*** Official Ubiquiti Discussion Thread ***

I'd imagine you're running into STP issues, Sky boxes are a bugger for it as they form private networks with multiple MAC addresses regardless of wired or wireless.
 
the-evaluator said:
This bit confuses me:



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.
Click to expand...

Have a read of post 25 onwards on my other thread, maybe I've interpretted the advice incorrectly? https://www.overclockers.co.uk/foru...e-ubiquiti-ecosystem-now-what.18913730/page-2
 
From memory Sky boxes form a 'standard' linux ethernet bridge for each port and have a nasty habit of advertising themselves as the STP root for the network. Am I right in saying your Q and mini boxes are on different VLANs? If I were a betting man I'd say it's the Sky box(es) at fault.
 
ChrisD. said:
From memory Sky boxes form a 'standard' linux ethernet bridge for each port and have a nasty habit of advertising themselves as the STP root for the network. Am I right in saying your Q and mini boxes are on different VLANs? If I were a betting man I'd say it's the Sky box(es) at fault.
Click to expand...

I’m gonna disconnect LAN2 from the equation and see if it helps. Then maybe revisit this at the weekend when I have more time!
 
kosymodo said:
I’m gonna disconnect LAN2 from the equation and see if it helps. Then maybe revisit this at the weekend when I have more time!
Click to expand...

Just disconnected the LAN2 connection to the Living Room switch, and instantly my WiFi came back to life...I’m struggling to understand it though to be honest :/
 
I had a similar issue and I've just looked at my setup. I have a few switches where my firewall is all with RSTP enabled, I also have an 8 port switch my Sky Q box plugs into and that has STP disabled. My mini connects to the main box using the in built Sky wireless and I've not had an issue in ages. I've also changed my 'main' switch STP priority.
 
kosymodo said:
Have a read of post 25 onwards on my other thread, maybe I've interpretted the advice incorrectly? https://www.overclockers.co.uk/foru...e-ubiquiti-ecosystem-now-what.18913730/page-2
Click to expand...

I'm still confused. This bit is fundamentally wrong:

And yes, 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
Click to expand...

If the device is physically connected to a switch port that's in VLAN2 (for example) then you'll only have IP connectivity if that device has an IP address that's valid in VLAN2. So if you manually assign a device that's connected into a VLAN2 switch port an IP address from VLAN1 then you won't have working connectivity. The only reason your Sky boxes worked at all in this setup is down to that wireless network. That should tell you that the wireless side of things is fine so if you really want to simplify things you could disconnect the ethernet cables from both Sky boxes and just use wireless.

If you had managed switches then it would be possible to present a switch port to the Sky Q box that's in VLAN1 whilst everything else on that switch is in VLAN2. But it doesn't sound like that's necessary, the VLANs are creating over complexity.
 
I created a separate VLAN for my sky boxes, the Main 2tb box and 3 Minis all in a small subnet with only a route out to the internet, a fw rule to allow access from wifi devices into this subnet to play stuff off the box, not had a problem since. It was locking up and dropping out something rotten!
 
the-evaluator said:
I'm still confused. This bit is fundamentally wrong
Click to expand...

You're quoting me out of context. He wanted to bridge two physical networks across the two LAN sockets and he is doing that. He is passing data from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.10.x.

He's not using VLANs, he's using two physical LAN sockets on the USG.
 
WJA96 said:
You're quoting me out of context. He wanted to bridge two physical networks across the two LAN sockets and he is doing that. He is passing data from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.10.x.

He's not using VLANs, he's using two physical LAN sockets on the USG.
Click to expand...

Thanks @WJA96 for clarifying...I didn't ever mention VLANs, only LANs, so not really sure how VLANs entered the conversation.

Anyways, I'm happy to report that since making the changes around 24hrs ago, everything has been steady. Means I'm still having to use a (unmanaged) switch to connect the USG to the Living Room devices, rather than employing the LAN2 socket, but hey ho!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom