*** Official Ubiquiti Discussion Thread ***

[kosymodo]

The other thing to mention is that I have clients on the supposed LAN1 network which are getting 192.168.10.x addresses via DHCP. Am I right in thinking that the way to avoid this is fixed IP address allocation? Just seems odd to me in my naivety that this is happening, but I'm on a steep learning curve it seems...

 

[b0rn2sk8]

To me it seems the sensible thing to do is to move the tado to another switch, move that switch to between the USG and plug lan 2 into it (getting rid of the second vlan)

That would solve all your problems and simplify what to me is an unnecessarily complicated home network setup.

 

[kosymodo]

To me it seems the sensible thing to do is to move the tado to another switch, move that switch to between the USG and plug lan 2 into it (getting rid of the second vlan)

That would solve all your problems and simplify what to me is an unnecessarily complicated home network setup.

It might be complicated, but I can't see it being the root of the problem in the middle of night, or can it be?

The reason for doing it this way is that it's a new build. The ONT is under the stairs. Alongside the ONT, there are wallplates with Cat6 to the Living Room and to the Loft. Therefore, to keep SWMBO happy, I want to simplify the devices under the stairs. It seemed that putting the Living Room on LAN2 and having the rest of the house on LAN1 would be the way to do it without a switch under the stairs.

 

[the-evaluator]

The USG isn't great as an IVR, it works but the performance is a bit iffy so I'd avoid multiple VLANs if I could if there's an appreciable amount of traffic between then. Sky Q boxes are quite chatty.

But no, that in itself shouldn't cause this problem. When you ran the pings you were using a client in VLAN2 I think? See if you have internet access from VLAN1 at that time.

 

[robj20]

Is the U6-LR now a better option than the nanoHD?

 

[kosymodo]

The USG isn't great as an IVR, it works but the performance is a bit iffy so I'd avoid multiple VLANs if I could if there's an appreciable amount of traffic between then. Sky Q boxes are quite chatty.

But no, that in itself shouldn't cause this problem. When you ran the pings you were using a client in VLAN2 I think? See if you have internet access from VLAN1 at that time.

Is the best way to do this ensure that I set a fixed IP address for my laptop in LAN1 (192.168.1.x)? As mentioned above, clients seem to get a random allocation of either LAN1 or LAN2 IP addresses. My intention was to only have LAN2 addresses allocated to wired devices in the Living Room, only LAN1 addresses to all other wired devices, and only LAN1 addresses to all wireless devices. (The exception being the 2 Sky devices which need to be on the same subnet to chat to each other, so I've allocated fixed IP addresses on the LAN1 subnet to both)

 

[the-evaluator]

If clients are getting random IP addresses then it's likely you've got a cable somewhere that's connecting the VLANs together which isn't ideal. Referring to your diagram, clients 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 should get an IP address in VLAN2, everything else (including all wireless clients) should get an address in VLAN1.

I don't see how the client 3, the Sky 2Tb box can have an address in VLAN1 as it's physically connected to a switch that only uplinks into LAN2 on the USG.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Do any of those devices also have WiFi connections to vlan1 ? Most of them have built in WiFi too.

 

[kosymodo]

If clients are getting random IP addresses then it's likely you've got a cable somewhere that's connecting the VLANs together which isn't ideal. Referring to your diagram, clients 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 should get an IP address in VLAN2, everything else (including all wireless clients) should get an address in VLAN1.

I don't see how the client 3, the Sky 2Tb box can have an address in VLAN1 as it's physically connected to a switch that only uplinks into LAN2 on the USG.

I don't see how the Living Room can be connected to any other room by cable, though I guess anything is possible, not knowing what's in the walls... My understanding though is that it's a simple single cable between the Living Room and the understairs cupboard.

The advice in my other thread re the Sky boxes was "you could just allocate fixed IP addresses (with reservations) to your Sky devices so they are all on the same subnet" and "you can give a device on the 192.168.10.x subnet an IP address of 192.168.1.x and it will show up on the other subnet. The router only sends traffic out to the clients. If it sees your client it will happily deliver and receive traffic from it. If not, it won’t."

Tonight I'm gonna revert to taking down LAN2, putting everything back on LAN1, and see what happens. Unless anyone comes up with any better idea before then!

 

[kosymodo]

Do any of those devices also have WiFi connections to vlan1 ? Most of them have built in WiFi too.

Whilst they have WiFi capabilities, I prefer them to be wired for reliability purposes

 

[the-evaluator]

Have you disabled the wifi on the Sky boxes? You need to go into the hidden settings page to do it.

If not, that's what's causing devices to get unexpected IP addresses as the Sky boxes are connected together wirelessly by their own wifi network. That's what's bridging the 2 VLANs together. So it isn't a cable that's connecting them together, it's the Sky boxes.

This bit confuses me:

The advice in my other thread re the Sky boxes was "you could just allocate fixed IP addresses (with reservations) to your Sky devices so they are all on the same subnet" and "you can give a device on the 192.168.10.x subnet an IP address of 192.168.1.x and it will show up on the other subnet. The router only sends traffic out to the clients. If it sees your client it will happily deliver and receive traffic from it. If not, it won’t."

Just giving something a static IP address from the VLAN isn't sufficient, the switch port needs to be in that same VLAN. That isn't how your setup is so I assume that communication between the Sky boxes is only using their own wifi network and all this multiple VLAN stuff is doing is complicating things and causing problems.

 

[kosymodo]

Have you disabled the wifi on the Sky boxes? You need to go into the hidden settings page to do it.

If not, that's what's causing devices to get unexpected IP addresses as the Sky boxes are connected together wirelessly by their own wifi network. That's what's bridging the 2 VLANs together.

Yes, disabled on both boxes

 

[the-evaluator]

Have you verified that it's stayed disabled? I've disabled it on my setup but they both got enabled again somehow a few days later.

 

[kosymodo]

Have you verified that it's stayed disabled? I've disabled it on my setup but they both got enabled again somehow a few days later.

I will double check! Thanks for this suggestion

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Whilst they have WiFi capabilities, I prefer them to be wired for reliability purposes

Oh no I understand that, I was asking to make sure that they were not also on WiFi as the following poster said too.

 

[kosymodo]

Oh no I understand that, I was asking to make sure that they were not also on WiFi as the following poster said too.

Ahhh, fair enough!

 

[ChrisD.]

Disconnect the Sky mini box and see if the issue persists.

 

[Avathar77]

I didnt know we could use LAN1 and LAN2 in the USG simultaneously! Is there a throughput penalty if data from LAN1 goes to LAN2?

 

[kosymodo]

Have you verified that it's stayed disabled? I've disabled it on my setup but they both got enabled again somehow a few days later.

Disconnect the Sky mini box and see if the issue persists.

Just had a chance to check, and both Sky boxes had WiFi enabled again. Maybe this happened when resetting network settings at some point. Who knows!

I've now disabled both 2.4GHz and 5GHz on both boxes, and have confirmed before exiting.

The issue is that this has now killed my WiFi across the whole house, and has also disconnected my controller somehow???

 

[the-evaluator]

I didnt know we could use LAN1 and LAN2 in the USG simultaneously! Is there a throughput penalty if data from LAN1 goes to LAN2?

It's possible but not desirable. If you want to use both LAN interfaces as part of the same VLAN then performance is awful as they're bridged ports not switched. It'd be *MUCH* better to use just LAN1 and connect a switch.