Ask a question
Search in U-verse Forums

U-verse Forums

Reply
Posted May 9, 2011
9:45:20 AM
View profile
UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch
Edited by rjb_1 on May 9, 2011 at 9:54:17 AM

Hi there - I'm hoping someone can help me solve an issue with my AT&T Uverse internet setup.  

 

First a little background; Our AT&T service comes into our guest house/office to the AT&T router/gateway, and is then fed via a hard line from the RG into our house to an AT&T supplied Netgear GS108 switch which then feeds a number of STBs.  We then have an Apple Airport Express connected to this switch which feeds the house computers wirelessly.

 

When I first set this up, I set up the AEX incorrectly in a double NAT configuration - I would much prefer to have it in bridge mode to allow smoother access between all parts of my network, but when I put the AEX into bridge mode (the 'correct' setting), the computers on the AEX wireless become completely flooded by UDP traffic if any of the STBs are on and especially if they're recording.

 

Apparently the RG can't implement IGMP through the Netgear switch?  How can I get the AEX into bridge mode but get the RG to implement IGMP through the Netgear switch?

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Rich

Hi there - I'm hoping someone can help me solve an issue with my AT&T Uverse internet setup.  

 

First a little background; Our AT&T service comes into our guest house/office to the AT&T router/gateway, and is then fed via a hard line from the RG into our house to an AT&T supplied Netgear GS108 switch which then feeds a number of STBs.  We then have an Apple Airport Express connected to this switch which feeds the house computers wirelessly.

 

When I first set this up, I set up the AEX incorrectly in a double NAT configuration - I would much prefer to have it in bridge mode to allow smoother access between all parts of my network, but when I put the AEX into bridge mode (the 'correct' setting), the computers on the AEX wireless become completely flooded by UDP traffic if any of the STBs are on and especially if they're recording.

 

Apparently the RG can't implement IGMP through the Netgear switch?  How can I get the AEX into bridge mode but get the RG to implement IGMP through the Netgear switch?

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Rich

0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Solved
May 12, 2011 8:21:49 AM
0
(0)
Expert

OK, here's the product page for the NetGear GS-108T:

 

http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/smart-switches/GS108T-200.aspx

 

The software configuration manual for this switch is here:

 

http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17341/session/L2F2LzEvc2lkL2MqRHhPTXRr

 

1. Go through the process on chapter 1 page 12 of that manual to use the Smart Switch Discovery software on your PC to discover all the switches.

 

2. For each switch, use the process on chapter 2 page 34 to assign it a static IP address that is within the subnet that the RG is using, but is not within the DHCP range.  By default, the RG uses the 192.168.1.x network, with a DHCP range of 192.168.1.64 through 192.168.1.253.  I would recommend 192.168.1.11 and 192.168.12 for the two GS-108T switches.

 

3. For the switch at the RG, uplink it to the RG twice.  In other words, use two patch cables, one that goes from RG port 1 to switch port 1, and one that goes from RG port 2 to switch port 2.

 

4. Plug the one Ethernet cable that goes to the living room where the AEX is into port 8 of the switch.

 

5. In the living room where the AEX is, plug the feed from the wall (that goes back to the RG) into port 8 of the second switch.  Plug the AEX into port 7.  Plug all DVR/STB units into ports 1-6.

 

6. Use the procedure on chapter 3 page 17 to define 2 VLANs.  VLAN 1 will be the default VLAN, this is the one that will be used for IPTV.  Define the 2nd VLAN as VLAN 2, label it Internet.  You must do this on both switches.

 

7. You're now going to follow the directions on chapter 3 pages 19-21 to set each port's VLAN membership and PVID.  You have to do this in a specific order for it to work right.  In brief, each port can be set to one of 3 membership modes per VLAN:

 

i. The port is a member of the VLAN, sending untagged frames (U).

ii. The port is a member of the VLAN, sending tagged framed (T).

iii. The port is not a member of the VLAN.  (<Blank box>).

 

Further, you set each port's PVID.  The PVID tells the switch that when that port receives an untagged frame, what VLAN is it supposed to belong to.

 

On switch #1 at the RG, we have 3 ports that are plugged into something -- ports 1, 2, and 8.  You'll set them as follows:

 

Port 1 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 2 - Untagged on VLAN 2, Not a member of VLAN 1, PVID = 2.

Port 8 - Tagged on VLAN 1, Tagged on VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

 

On switch #2 in the living room, set the ports as follows:

 

Port 1 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 2 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 3 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 4 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 5 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 6 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 7 - Untagged on VLAN 2, Not a member of VLAN 1, PVID = 2.

Port 8 - Tagged on VLAN 1, Tagged on VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

 

As a shortcut to the membership, the switch shows you in a horizontal line how the ports are configured for each VLAN, using the "U", "T", and blank boxes.  They should look like this when you're done (I will use a dash "-" to represent a blank box):

 

Switch 1, VLAN 1: U - U U U U U T

Switch 1, VLAN 2: - U - - - - - T

Switch 2, VLAN 1: U U U U U U - T

Switch 2, VLAN 2: - - - - - - U T

 

OK, to switch a port's PVID, you have to do the following in this order:

 

i. Make the port a member of the VLAN that your going to assign as the PVID.

ii. Change the PVID.

iii. Remove the port as a member of any VLAN it's not assigned to.

 

So, for example, when you go to change the PVID of switch #1, port 2 from PVID=1 to PVID=2, you have to do it in this order:

 

i. Make port 2 a member of VLAN 2 by changing it's membership on VLAN 2 to U.

ii. Change the PVID of port 2 to 2.

iii. Remove port 2 from VLAN 1 by changing it's membership to a blank box.

 

 

8. Once all VLANs are configured properly, what you have essentially done is this:

 

How your network is logically connected (in other words, how you can think about it and how it equivalently operates):

 

 

2Wire Router
     +
     |               Switch 1A
     + Port 1 ----------+ Port 1
     |                  |              Switch 2A
     |                  + Port 2 -------- + Port 1
     |                                    |
     |                                    + Port 2 -------- STB #1
     |                                    |
     |                                    + Port 3 -------- STB #2
     |              Switch 1B
     + Port 2 ----------+ Port 1
                        |              Switch 2B
                        + Port 2 -------- + Port 1
                                          |
                                          + Port 2 -------- AEX

 

 

 

How your network is physically connected:

 

 

2Wire Router
     +
     |               GS108T #1
     + Port 1 ----------+ Port 1
     |                  |
     + Port 2 ----------+ Port 2
                        |              GS108T #2
                        + Port 8 ---------+ Port 8
                                          |
                                          + Port 1 -------- STB #1
                                          |
                                          + Port 2 -------- STB #2
                                          |
                                          + Port 3 -------- STB #3
                                          |
                                          + Port 7 -------- AEX

 

 

 

The link from port 8 -> port 8 is carrying tagged frames, keeping the VLAN 1 traffic and the VLAN 2 traffic separated.  The RG implements IGMP snooping.  To it, all STBs are on it's port 1 and all computers are on it's port 2.  Thus, IGMP snooping keeps the multicast traffic only on it's port 1, which only goes to all VLAN 1 port members on the switches.  VLAN port 2 members (which includes the AEX) never see the multicast traffic.

 

 

I know this looks overwhelming, but it's really not that bad.  Once you see the web pages and see how the switches get configured, it's actually pretty straightforward.

 

Accepted Solution

UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

[ Edited ]
7,540 views
34 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(34)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 9, 2011 2:19:27 PM
0
(0)
Expert

There is no way to do what you describe.  The NetGear switch does not implement IGMP snooping.

 

The only way to use the AEX in bridge mode is to run another Ethernet cable from the RG directly to the AEX.  The RG implements IGMP snooping and will keep the multicast IPTV traffic off of the AEX's port.

 

There is no way to do what you describe.  The NetGear switch does not implement IGMP snooping.

 

The only way to use the AEX in bridge mode is to run another Ethernet cable from the RG directly to the AEX.  The RG implements IGMP snooping and will keep the multicast IPTV traffic off of the AEX's port.

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

2 of 35 (7,429 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2011 9:55:15 AM
0
(0)
Tutor

Thanks for the response.  Any thoughts about whether or not a smarter switch would take gear of this - maybe replace the ATT supplied switch with a Netgear GS108T-NAS?  I haven't had any experience with managed switches, but maybe I could set it to filter the UDP packets swamping the house machines.

 

Also, I was thinking of setting up the ATT GR to allocate a specific range of addresses to the house laptops, and then put the AEX in "Distribute A Range of Addresses" mode instead of Bridge mode - any thoughts as to whether or not this would take care of it?

 

Running another cat 6 is not an attractive option - about a hundred foot pull through some difficult conduit.

 

Thanks!

rich

Thanks for the response.  Any thoughts about whether or not a smarter switch would take gear of this - maybe replace the ATT supplied switch with a Netgear GS108T-NAS?  I haven't had any experience with managed switches, but maybe I could set it to filter the UDP packets swamping the house machines.

 

Also, I was thinking of setting up the ATT GR to allocate a specific range of addresses to the house laptops, and then put the AEX in "Distribute A Range of Addresses" mode instead of Bridge mode - any thoughts as to whether or not this would take care of it?

 

Running another cat 6 is not an attractive option - about a hundred foot pull through some difficult conduit.

 

Thanks!

rich

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

3 of 35 (7,418 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Solved
May 10, 2011 11:46:14 AM
0
(0)
Expert

I doubt the "Distribute a range of addresses" mode would help anything.  The problem is not at layer 3 (the IP layer).  The problem with the broadcast traffic is at layer 2 (switching layer).

 

No consumer-affordable switch implements IGMP snooping in a manner that would work with the U-Verse traffic.  U-Verse uses IGMP v3, whereas most switches that have IGMP snooping capability work with IGMP v2.

 

Now, there is one solution you can do that will work, and that will save you from running another wire.  That's to use the NetGear GS-108T switches to implement VLANs.

 

You would need 2 NetGear GS-108T switches, one at the 2Wire RG and one at the location where the AEX is.  Then you need to configure each NetGear switch in a very specific manner.

 

This is the method I currently use in my house to route both IPTV and computer traffic to different locations within the house and keep the traffic separated.  I'm using a network of 4 NetGear GS-108T switches and it works very well.

 

Investigate the pricing for the GS-108T (they're around $100 each), and if you're willing to spend that money instead of running another wire, I'll post how to configure them.

 

I doubt the "Distribute a range of addresses" mode would help anything.  The problem is not at layer 3 (the IP layer).  The problem with the broadcast traffic is at layer 2 (switching layer).

 

No consumer-affordable switch implements IGMP snooping in a manner that would work with the U-Verse traffic.  U-Verse uses IGMP v3, whereas most switches that have IGMP snooping capability work with IGMP v2.

 

Now, there is one solution you can do that will work, and that will save you from running another wire.  That's to use the NetGear GS-108T switches to implement VLANs.

 

You would need 2 NetGear GS-108T switches, one at the 2Wire RG and one at the location where the AEX is.  Then you need to configure each NetGear switch in a very specific manner.

 

This is the method I currently use in my house to route both IPTV and computer traffic to different locations within the house and keep the traffic separated.  I'm using a network of 4 NetGear GS-108T switches and it works very well.

 

Investigate the pricing for the GS-108T (they're around $100 each), and if you're willing to spend that money instead of running another wire, I'll post how to configure them.

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

4 of 35 (7,408 Views)
Solution
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2011 12:02:34 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

Just wondering -

 

Can the airport express reach from the guest house to the house? - plug it in to the RG & go wireless from there.

 

Or, can the RG wireless reach to the house?  & use the airport express as a repeater?

Just wondering -

 

Can the airport express reach from the guest house to the house? - plug it in to the RG & go wireless from there.

 

Or, can the RG wireless reach to the house?  & use the airport express as a repeater?

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

5 of 35 (7,405 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2011 12:06:24 PM
0
(0)
Tutor
Edited by rjb_1 on May 10, 2011 at 12:09:15 PM

 


SomeJoe7777 wrote:

I doubt the "Distribute a range of addresses" mode would help anything.  The problem is not at layer 3 (the IP layer).  The problem with the broadcast traffic is at layer 2 (switching layer).

 

No consumer-affordable switch implements IGMP snooping in a manner that would work with the U-Verse traffic.  U-Verse uses IGMP v3, whereas most switches that have IGMP snooping capability work with IGMP v2.

 

Now, there is one solution ...

 


 

OK, thanks!  That's a very helpful answer - I'll think about it and weigh it against the pain of another cable pull.

 

The AEX can be at the location of the first switch, so would I *still* need two switches?

 

thanks again,

rich

 


SomeJoe7777 wrote:

I doubt the "Distribute a range of addresses" mode would help anything.  The problem is not at layer 3 (the IP layer).  The problem with the broadcast traffic is at layer 2 (switching layer).

 

No consumer-affordable switch implements IGMP snooping in a manner that would work with the U-Verse traffic.  U-Verse uses IGMP v3, whereas most switches that have IGMP snooping capability work with IGMP v2.

 

Now, there is one solution ...

 


 

OK, thanks!  That's a very helpful answer - I'll think about it and weigh it against the pain of another cable pull.

 

The AEX can be at the location of the first switch, so would I *still* need two switches?

 

thanks again,

rich

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

[ Edited ]
6 of 35 (7,403 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2011 12:06:58 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

 


aviewer wrote:

...Can the airport express reach from the guest house to the house? - plug it in to the RG & go wireless from there.

 

Or, can the RG wireless reach to the house?  & use the airport express as a repeater?


 

No, too far.

 

thanks,

rich

 


aviewer wrote:

...Can the airport express reach from the guest house to the house? - plug it in to the RG & go wireless from there.

 

Or, can the RG wireless reach to the house?  & use the airport express as a repeater?


 

No, too far.

 

thanks,

rich

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

7 of 35 (7,400 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2011 12:54:10 PM
0
(0)
Expert

rjb_1 wrote:

 

The AEX can be at the location of the first switch, so would I *still* need two switches?


 

?????

 

In your very first post, you said:

 


rjb_1 wrote:

 

First a little background; Our AT&T service comes into our guest house/office to the AT&T router/gateway, and is then fed via a hard line from the RG into our house to an AT&T supplied Netgear GS108 switch which then feeds a number of STBs.  We then have an Apple Airport Express connected to this switch which feeds the house computers wirelessly.


 

Are you saying you can move the AEX back to the RG's location?

 


rjb_1 wrote:

 

The AEX can be at the location of the first switch, so would I *still* need two switches?


 

?????

 

In your very first post, you said:

 


rjb_1 wrote:

 

First a little background; Our AT&T service comes into our guest house/office to the AT&T router/gateway, and is then fed via a hard line from the RG into our house to an AT&T supplied Netgear GS108 switch which then feeds a number of STBs.  We then have an Apple Airport Express connected to this switch which feeds the house computers wirelessly.


 

Are you saying you can move the AEX back to the RG's location?

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

8 of 35 (7,391 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2011 1:10:45 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

 


SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Are you saying you can move the AEX back to the RG's location?

 


 

No, sorry for the confusion:  you said "one at the 2Wire RG and one at the location where the AEX is..." so I guess I misunderstood - if it would require a second switch *at* the RG then no, wouldn't work.  My current switch is in the house distributing to STBs and AEX.

 

sorry, and thanks again.

 

rich

 


SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Are you saying you can move the AEX back to the RG's location?

 


 

No, sorry for the confusion:  you said "one at the 2Wire RG and one at the location where the AEX is..." so I guess I misunderstood - if it would require a second switch *at* the RG then no, wouldn't work.  My current switch is in the house distributing to STBs and AEX.

 

sorry, and thanks again.

 

rich

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

9 of 35 (7,387 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2011 2:53:46 PM
0
(0)
Expert

OK, I understand.

 

Your existing switch (GS-108) must be replaced with the managed type (GS-108T).  In addition to that you need another GS-108T at the RG.  So yes, you need 2 of the GS-108T switches to make this work, and then you will have a spare, unmanaged GS-108 that won't be used.

 

OK, I understand.

 

Your existing switch (GS-108) must be replaced with the managed type (GS-108T).  In addition to that you need another GS-108T at the RG.  So yes, you need 2 of the GS-108T switches to make this work, and then you will have a spare, unmanaged GS-108 that won't be used.

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

10 of 35 (7,375 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 11, 2011 11:10:58 AM
0
(0)
Tutor

 


SomeJoe7777 wrote:

...Now, there is one solution you can do that will work, and that will save you from running another wire.  That's to use the NetGear GS-108T switches to implement VLANs.

 

,,, if you're willing to spend that money instead of running another wire, I'll post how to configure them.

 


 

You know, if it's not too much trouble, I'd be very interested to see details of this - it's not cost-prohibitive, and would be better than pulling more wire for me.

 

Thank you very much!

 


SomeJoe7777 wrote:

...Now, there is one solution you can do that will work, and that will save you from running another wire.  That's to use the NetGear GS-108T switches to implement VLANs.

 

,,, if you're willing to spend that money instead of running another wire, I'll post how to configure them.

 


 

You know, if it's not too much trouble, I'd be very interested to see details of this - it's not cost-prohibitive, and would be better than pulling more wire for me.

 

Thank you very much!

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

11 of 35 (7,376 Views)
Highlighted
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Solved
May 12, 2011 8:21:49 AM
0
(0)
Expert

OK, here's the product page for the NetGear GS-108T:

 

http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/smart-switches/GS108T-200.aspx

 

The software configuration manual for this switch is here:

 

http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17341/session/L2F2LzEvc2lkL2MqRHhPTXRr

 

1. Go through the process on chapter 1 page 12 of that manual to use the Smart Switch Discovery software on your PC to discover all the switches.

 

2. For each switch, use the process on chapter 2 page 34 to assign it a static IP address that is within the subnet that the RG is using, but is not within the DHCP range.  By default, the RG uses the 192.168.1.x network, with a DHCP range of 192.168.1.64 through 192.168.1.253.  I would recommend 192.168.1.11 and 192.168.12 for the two GS-108T switches.

 

3. For the switch at the RG, uplink it to the RG twice.  In other words, use two patch cables, one that goes from RG port 1 to switch port 1, and one that goes from RG port 2 to switch port 2.

 

4. Plug the one Ethernet cable that goes to the living room where the AEX is into port 8 of the switch.

 

5. In the living room where the AEX is, plug the feed from the wall (that goes back to the RG) into port 8 of the second switch.  Plug the AEX into port 7.  Plug all DVR/STB units into ports 1-6.

 

6. Use the procedure on chapter 3 page 17 to define 2 VLANs.  VLAN 1 will be the default VLAN, this is the one that will be used for IPTV.  Define the 2nd VLAN as VLAN 2, label it Internet.  You must do this on both switches.

 

7. You're now going to follow the directions on chapter 3 pages 19-21 to set each port's VLAN membership and PVID.  You have to do this in a specific order for it to work right.  In brief, each port can be set to one of 3 membership modes per VLAN:

 

i. The port is a member of the VLAN, sending untagged frames (U).

ii. The port is a member of the VLAN, sending tagged framed (T).

iii. The port is not a member of the VLAN.  (<Blank box>).

 

Further, you set each port's PVID.  The PVID tells the switch that when that port receives an untagged frame, what VLAN is it supposed to belong to.

 

On switch #1 at the RG, we have 3 ports that are plugged into something -- ports 1, 2, and 8.  You'll set them as follows:

 

Port 1 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 2 - Untagged on VLAN 2, Not a member of VLAN 1, PVID = 2.

Port 8 - Tagged on VLAN 1, Tagged on VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

 

On switch #2 in the living room, set the ports as follows:

 

Port 1 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 2 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 3 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 4 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 5 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 6 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 7 - Untagged on VLAN 2, Not a member of VLAN 1, PVID = 2.

Port 8 - Tagged on VLAN 1, Tagged on VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

 

As a shortcut to the membership, the switch shows you in a horizontal line how the ports are configured for each VLAN, using the "U", "T", and blank boxes.  They should look like this when you're done (I will use a dash "-" to represent a blank box):

 

Switch 1, VLAN 1: U - U U U U U T

Switch 1, VLAN 2: - U - - - - - T

Switch 2, VLAN 1: U U U U U U - T

Switch 2, VLAN 2: - - - - - - U T

 

OK, to switch a port's PVID, you have to do the following in this order:

 

i. Make the port a member of the VLAN that your going to assign as the PVID.

ii. Change the PVID.

iii. Remove the port as a member of any VLAN it's not assigned to.

 

So, for example, when you go to change the PVID of switch #1, port 2 from PVID=1 to PVID=2, you have to do it in this order:

 

i. Make port 2 a member of VLAN 2 by changing it's membership on VLAN 2 to U.

ii. Change the PVID of port 2 to 2.

iii. Remove port 2 from VLAN 1 by changing it's membership to a blank box.

 

 

8. Once all VLANs are configured properly, what you have essentially done is this:

 

How your network is logically connected (in other words, how you can think about it and how it equivalently operates):

 

 

2Wire Router
     +
     |               Switch 1A
     + Port 1 ----------+ Port 1
     |                  |              Switch 2A
     |                  + Port 2 -------- + Port 1
     |                                    |
     |                                    + Port 2 -------- STB #1
     |                                    |
     |                                    + Port 3 -------- STB #2
     |              Switch 1B
     + Port 2 ----------+ Port 1
                        |              Switch 2B
                        + Port 2 -------- + Port 1
                                          |
                                          + Port 2 -------- AEX

 

 

 

How your network is physically connected:

 

 

2Wire Router
     +
     |               GS108T #1
     + Port 1 ----------+ Port 1
     |                  |
     + Port 2 ----------+ Port 2
                        |              GS108T #2
                        + Port 8 ---------+ Port 8
                                          |
                                          + Port 1 -------- STB #1
                                          |
                                          + Port 2 -------- STB #2
                                          |
                                          + Port 3 -------- STB #3
                                          |
                                          + Port 7 -------- AEX

 

 

 

The link from port 8 -> port 8 is carrying tagged frames, keeping the VLAN 1 traffic and the VLAN 2 traffic separated.  The RG implements IGMP snooping.  To it, all STBs are on it's port 1 and all computers are on it's port 2.  Thus, IGMP snooping keeps the multicast traffic only on it's port 1, which only goes to all VLAN 1 port members on the switches.  VLAN port 2 members (which includes the AEX) never see the multicast traffic.

 

 

I know this looks overwhelming, but it's really not that bad.  Once you see the web pages and see how the switches get configured, it's actually pretty straightforward.

 

OK, here's the product page for the NetGear GS-108T:

 

http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/smart-switches/GS108T-200.aspx

 

The software configuration manual for this switch is here:

 

http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17341/session/L2F2LzEvc2lkL2MqRHhPTXRr

 

1. Go through the process on chapter 1 page 12 of that manual to use the Smart Switch Discovery software on your PC to discover all the switches.

 

2. For each switch, use the process on chapter 2 page 34 to assign it a static IP address that is within the subnet that the RG is using, but is not within the DHCP range.  By default, the RG uses the 192.168.1.x network, with a DHCP range of 192.168.1.64 through 192.168.1.253.  I would recommend 192.168.1.11 and 192.168.12 for the two GS-108T switches.

 

3. For the switch at the RG, uplink it to the RG twice.  In other words, use two patch cables, one that goes from RG port 1 to switch port 1, and one that goes from RG port 2 to switch port 2.

 

4. Plug the one Ethernet cable that goes to the living room where the AEX is into port 8 of the switch.

 

5. In the living room where the AEX is, plug the feed from the wall (that goes back to the RG) into port 8 of the second switch.  Plug the AEX into port 7.  Plug all DVR/STB units into ports 1-6.

 

6. Use the procedure on chapter 3 page 17 to define 2 VLANs.  VLAN 1 will be the default VLAN, this is the one that will be used for IPTV.  Define the 2nd VLAN as VLAN 2, label it Internet.  You must do this on both switches.

 

7. You're now going to follow the directions on chapter 3 pages 19-21 to set each port's VLAN membership and PVID.  You have to do this in a specific order for it to work right.  In brief, each port can be set to one of 3 membership modes per VLAN:

 

i. The port is a member of the VLAN, sending untagged frames (U).

ii. The port is a member of the VLAN, sending tagged framed (T).

iii. The port is not a member of the VLAN.  (<Blank box>).

 

Further, you set each port's PVID.  The PVID tells the switch that when that port receives an untagged frame, what VLAN is it supposed to belong to.

 

On switch #1 at the RG, we have 3 ports that are plugged into something -- ports 1, 2, and 8.  You'll set them as follows:

 

Port 1 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 2 - Untagged on VLAN 2, Not a member of VLAN 1, PVID = 2.

Port 8 - Tagged on VLAN 1, Tagged on VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

 

On switch #2 in the living room, set the ports as follows:

 

Port 1 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 2 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 3 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 4 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 5 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 6 - Untagged on VLAN 1, Not a member of VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

Port 7 - Untagged on VLAN 2, Not a member of VLAN 1, PVID = 2.

Port 8 - Tagged on VLAN 1, Tagged on VLAN 2, PVID = 1.

 

As a shortcut to the membership, the switch shows you in a horizontal line how the ports are configured for each VLAN, using the "U", "T", and blank boxes.  They should look like this when you're done (I will use a dash "-" to represent a blank box):

 

Switch 1, VLAN 1: U - U U U U U T

Switch 1, VLAN 2: - U - - - - - T

Switch 2, VLAN 1: U U U U U U - T

Switch 2, VLAN 2: - - - - - - U T

 

OK, to switch a port's PVID, you have to do the following in this order:

 

i. Make the port a member of the VLAN that your going to assign as the PVID.

ii. Change the PVID.

iii. Remove the port as a member of any VLAN it's not assigned to.

 

So, for example, when you go to change the PVID of switch #1, port 2 from PVID=1 to PVID=2, you have to do it in this order:

 

i. Make port 2 a member of VLAN 2 by changing it's membership on VLAN 2 to U.

ii. Change the PVID of port 2 to 2.

iii. Remove port 2 from VLAN 1 by changing it's membership to a blank box.

 

 

8. Once all VLANs are configured properly, what you have essentially done is this:

 

How your network is logically connected (in other words, how you can think about it and how it equivalently operates):

 

 

2Wire Router
     +
     |               Switch 1A
     + Port 1 ----------+ Port 1
     |                  |              Switch 2A
     |                  + Port 2 -------- + Port 1
     |                                    |
     |                                    + Port 2 -------- STB #1
     |                                    |
     |                                    + Port 3 -------- STB #2
     |              Switch 1B
     + Port 2 ----------+ Port 1
                        |              Switch 2B
                        + Port 2 -------- + Port 1
                                          |
                                          + Port 2 -------- AEX

 

 

 

How your network is physically connected:

 

 

2Wire Router
     +
     |               GS108T #1
     + Port 1 ----------+ Port 1
     |                  |
     + Port 2 ----------+ Port 2
                        |              GS108T #2
                        + Port 8 ---------+ Port 8
                                          |
                                          + Port 1 -------- STB #1
                                          |
                                          + Port 2 -------- STB #2
                                          |
                                          + Port 3 -------- STB #3
                                          |
                                          + Port 7 -------- AEX

 

 

 

The link from port 8 -> port 8 is carrying tagged frames, keeping the VLAN 1 traffic and the VLAN 2 traffic separated.  The RG implements IGMP snooping.  To it, all STBs are on it's port 1 and all computers are on it's port 2.  Thus, IGMP snooping keeps the multicast traffic only on it's port 1, which only goes to all VLAN 1 port members on the switches.  VLAN port 2 members (which includes the AEX) never see the multicast traffic.

 

 

I know this looks overwhelming, but it's really not that bad.  Once you see the web pages and see how the switches get configured, it's actually pretty straightforward.

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

12 of 35 (7,365 Views)
Solution
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 12, 2011 9:10:16 AM
0
(0)
Tutor

WOW!  That's a mouthful!  OK, thanks very much - it'll take me a bit to digest this, but should be very helpful.  Hopefully somebody else will find this discussion useful too.

 

THANK YOU!

rich

 

 

WOW!  That's a mouthful!  OK, thanks very much - it'll take me a bit to digest this, but should be very helpful.  Hopefully somebody else will find this discussion useful too.

 

THANK YOU!

rich

 

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

13 of 35 (7,357 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 20, 2011 2:22:49 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

I have read the above post several times, but am still having trouble with an extremely similar issue.  I appologize in advance if I am missing something simple.

 

I am trying to extend my wireless network with a second router (E4200) and am having problems with the multicast traffic.  I have read a lot of posts on this, but still having a problem getting it to work correctly.  I bought a GS108e hoping that it would help filter the multicast requests since it supported IGMP Snooping v3, but as now read; it doesn’t really support the U-Verse implementation.

 

RG

|

GS116e (I want to do something similar here, but am trying to keep it simple for now)

|

GS108e

|

Port 1 connected to GS116e

Port 2 U-Verse DVR

Port 8 E4200

 

RG = 10.0.0.1

E4200 = 10.0.0.2

 

DHCP is disabled on the E4200, and when I connect to it, I successfully get an IP from the RG and can ping both 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2.  When I walk from one side of the house to the other, I can watch my phone switch between the two access points pretty seamlessly.  That all works great.  

 

However, ports 1, 2 and 8 are blinking like crazy and my PC connected to the E4200 wireless is showing constant data transfer of ~700KB/sec and the wireless performance is terrible.  I am watching TV and I guess that is the multicast traffic I am seeing.

 

So, I tried to setup a VLAN, but when I do, I no longer get an IP from the RG, when I give myself one manually, I can no longer ping the RG or get obviously get out on the internet.

 

I was trying to follow this post (entertainment center section) as it is really close to what I want to do and I also want to isolate everything else plugged into the GS108e.

 

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r24678807-

 

I’ve tried various configurations, but here is what I have now (very similar to the above post):

VLAN 1: T U U U U U U –

VLAN 2: T - - - - - - U

PVID: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

 

This definitely stops multicast traffic from getting to port 8 (I see the light stop blinking), but whenever I am plugged into the E4200, I can’t seem to get to anything else on the network.

 

Does anyone see a configuration error?  Again, sorry if I am missing something simple, I really have no experience with VLANs.

I have read the above post several times, but am still having trouble with an extremely similar issue.  I appologize in advance if I am missing something simple.

 

I am trying to extend my wireless network with a second router (E4200) and am having problems with the multicast traffic.  I have read a lot of posts on this, but still having a problem getting it to work correctly.  I bought a GS108e hoping that it would help filter the multicast requests since it supported IGMP Snooping v3, but as now read; it doesn’t really support the U-Verse implementation.

 

RG

|

GS116e (I want to do something similar here, but am trying to keep it simple for now)

|

GS108e

|

Port 1 connected to GS116e

Port 2 U-Verse DVR

Port 8 E4200

 

RG = 10.0.0.1

E4200 = 10.0.0.2

 

DHCP is disabled on the E4200, and when I connect to it, I successfully get an IP from the RG and can ping both 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2.  When I walk from one side of the house to the other, I can watch my phone switch between the two access points pretty seamlessly.  That all works great.  

 

However, ports 1, 2 and 8 are blinking like crazy and my PC connected to the E4200 wireless is showing constant data transfer of ~700KB/sec and the wireless performance is terrible.  I am watching TV and I guess that is the multicast traffic I am seeing.

 

So, I tried to setup a VLAN, but when I do, I no longer get an IP from the RG, when I give myself one manually, I can no longer ping the RG or get obviously get out on the internet.

 

I was trying to follow this post (entertainment center section) as it is really close to what I want to do and I also want to isolate everything else plugged into the GS108e.

 

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r24678807-

 

I’ve tried various configurations, but here is what I have now (very similar to the above post):

VLAN 1: T U U U U U U –

VLAN 2: T - - - - - - U

PVID: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

 

This definitely stops multicast traffic from getting to port 8 (I see the light stop blinking), but whenever I am plugged into the E4200, I can’t seem to get to anything else on the network.

 

Does anyone see a configuration error?  Again, sorry if I am missing something simple, I really have no experience with VLANs.

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

14 of 35 (7,307 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 20, 2011 3:50:48 PM
0
(0)
Expert

Did you also configure the GS116e to deal with the tagged VLAN?  And uplink it to the RG twice like the above explanation?  You must do all of those things for it to work properly.

 

Also, I need to mention that the NetGear GS1xxE series may have problems with this.  Someone over on DSLReports tried this setup with GS108E switches and couldn't get it to work because of a bug in the VLAN handling (the double uplink required at the RG didn't work right).  The write up above uses NetGear GS1xxT switches, which are known to work properly.

 

 

Did you also configure the GS116e to deal with the tagged VLAN?  And uplink it to the RG twice like the above explanation?  You must do all of those things for it to work properly.

 

Also, I need to mention that the NetGear GS1xxE series may have problems with this.  Someone over on DSLReports tried this setup with GS108E switches and couldn't get it to work because of a bug in the VLAN handling (the double uplink required at the RG didn't work right).  The write up above uses NetGear GS1xxT switches, which are known to work properly.

 

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

15 of 35 (7,298 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 20, 2011 5:51:38 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

Thanks for the reply.

 

No, I did not configure any VLANs on the GS116e.  The only switch I wanted to eliminate the multicast issue on was the GS108e and did not really mind if there was an issue with devices on the GS116e.  I thought I could utilize a VLAN on the last segment of my network to eliminate the multicasting there but, now that I think about it some more I guess I understand.

 

I need to configure a VLAN and tag ports on the GS116e so that traffic can properly get back the the RG from the GS108e? 

 

It's a shame because I was considering the T switch, but opted for the E because of the v3 support.  It turns out that does not work with U-Verse.  I would love HTTP access to the switch because I have to RDP to a Windows machine to manage the E switches.

 

I'll give it a go, but I did see that thread over at DSL Reports earlier today, so I will cross my fingers.  I appreciate the help.

Thanks for the reply.

 

No, I did not configure any VLANs on the GS116e.  The only switch I wanted to eliminate the multicast issue on was the GS108e and did not really mind if there was an issue with devices on the GS116e.  I thought I could utilize a VLAN on the last segment of my network to eliminate the multicasting there but, now that I think about it some more I guess I understand.

 

I need to configure a VLAN and tag ports on the GS116e so that traffic can properly get back the the RG from the GS108e? 

 

It's a shame because I was considering the T switch, but opted for the E because of the v3 support.  It turns out that does not work with U-Verse.  I would love HTTP access to the switch because I have to RDP to a Windows machine to manage the E switches.

 

I'll give it a go, but I did see that thread over at DSL Reports earlier today, so I will cross my fingers.  I appreciate the help.

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

16 of 35 (7,285 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 11:50:01 AM
0
(0)
Tutor

I have a similar setup and issue. After much trial and error, I came upon this post and wanted to be sure my concept of how I can "fix" the issue is correct.

 

I too have the Uverse router and an AirPort, except I have an unmanaged gigabit switch directly attached to the Uverse router, then my network devices feed off of that.  With previous ISPs, this wasn't an issue.  With Uverse's use of IGMPv3, it's problematic.  I have three STBs; one is connected to the Uverse router, the other two through the unmanaged gigabit switch, as they also have data on those network runs.  If I add a wireless access point, like an Airport or any other brand, even if the line it's on doesn't have a STB, the device becomes inoperable within a short period of time.  Again, this is plugged in through the gigabit switch behind the Uverse router.  Wired network interfaces all work as anticipated.  Wireshark shows a broadcast traffic packet storm on the wireless access points.  I want the access points on a gigabit network;  the Uverse's 10/100 ports would degrade overall network performance compared to 802.11n or gigabit capable wired clients.

 

The question is, if I replace the central unmanaged gigabit switch with one that can handle IGMPv3 traffic properly, should that suffice in allowing me to add wireless access points elsewhere without seeing the multicast packet storm?  I would think then it shouldn't start hitting the access point in my office, which is the only device plugged into that network drop if that centralized switch handles the data properly.  I have other desktop gigabit switches around at endpoints, but they all would go through the IGMPv3 capable central switch. 

 

Thanks!!!

I have a similar setup and issue. After much trial and error, I came upon this post and wanted to be sure my concept of how I can "fix" the issue is correct.

 

I too have the Uverse router and an AirPort, except I have an unmanaged gigabit switch directly attached to the Uverse router, then my network devices feed off of that.  With previous ISPs, this wasn't an issue.  With Uverse's use of IGMPv3, it's problematic.  I have three STBs; one is connected to the Uverse router, the other two through the unmanaged gigabit switch, as they also have data on those network runs.  If I add a wireless access point, like an Airport or any other brand, even if the line it's on doesn't have a STB, the device becomes inoperable within a short period of time.  Again, this is plugged in through the gigabit switch behind the Uverse router.  Wired network interfaces all work as anticipated.  Wireshark shows a broadcast traffic packet storm on the wireless access points.  I want the access points on a gigabit network;  the Uverse's 10/100 ports would degrade overall network performance compared to 802.11n or gigabit capable wired clients.

 

The question is, if I replace the central unmanaged gigabit switch with one that can handle IGMPv3 traffic properly, should that suffice in allowing me to add wireless access points elsewhere without seeing the multicast packet storm?  I would think then it shouldn't start hitting the access point in my office, which is the only device plugged into that network drop if that centralized switch handles the data properly.  I have other desktop gigabit switches around at endpoints, but they all would go through the IGMPv3 capable central switch. 

 

Thanks!!!

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

17 of 35 (7,136 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 12:29:39 PM
0
(0)
Expert
Simply replacing the central switch with one that is IGMPv3-snooping capable will not solve the problem. Since there is a mixture of STB units and computers on the downstream switches, IPTV multicast traffic will still flow to the downstream switches whenever an STB is powered on.

Furthermore, I know of no consumer-affordable switches that implement U-Verse-compatible IGMPv3-snooping.

Your best bet is to use VLANs as described above.
Simply replacing the central switch with one that is IGMPv3-snooping capable will not solve the problem. Since there is a mixture of STB units and computers on the downstream switches, IPTV multicast traffic will still flow to the downstream switches whenever an STB is powered on.

Furthermore, I know of no consumer-affordable switches that implement U-Verse-compatible IGMPv3-snooping.

Your best bet is to use VLANs as described above.

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

18 of 35 (7,130 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 1:08:00 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

Thanks for the response.  I have access to beefier switches, some of which do have IGMPv3 snooping capabilities.  

 

Just to be sure, even if I have a IGMPv3 capable switch, if I have a STB and a WIFI access point on attached to it, I'll still see the same symptoms?  For example, this somewhat how my network looks now:

 

AT&T router  < - Port 1 - > STB 1

< - Port 2 -> Central Gig Swtich <- Port 1 -> AirPort (WIFI & LAN) <- LAN Ports -> Computer 1, Computer 2, etc

              < - Port 2 -> Gigabit Switch < -> STB, PS3, Computer2

  < - Port 3 -> Gigabit Switch < - > STB, PS3, Xbox, Receiver, Apple TV

 

So, If I replace Central Gig Switch, which is unmanaged and consumer grade, with one that's IGMPv3 capable, the AirPort on port 1 will still get slammed with multicast traffic from the TVs on ports 2 and 3 of that switch?  The remote switches probably are getting hit with the broadcast storm too, except they're not showing degraded performance.  It's only when I add in WIFI access points into the scheme where I see any issue and that's when it's on a shared line (ie - on a switch with a STB at the end point) or if they're on their own dedicated line, but still have a common backplane of the consumer switch.  I figured since the Uverse box handles the IGMPv3 and should (in theory) allow me to hook any host/client (WIFI access point, computer, etc) to it without seeing a broadcast storm, putting a switch that supports IGMPv3 should allow me the same, but I could be missing a key point here.  

 

Thanks again for your response. 

Thanks for the response.  I have access to beefier switches, some of which do have IGMPv3 snooping capabilities.  

 

Just to be sure, even if I have a IGMPv3 capable switch, if I have a STB and a WIFI access point on attached to it, I'll still see the same symptoms?  For example, this somewhat how my network looks now:

 

AT&T router  < - Port 1 - > STB 1

< - Port 2 -> Central Gig Swtich <- Port 1 -> AirPort (WIFI & LAN) <- LAN Ports -> Computer 1, Computer 2, etc

              < - Port 2 -> Gigabit Switch < -> STB, PS3, Computer2

  < - Port 3 -> Gigabit Switch < - > STB, PS3, Xbox, Receiver, Apple TV

 

So, If I replace Central Gig Switch, which is unmanaged and consumer grade, with one that's IGMPv3 capable, the AirPort on port 1 will still get slammed with multicast traffic from the TVs on ports 2 and 3 of that switch?  The remote switches probably are getting hit with the broadcast storm too, except they're not showing degraded performance.  It's only when I add in WIFI access points into the scheme where I see any issue and that's when it's on a shared line (ie - on a switch with a STB at the end point) or if they're on their own dedicated line, but still have a common backplane of the consumer switch.  I figured since the Uverse box handles the IGMPv3 and should (in theory) allow me to hook any host/client (WIFI access point, computer, etc) to it without seeing a broadcast storm, putting a switch that supports IGMPv3 should allow me the same, but I could be missing a key point here.  

 

Thanks again for your response. 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

19 of 35 (7,128 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 1:44:20 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

Ouch. Seems that I can't format my diagram right.  I tried a few different ways and it always is skewed.  In a more simplistic way, if I have:

 

2Wire Router

      +   

       |                 

      + Port 1 ---------- STB #1

       |                      IGMPv3 Snooping Capable Gigabit Switch 

      + Port 2----------- + Port 1

                                     |

                                    + Port 2 ---------------- WIFI Device

                                     |                            Unmanaged GigE Switch

                                    + Port 3 ----------------- + Port 1

                                                                           |

                                                                           + Port 2 ---------------- STB #2

                                                                           |

                                                                           + Port 2 ---------------- Computer 1

 

 

In this scenario, the WIFI device in Port 2 of the IGMPv3 capable switch will be adversely impacted by the STB #2 plugged into Port 2 of the Unmanaged GigE Switch, which links back to Port 3 of the IGMPv3 capable switch?  Or if a STB was just simply plugged into the IGMPv3 switch?

Ouch. Seems that I can't format my diagram right.  I tried a few different ways and it always is skewed.  In a more simplistic way, if I have:

 

2Wire Router

      +   

       |                 

      + Port 1 ---------- STB #1

       |                      IGMPv3 Snooping Capable Gigabit Switch 

      + Port 2----------- + Port 1

                                     |

                                    + Port 2 ---------------- WIFI Device

                                     |                            Unmanaged GigE Switch

                                    + Port 3 ----------------- + Port 1

                                                                           |

                                                                           + Port 2 ---------------- STB #2

                                                                           |

                                                                           + Port 2 ---------------- Computer 1

 

 

In this scenario, the WIFI device in Port 2 of the IGMPv3 capable switch will be adversely impacted by the STB #2 plugged into Port 2 of the Unmanaged GigE Switch, which links back to Port 3 of the IGMPv3 capable switch?  Or if a STB was just simply plugged into the IGMPv3 switch?

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

20 of 35 (7,121 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 2:56:30 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
Edited by ERIC8585 on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:00:10 PM

Another solution is to only connect the STB(s) to the RG and connect one of the other ports on the RG to a switch or router to be used with non STB devices.  This way no IPTV traffic will be sent to the port serving the computer network.

 

I had an issue with IPTV traffic flooding my network because my RG was connected to a switch downstairs and the switch was then connected to a STB, a PS3 and a computer.  I resolved this issue by using the HPNA (coax) connection downstairs for the STB instead of an ethernet connection.  My only STB using an ethernet connection is upstairs next to the RG.

Another solution is to only connect the STB(s) to the RG and connect one of the other ports on the RG to a switch or router to be used with non STB devices.  This way no IPTV traffic will be sent to the port serving the computer network.

 

I had an issue with IPTV traffic flooding my network because my RG was connected to a switch downstairs and the switch was then connected to a STB, a PS3 and a computer.  I resolved this issue by using the HPNA (coax) connection downstairs for the STB instead of an ethernet connection.  My only STB using an ethernet connection is upstairs next to the RG.

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

[ Edited ]
21 of 35 (6,986 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 2:58:15 PM
0
(0)
Expert
OK, if your only goal is to keep multicast IPTV traffic away from the AirPort, then yes, an IGMPv3-snooping switch in place of your current unmanaged central switch would indeed do that.

But you will still get mixed computer and IPTV multicast traffic on the downstream switches. You say this has not resulted in degraded performance, and if that's true then it's no big deal.

If you do this and you get it to work, please post back what brand and model switch you're using in place of the central switch and any configuration settings, if applicable. To my knowledge, no one has successfully implemented ANY 3rd-party IGMPv3-snooping switch into a U-Verse system and had it work properly.
OK, if your only goal is to keep multicast IPTV traffic away from the AirPort, then yes, an IGMPv3-snooping switch in place of your current unmanaged central switch would indeed do that.

But you will still get mixed computer and IPTV multicast traffic on the downstream switches. You say this has not resulted in degraded performance, and if that's true then it's no big deal.

If you do this and you get it to work, please post back what brand and model switch you're using in place of the central switch and any configuration settings, if applicable. To my knowledge, no one has successfully implemented ANY 3rd-party IGMPv3-snooping switch into a U-Verse system and had it work properly.

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

22 of 35 (6,985 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 3:20:20 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

 

Eric -
Yeah, agreed.  Unfortunately, I don't have that option with the layout right now.  I have single drops in the areas and some of those areas have multiple devices.  I had thought about just taking them wireless, but there are still a few devices that would need a wired network connection. 

 

Eric -
Yeah, agreed.  Unfortunately, I don't have that option with the layout right now.  I have single drops in the areas and some of those areas have multiple devices.  I had thought about just taking them wireless, but there are still a few devices that would need a wired network connection. 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

23 of 35 (6,973 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 23, 2011 3:23:33 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

SomeJoe - 

 

It mostly is just to keep stability.  Outside of the issue with the wireless access points, I haven't had any of the other networking gear cease up.  I've considered the VLAN approach too.  Preferably, I'd like this to be something that anyone could upkeep, not just someone who has an understanding of network topologies and setup! Smiley Wink

 

I'll give both a bit more thought.  I appreciate the insight!  I'll post in what I eventually try. 

SomeJoe - 

 

It mostly is just to keep stability.  Outside of the issue with the wireless access points, I haven't had any of the other networking gear cease up.  I've considered the VLAN approach too.  Preferably, I'd like this to be something that anyone could upkeep, not just someone who has an understanding of network topologies and setup! Smiley Wink

 

I'll give both a bit more thought.  I appreciate the insight!  I'll post in what I eventually try. 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

24 of 35 (6,971 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 24, 2011 6:17:16 AM
0
(0)
Tutor

I'm also reconsidering just running the two STBs directly to the Uverse router, despite each being on their own gigabit switches at the end points.  In reality, the more I think about it, the only device on those switches that truly benefits from gigabit speeds is the Mac mini.  The game consoles aren't used for streaming content within the network.  I could just run that Mac over 802.11n.  With two access points, I should have a very strong signal throughout.  It won't be gigabit speeds, but it'll be faster than being wired to the Uverse router and should still be plenty fast enough for most everything it's used for.

 

On that note, playing around with networking always has its charms! Smiley Wink

I'm also reconsidering just running the two STBs directly to the Uverse router, despite each being on their own gigabit switches at the end points.  In reality, the more I think about it, the only device on those switches that truly benefits from gigabit speeds is the Mac mini.  The game consoles aren't used for streaming content within the network.  I could just run that Mac over 802.11n.  With two access points, I should have a very strong signal throughout.  It won't be gigabit speeds, but it'll be faster than being wired to the Uverse router and should still be plenty fast enough for most everything it's used for.

 

On that note, playing around with networking always has its charms! Smiley Wink

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

25 of 35 (6,950 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 24, 2011 7:08:02 AM
0
(0)
Master

I got to ask because there is a big difference in range you said Airport Express (about the size of a pack of cigs) which has a limited range (i use one in my media room) and Airport Extreme (about 8 x 8 x 1.25 ) which has a very good range or at least the new dual bands do it reaches both front and backyard at my home.

I got to ask because there is a big difference in range you said Airport Express (about the size of a pack of cigs) which has a limited range (i use one in my media room) and Airport Extreme (about 8 x 8 x 1.25 ) which has a very good range or at least the new dual bands do it reaches both front and backyard at my home.

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

26 of 35 (6,944 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 24, 2011 8:51:06 AM
0
(0)
Tutor

Sure.  I have an Airport Extreme.  I must have mistyped.  I also have some Cisco wireless gear.  I would think I should be able to blanket multiple levels between them pretty well.  

 

I have the dual band, as well.  I've been happy with it!   Smiley Happy

Sure.  I have an Airport Extreme.  I must have mistyped.  I also have some Cisco wireless gear.  I would think I should be able to blanket multiple levels between them pretty well.  

 

I have the dual band, as well.  I've been happy with it!   Smiley Happy

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

27 of 35 (6,933 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Mar 26, 2013 11:02:25 AM
0
(0)
Voyager

I hate to necro an old thread, but holy crap, thank you for this!

 

I was able to mimic this setup using 2 DIR-825 routers running openwrt, on which I spent less than $100.  Even managed to incorporate having the RG-connected router run in DMZ+ mode off of the RG by connecting the WAN port on the router to the RG instead of one of the switch port.

 

As it turns out, setting that PVID parameter for each port turned out to be the key I was missing.  I even managed to bundle in WiFi and a separate guest WiFi network, all over a single trunk line with the TV signal, all appropriately isolated from each other.

 

So yes, this is possible, even with cheap routers, when you can use 3rd party firmware like OpenWrt.

 

Thank you again!

I hate to necro an old thread, but holy crap, thank you for this!

 

I was able to mimic this setup using 2 DIR-825 routers running openwrt, on which I spent less than $100.  Even managed to incorporate having the RG-connected router run in DMZ+ mode off of the RG by connecting the WAN port on the router to the RG instead of one of the switch port.

 

As it turns out, setting that PVID parameter for each port turned out to be the key I was missing.  I even managed to bundle in WiFi and a separate guest WiFi network, all over a single trunk line with the TV signal, all appropriately isolated from each other.

 

So yes, this is possible, even with cheap routers, when you can use 3rd party firmware like OpenWrt.

 

Thank you again!

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

28 of 35 (5,751 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Mar 26, 2013 3:11:06 PM
0
(0)
Expert
Great, glad this helped out!
Great, glad this helped out!

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

29 of 35 (5,738 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 15, 2014 8:14:02 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

Joe, sorry for replying to an old post, but I'm diving into the world of VLANs myself. I actually have two separate networks in my house, one for U-verse TV, and one for Time Warner Cable Internet. I am going to combine these over physical cables using VLANs, and also use VLANs to isolate my home lab servers from my casual home Internet access users.

 

I wanted to point you all to a blog post I made, which tries to explain how VLANs really work, and get your take on it. It's a work in progress so comments are welcome. As I build out my network I will add actual examples.

 

Here's the blog post:  http://fortmorganconsulting.com/index.php/how-vlans-really-work/

 

 

Joe, sorry for replying to an old post, but I'm diving into the world of VLANs myself. I actually have two separate networks in my house, one for U-verse TV, and one for Time Warner Cable Internet. I am going to combine these over physical cables using VLANs, and also use VLANs to isolate my home lab servers from my casual home Internet access users.

 

I wanted to point you all to a blog post I made, which tries to explain how VLANs really work, and get your take on it. It's a work in progress so comments are welcome. As I build out my network I will add actual examples.

 

Here's the blog post:  http://fortmorganconsulting.com/index.php/how-vlans-really-work/

 

 

Re: UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

30 of 35 (3,804 Views)
Share this post
Share this post