to not affect it in the same way as the Sh3. There was a firmware update, but also the GRE tunnel appears to mask some of the effects of this as well, so whether the firmware addressed the issue or the GRE tunnel masks it I am not sure. However I can confirm I now have the full 24 downstreams and have a clean ThinkBroadband graph.

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

Thanks for all your input guys -- really helps.

The issue for me is packet fragmentation. I realise a full 1500 byte MTU (as is possible on Infinity with baby jumbos) might be a forlorn hope, but getting to 1492 to have some parity with most PPPoE implementations would be good.

vm_tech -- whilst I know what you can say is limited, can you pass any comment on if the fix will see an increase in MTU?

There is a chap in this thread that said Virgin has asked if they could push new firmware to him, with a target date of the 2nd of August (today) to help with the fragmentation issue.

I am hopeful that changes to edge devices means we are more likely to see an MTU increase then if the fix was only in the core network.

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

It's september now and Voom 350 is still rubbish. Just tested two of our connections and they are both running at less than 10 Mbps up and down. :rolleyes:

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

I had it installed with dynamic first and had support switch it to the static IP only to switch it back to dynamic because the performance was that much different.

from 350 to a variable 70 then back to 350.

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

Dynamic isn't an option for me unfortunately, the single static IP doesn't seem to be as bad, but the performance of the 5 IP's is terrible.

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

Experienced exactly the same thing recently after signing up to Voom 3 with 5 statics. Inconsistent speeds, packet fragmentation (even when pushing the MTU right down to under 1300), latency all over the place etc.

Phoned support, like everybody else here, who immediately acknowledged it and stated testing was still underway on "the fix" which is awaiting sign off to move all customers over.

I'm now on Dynamic with a view to move back to 5 Statics when they implement the fix .. but that could be "anytime between now and Xmas" from the support tech assigned to my ticket :(

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

I am working directly with a senior tech at VM on testing at the moment.
There is an outage planned later this month which you might have got an email about which is paving the way for the fix, but isn't the fix in itself.

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

No, not received any kind of email so far over any outages.

Do they have to be signed up to or are you automatically enrolled to receive them?

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

It's possible they are scheduling the work depending on which area within VM your GRE tunnels terminates.

I have a note to say I will have service interruption between midnight & 6amon 13th September. This was in an email received on Thursday.

I checked with my VM contact and it is related to the performance issue and paves the way for the fix.

I automatically receive these notices when a change could affect my service.

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

Mr Carmock, would you be open to discussing this with me further, please?

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

Thanks Carmock :) Have asked the person who is my single contact on the contract to enquire about automataed emails which could affect my service as well.

Good to know that you're also working with them on it! Fingers crossed it's before Xmas

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

Sure - no problem - will drop you a PM here.

Re: Static IPs, Routed Subnets, GRE tunnels, poor performance and "The Fix"
 

That's probably the GRE, I have an L2TP tunnel via the SH3 and notice that IP has usually has less latency on it than my native VM IP, presumably something to do with the way the packet accelerator in the cable modem side handles things, maybe Gre is only a single flow as far as it's concerned.