*** Official Ubiquiti Discussion Thread ***

Your traffic path is likely to London and then up to Manchester for some reason, but the peering looks good.
Thanks for the response. I'm not bothered as i don't play online games, not that my ping is bad for that. Just wandered why most people seem to post sub 10ms for FTTP and mine is almost double theirs.
 
If you only need a small quantity then the shipping can be a bit of a killer with FS. Most generic 10Gtek, Addons etc. branded stuff is just as good. UIs own branded stuff is reasonably priced as well so there's not a huge incentive to buy third-party.
 
Last edited:
Well my set up, so far, has been far from smooth. Some issues caused by Ubiquiti, some caused by SKY (die *******) and something I did 6 years ago that came and bit me on the backside today.

When setting up the Cloud Gateway Ultra, at first the display kept saying connect the internet cable into the WAN socket but I had done. Took me a few mins to think that maybe my VM router, in passthrough mode (or whatever it's called), may be thinking my TP-Link Router was still in place(?). I rebooted the router then that fixed that issue whether it was the issue or not. During this process I could not set it up via a browser so had to use the app.

The 8 port PoE Lite switch did not want to adopt for some reason but after several attempts but the Flex mini switch just worked as did connecting the U6 Pro.

I want to punch the Sky developer(s) who coded the WiFi password entry screen for Sky Stream. Not only is there no quick way to change WiFi on the device, the ******(s) decided to have a up and down scrolling choice going through CAPS lowercase numbers & symbols. I decided to be good and have decent, strong, passwords of 16 random characters. That was a nightmare to type into the upstairs Puck especially as I missed a bloody character out from early on in the password. Guess what? You can't go back through the characters to add one, no you have to delete the damn lot to the point where you missed the character out originally.

6 years ago I bought a Synology 4 bay NAS and it's been running nicely on a Static IP ever since. I boot it up, after having turned it off to plug everything into a new Surge Protector, but no matter what I did for some reason Unifi would not show me an IP address just an IPV6 address. It's worked fine on my VM router and for the last 3 years on my TP-Link router. I took a while to work out what was wrong, sorry neighbours for the bad language. I don't know why I did it this way, maybe it was something I couldn't do in my VM router when I bought the NAS, I can't remember, but I thought to myself where did I set the Static IP and of course I'd set it in the NAS software. Fortunately I have watched a **** tonne of videos on YouTube about Unifi so I created a VLAN in the correct IP range and allocated the port to that VLAN and then I was back in the NAS. I've now changed the NAS to Dynamic and have set a Static IP in Unifi for it.

In Windows I then had to recreated all 10 of my network locations as for some reason I cannot see a way to edit them.

Still a lot to do but at least it's up and running now. I am in the process of printing this....


as I like the look of that and it's keep it all, relatively, tidy.
 
I get 10ms to CF and MS on Yayzi/CityFibre, but Google is 17ms, the closer to London you are, and the more favourable your peering, generally the lower that gets. Slightly off-topic, but how do you find Airband and are you on actual fibre or the WISP (wireless) service they originally started? I've got them surveying a property in rural Somerset next week, with an installation after the 27th if all goes to plan.
 
Last edited:
I get 10ms to CF and MS on Yayzi/CityFibre, but Google is 17ms, the closer to London you are, and the more favourable your peering, generally the lower that gets. Slightly off-topic, but how do you find Airband and are you on actual fibre or the WISP (wireless) service they originally started? I've got them surveying a property in rural Somerset next week, with an installation after the 27th if all goes to plan.
Actual fibre, using overhead cables. I've only been with them for a couple of months. Haven't had anything to complain about, except the Nokia routers they provide are utter crap, very locked down firmware. One missed installation visit; which was poorly communicated. But once the engineer did arrive a day or 2 later he was very accommodating as to where I wanted the ONT putting even though he had to route from the back of the house to the front, and he did a tidy job.
 
Last edited:
Actually some praise for UI, on a UDM Pro with 3GB WAN I finally got round to setting up NordVPN, they have made it so much easier now, load the OpenVPN file and put credentials in, add some policy routing job done, it just works and thumbs up to Nord too, getting 223Mbps up and 215Mbps down through TCP VPN, did try UDP VPN too and it was the same so will stick with TCP :)
 
I'm debating the replacement of a still working but aging SonicWall TZ for my hone network.

I currently have 2 x AC-LR and 1 x U6-Lite APs with the controller running on a small Ubuntu VM. I do sometimes use the SSL-VPN functionality of the SonicWall to tunnel all traffic when on holiday (for instance watching the BBC Olympic coverage from France this summer).

If I stick with the Unifi stack, it seems my choices are:

1) UXG-Lite - approx £130. Only single WAN but I'm unlikely to get a second connection. Currently on 80/20 FTTC which is the best available in our village until FTTP arrives at some point. Even what that lands I can't see a need for the top-tier packages, so 1Gbps WAN performance limit is unlikely to be an issue. I keep the controller VM running. Single LAN also not a problem as I have a switch next to my current SonicWall and thus only use two ports on that.

2) UXG-Max - approx £200. More performance / physical port capacity than the UXG-Lite.

3) UCG-Ultra - approx £120. Dual WAN option, 4 x LAN. Built-in Unifi controller. 2.5G WAN port seems pointless given the LAN ports are all 1G but, as above, not going to be an issue for me.

At first glance the UXG-Lite seems redundant now with the UCG-Ultra which has more features and physical capacity at the same price. Do you have to use the controller built-in to the UCG? Though it seems to daft to have a VM to occasionally poke for an upgrade when the UCG can do it all. As I don't need the performance & 2.5G ports on the UXG-Max, it seems the UCG-Ultra is the best option.

Have I missed anything obvious?
 
When setting up the Cloud Gateway Ultra, at first the display kept saying connect the internet cable into the WAN socket but I had done. Took me a few mins to think that maybe my VM router, in passthrough mode (or whatever it's called), may be thinking my TP-Link Router was still in place(?). I rebooted the router then that fixed that issue whether it was the issue or not. During this process I could not set it up via a browser so had to use the app.

just to add to this, my UCG would give me this message on screen. having used a UX before i know the setup works so it was something up with the UCG itself.
i noticed it would come up everytime i reboot the router even though it was working the message would display for a few minutes then show the normal display. so nothing to worry about but it is very annoying.
that being said, i had to reboot the UCG a few days ago and the message did not appear so im not sure if they fixed it with the latest update.
 
just to add to this, my UCG would give me this message on screen. having used a UX before i know the setup works so it was something up with the UCG itself.
i noticed it would come up everytime i reboot the router even though it was working the message would display for a few minutes then show the normal display. so nothing to worry about but it is very annoying.
that being said, i had to reboot the UCG a few days ago and the message did not appear so im not sure if they fixed it with the latest update.

Yesterday I tidied up my new network gear, turning off the CGU, and when I rebooted everything it all just worked.
 
Actually some praise for UI, on a UDM Pro with 3GB WAN I finally got round to setting up NordVPN, they have made it so much easier now, load the OpenVPN file and put credentials in, add some policy routing job done, it just works and thumbs up to Nord too, getting 223Mbps up and 215Mbps down through TCP VPN, did try UDP VPN too and it was the same so will stick with TCP :)

That's good news. I'm, currently, with PIA and set up OpenVPN through them and was trying to find out which other VPN suppliers did this in a way I could use with my CGU. I've had no issues with PIA but I want to change when my subs run out.

I do love the fact I can set routing rules for just my TV so I can access Netflix in other countries ant then pause that rule when I want to go back to non VPNing (that must be a term).
 
Nord supports both TCP and UDP, I setup both and did a speedtest across each, there was no difference in performance both were over 200Mbps in both directions, what advantage would UDP provide?
Speedtests are irrelevant as they're likely UDP. The issue is TCP traffic inside a TCP tunnel. You can get TCP Meltdown.

Use UDP.

TCP stands for Transmission Control Protocol. Basically a means of sending traffic over the Internet with some built-in measures to ensure that traffic can get to its destination. If anything goes wrong during transmission, the protocol has some means to try to find a solution (send the packet of information again or try an alternative route or such). TCP Meltdown occurs when you stack one transmission protocol on top of another, like what happens when an OpenVPN TCP tunnel is transporting TCP traffic inside it. The underlying layer may detect a problem and attempt to compensate, and the layer above it then overcompensates because of that, and this overcompensation causes delays and problems with the transfer of data. That's the layman's version of it that is easy to explain and understand. We therefore instead recommend that you use UDP, which has no transmission control, and on top of that send your TCP traffic as usual, so that there's only one layer of transmission control, and the problem can be avoided.

Some people mistakenly believe that TCP is the best protocol to ensure the best reliability and performance for sending traffic over the Internet. This is the exception.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom