New fibre Sky Hub

sky.com/fibre

So Sky have a new VDSL2 router ... no need for engineer installation of Openreach modem in the home.

I've now ordered Sky fibre unlimited ... pitty this is only 38Mbps but I couldn't bring myself to pay £30 per month for the 76Mbps service. Shame there is no discount on this for ex-O2 customers so this ends my free broadband.

Won't be active in time for PS4 but hopefully the week after

In reply to a post by 5km:

So Sky have a new VDSL2 router ... no need for engineer installation of Openreach modem in the home.

I like it. I wonder if they include a faceplate or filters.

Apparently there should be no need to change the existing ADSL filters. But new filters are provided ... no faceplate. I could easily put in a faceplate if I wanted/needed.

In reply to a post by 5km:

Apparently there should be no need to change the existing ADSL filters. But new filters are provided ... no faceplate. I could easily put in a faceplate if I wanted/needed.

Yeah, I can't imagine Sky would want the hassle of explaining IDC connections and Krone tools to people.

No doubt, like the HH5, it will come with a couple of micro-filters all ready for self-install.

If the leaked spec is correct this is the same as the current hub just with a built in VDSL modem.

It would be nice of sky to add gigabit LAN or better WiFi.

I'm moving to BT and looking forward to trying the HH5.

Would be nice but I already have a dualband router that I use for 5GHz WiFi and Gbit LAN so it doesn't matter.

In reply to a post by 5km:

Would be nice but I already have a dualband router that I use for 5GHz WiFi and Gbit LAN so it doesn't matter.

I suppose you'll have to hope that the new Sky Hub has a modem only mode which simulates the behaviour of the white Openreach modem.

No. Everything will just plug in as before.

Sky Hub > Sam Knows white box > Dualband router > anything that needs gbit Ethernet.

God that is a mess! So pleased I'm not having to add an Openreach modem to that daisy chain as well!

Agreed, that's a mess! The cleanest method would be to let the router handle the WAN IP address, but quite possibly this will not be possible with the new Sky Hub. That said, it wasn't particularly easy before, what with Sky's authenticated DHCP mechanism for fibre.

Further to this, the current method to extract the Sky user/pass is to plug the Hub into a PC and use Wireshark to sniff the DHCP packets to obtain it.

Since the new Hub has a VDSL2 modem integrated, it's quite possible that this method is now impossible.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Since the new Hub has a VDSL2 modem integrated, it's quite possible that this method is now impossible.

Good time to try the O2 PPP login - assuming you can get a separate VDSL modem.

Both BT and Sky need to implement Modem Mode; shades of Virgin Media DejaVu here :-/

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Since the new Hub has a VDSL2 modem integrated, it's quite possible that this method is now impossible.

Good time to try the O2 PPP login - assuming you can get a separate VDSL modem.

Both BT and Sky need to implement Modem Mode; shades of Virgin Media DejaVu here :-/

Agreed. Even though SuperHub 2 is vastly superior to the infamous SuperHub 1 and even to BT's Home Hubs 4 and 5, Virgin have learned that modem-only mode is a must. No ISP is going to provide the full router experience in their combined modem routers. A full router with services such as static ips and a VPN end point would create too many things to go wrong. ISPs just provide basic gigabit routers with WiFi as good as they can.

In this situation it is absolutely essential to give a modem-only option, so users requiring the service of a proper router can easily use one.

Edited by deleted (Sun 24-Nov-13 16:51:15)

What does modem only-mode allow you to do that can't be done any other way???

In reply to a post by 5km:

What does modem only-mode allow you to do that can't be done any other way???

You can get a router of your choice instead of relying on the router part of the hub.

Standalone routers offer many more utilities. Compare this for instance Asus RTN66U with the Shub 2 or the Home Hub 5.

I'll ask the question again in a different way...

What does modem-only mode allow you to do that can not be done with port forwarding or if you're lazy DMZ to the 2nd router's IP?

In reply to a post by 5km:

What does modem-only mode allow you to do that can not be done with port forwarding or if you're lazy DMZ to the 2nd router's IP?

a) Avoid double NAT
a i) Host VPN servers. Most break if you go through double NAT (even DMZ mode).
a ii) Some corporate outbound VPNs break if you go through double NAT.
b) Run IPv6 tunnels

Just the first few I can think of.

Yes I agree it's best to avoid double NAT ... however:-
I connect to my work VPN through a double NAT, it works fine.
No one has any need for IPv6 yet as everything is IPv4 compatible still.

I am tempted to replace my existing dual band router for an Acer RT-AC56U though...

I'd rather replace with a Mikrotik Cloud Core router and a Gbit WEES but I'm a residential user and don't need / can't afford that set-up.

In most cases having two routers and double-nat probably works ok.

However from a "network perfectionists" point of view, ideally there would be one router on the LAN, and it would host the WAN IP address whilst feeding out LAN IP addresses via DHCP, with the addition of switches if required.

I douby Sky will care but about all that, and the new Hub will probably not have a modem only option. Happy to be wrong though!

Might be slightly academic though, as I'm not sure the Asus routers support authenticated DHCP over WAN anyway.

You may need to change the firmware http://www.avforums.com/threads/sky-fibre-3rd-party-...

Got mine installed few days ago still the same OR modem and router must of been a bit late

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In most cases having two routers and double-nat probably works ok.

However from a "network perfectionists" point of view, ideally there would be one router on the LAN, and it would host the WAN IP address whilst feeding out LAN IP addresses via DHCP, with the addition of switches if required.

I douby Sky will care but about all that, and the new Hub will probably not have a modem only option. Happy to be wrong though!

Might be slightly academic though, as I'm not sure the Asus routers support authenticated DHCP over WAN anyway.

Let the router do the routing and have separate server(s) doing the DHCP, Radius and VPN aurthentication. It's a lot more flexible and secure if done properly.

BTW there's third party firmware avaliable for Asus routers that works with Sky's DHCP Option 61aauthentication.

In reply to a post by simon194:

Let the router do the routing and have separate server(s) doing the DHCP, Radius and VPN aurthentication. It's a lot more flexible and secure if done properly.

Yes and as someone who ran a Linux firewall/server for 8 years, its more noisy and takes more power

BTW there's third party firmware avaliable for Asus routers that works with Sky's DHCP Option 61aauthentication.

Merlin's firmware is great - but you need to extract the username/password pair from the Sky router. If you have the new Sky Fibre router that plugs directly into the telephone point you won't have the ability to sniff the login traffic. (Similar problem to the ADSL router).

Can't you use the O2 install credentials?

I doubt it as I don't have an O2 connection any more.

The new black Sky Hub has arrived today and I have a go live date of 6th December, this Friday.

I have already plugged in the new black Sky hub and it is connected using ADSL2+ ... so all ready for it to be plugged in at the fibre cabinet and it should just switch to VDSL.

Post deleted by blinkbonny

Yay! I'm connected.

Broadband Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 39998 kbps 9995 kbps
Line Attenuation 8.5 dB 0.0 dB
Noise Margin 26.3 dB 16.16 dB

Anyone have any idea if it is possible to get more details out of the Sky VDSL modem, I.E. possible maximum connection speed?

And in the master test socket:-

Broadband Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 39998 kbps 9995 kbps
Line Attenuation 7.8 dB 0.0 dB
Noise Margin 26.4 dB 19.19 dB

I just got sky fibre installed 4 days ago and I sync at the same rates (cab is 12 houses away!) but I can not peak the download higher than 22Mbit... Upload seems to top out at 8Mbit.


Broadband Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 39998 kbps 9995 kbps
Line Attenuation 19.9 dB 0.0 dB
Noise Margin 19.6 dB 11.11 dB

Stats from bt checker.
Featured Products

Downstream Line Rate(Mbps)

Upstream Line Rate(Mbps)

Downstream Range(Mbps)

Availability Date

High Low High Low
FTTC Range A (Clean) 80 69.8 20 20 -- Available
FTTC Range B (Impacted) 79.9 53.8 20 19 -- Available

My 4G connection is currently faster :-/

Edited by bookey (Sat 14-Dec-13 18:05:20)

Test again with an Ethernet cable.

The built in wireless on the Sky Hub isn't that good.

TBB's speed test doesn't give a good upload test result I find the Maidstone speedtest.net server to give the best result ... one of a few that actually have the capacity!

We have 10Gbps of capacity and have plenty of people testing at 18 to 19 Mbps upload, and those with leased lines and FTTH/B going a lot higher

In reply to a post by bookey:

I just got sky fibre installed 4 days ago and I sync at the same rates (cab is 12 houses away!) but I can not peak the download higher than 22Mbit... Upload seems to top out at 8Mbit.

Your line data shows that wholesale/openreach believe you should get close to 80megabit download and 20megabit upload sync at your location. Since you've purchased Sky Fibre, and not Sky Fibre Pro, you are limited to 40megabit / 10megabit speeds.

However you should get those easily, your router claims the fibre is synced at those speeds:

Broadband Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 39998 kbps 9995 kbps
Line Attenuation 19.9 dB 0.0 dB
Noise Margin 19.6 dB 11.11 dB

What speed testing sites are you using, cable or WiFi to the sky Hub, and many security products can slow down the connection. 8megabit on a speed test site might be all you can get with a 9.9megabit sync due to overheads. You should get closer to 36 or 37 on the download however. (And you could go faster for an extra £10/month).

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

We have 10Gbps of capacity and have plenty of people testing at 18 to 19 Mbps upload, and those with leased lines and FTTH/B going a lot higher

Confirmed - I saw 90meg download and 90meg upload on our leased line at work from TBB tester. (I'll try again on monday and get a screenshot).

Sorry. I didn't mean you don't have the capacity. It's just the upload test comes back low as it doesn't seem to start when it should so average is low.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...

Something wrong with my PC?

I have notice that speedtest.net finally removed the hosts that were seriously under performing, i.e. Canterbury.

Hmm it seems to be an issue with doing the test in Google Chrome.

Test in IE is better:- http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...

The joy of different flash implementations. We could ignore the first few seconds and make test longer, but that would hide other bits of information

In reply to a post by 5km:

Hmm it seems to be an issue with doing the test in Google Chrome.

Chrome runs its own version of Flash, IE and Firefox use the system flash player.

We really need a decent HTML5 speed tester - http://speedof.me/ - is interesting.

How are people finding the wireless performance of this beast?

Getting a number of complaints from people in the local area here about it being, well, garbage.

Wet string is better...

I've not found it too bad but then again I can't put it to the test with only one user in a small flat...

WiFi seems the same as the original Sky Hub. That said it still vastly outperforms a netgear WNR3700 in terms of range (I had this swapped numerous times as I couldn't believe a Sky hub would have more range). I'm testing at 2.4Ghz in both cases, the WNR3700 5Ghz is abysmal.

Range is about the same as any other router, stability fine, WiFi gives around 60Mbps in same room and 10 Mbps with 4 walls inbetween. Overall acceptable but not amazing. I think Sky kept with this device as it's so stable, it can be kept on months on end without issues, changing to a better router in terms of performance will happen just in time. Sky never rush out new products they seem to like to ensure their routers are very stable at launch day.

Hi
Could some tell me why when i connect the new, why does it take around 2 hours to authenticate.
thanks

so you leave it on and do not touch it...


It may be that there is a time out some where before the line allows a new different router to connect. Are you saying that when you changed from one working SKY router to the new SKY router that it took 2hrs before it worked?

Yes i diconnected the old router to be replaced with the new one sky was giving for free (puts you back in a 12 month contract though ) i got a orange light showing and it wounld'nt connect so after 5 mins i disconnected it reconected the old one and rang sky they said it would take 2 hours to authenticate. Strange as when i first got sky fibre the engineer replaced face plate connected the router and it conencted straight away

I'm not sure exactly why but I do know it's always been like this on fibre.

Thought I'd borrow a VDSL router from work and see how the line stats compare.

Using a technicolor TG789vnv3:-

DSL Type: ITU-T G.993.2
Bandwidth (Up/Down) [kbps/kbps]: 9,995 / 39,998
Data Transferred (Sent/Received) [B/B]: 0 / 0
Output Power (Up/Down) [dBm]: -8.7 / 12.5
Line Attenuation (Up/Down) [dB]: 0.1 / 3.8
SN Margin (Up/Down) [dB]: 15.8 / 26.3

Surprising to see the Technicolor reports the downstream attenuation as just 3.8dB! I wonder if this is because the technicolor only supports 17Mhz VDSL profiles.

I was hoping that it would report the maximum connection speed but I couldn't find it.

In reply to a post by 5km:

Surprising to see the Technicolor reports the downstream attenuation as just 3.8dB! I wonder if this is because the technicolor only supports 17Mhz VDSL profiles.

Unlikely because Openreach are using profile 17a at the moment. It's probably just showing the attenuation of D1 instead of the average of D1-D3.

Yes I guess that would explain it.