The content on this page may be out-of-date or have been superseded by newer information. Links on this page to other sites may not work and contact information may be inaccurate. This page has been archived for future reference.
This discussion has been locked
Sorry, you can't reply to this discussion as it's been locked by our Community Managers.
05 May 2021 11:04 AM
Hi guys
Just thought I would mention something when reading this thread.
Some things sounded familiar with a problem I had once with a device that was causing me issues with my home network. As I was scrolling, I came across the diagram and I noticed the same device! The TP-Link LT-WPA4220.
My issue was that the device has its own DHCP server. This server would occasionally start for no reason and was causing any device connected to it to lose internet access. TP-Link acknowledged the bug and released a temporary firmware that would disable the DHCP server when you assigned it a static IP address.
Could the DHCP service on this device be kicking in and assigning the network a different address range when the main router was unavailable?
Just a thought....
05 May 2021 01:32 PM
Good point. If it did do that and happened to do it around the time of Sky firmware update then the type of outage described may well have happened and been mis-attributed to the firmware change due to conincidene. Though I think the OP in this case was watching things like a hawk and able to tie things to the Sky firmware update as the breaking event.
In any case, you've highlighted another way things like powerline adapters are not just direct equivalents of running a wire and I think posts that highlight this are very helpful to set expectations that things can go wrong with them. Why anybody would want a powerline adapter to be their DHCP server makes no sense to me. I bet some firmware for another device was just repurposed quickly and it got left in there.
Since there will never be a list of devices that work or don't with Sky Q, the more posts with model numbers of things in them, the more it will help people do reasearch in what to buy or more likely know that what they've bought will not work as they expected it would when they do a retrospective search.
Perhaps Sky should just sell their own powerline adapters. I presume the reason powerline was dropped from the Q devices themselves was because people always plugged them into power strips or other reasons that meant their success rate was low. Perhaps the analytics done there from field tries were also enough to reason that selling Sky Q branded powerline adapters would also be a bad idea.
It would also be the thin end of the wedge in becoming too much of a home network provider/consultant too with perhaps little to no commercial gain and likely the opposite.
05 May 2021 01:41 PM
The reason that particular power line adapter has a DHCP server is because it's a Wi-Fi access point, so would need to provide some form of address database to be configured, but the DHCP is supppsed to switch off when another sever is detected. The standard TP-Link AV600's don't.
05 May 2021 10:35 PM
Got it, I can just about set wanting to do DCHP if one wanted a local subnet over Wifi and there was no router or other DCHP servier in the mix.
Note I also checked at least on my system to see if I was talking out of you know where about 802.1q tagged traffic between boxes. I'm pretty sure I was wrong as setting up mirroring over a couple of ports that Sky Q equipment was talking to each other on showed no 801.q traffic at all.
Instead a proprietary (using a privately registered ethertag) but very simple tunneling can be seen where an original ethernet frame (minus preamble and checksum) is splonked in as the pay load of another. This has the same problem that 802.1q can have which is that the can created frames beyond the 1500 byte MTU as I saw some examples by sorting frames descending by length. In this case it will create frames at 1514 bytes long when 802.1q can create them at 1504 bytes long but too long is still likely too long for some devices.
However without knowing that this used to not happen in the past then I can not prove anything.
I actually bet that Sky Q has always worked this way but in the firmware update that instead some important traffic has just gotten a little bit bigger with what it puts in its packets and that tipped the balance into creating ethernet frames that were not forwardable by the AV600 once tunelled in the way described. E.g increase in data for some application layer thing triggered a latent bug that was always there in the OP's network.
We'll never know, so your theory is as good as mine TBH.
10 Jun 2021 10:14 AM
Im really glad I found this thread, I don't undrstand this network stuff at all.
I have a similar setup to you, albeit on a smaller scale. I have a tplink from my switch (next to the router) in the house to a garden office, with a sky q mini box wired in, acting as an access point in the office.
This all worked fine accept I can't connect to my hue bridge from the office but can from the house. Now, the weird thing is that I tried plugging the hue bridge to the switch next to the router in the house(it was plugged into an extender in the house) and I couldn't access it from the house, but could from the office! despite it being right next to the router in the house. This makes no sense to me!?
Anyway. After seeing your post, I realised that if I unplugged the sky mini box I could connect to the hue bridge from anywhere. The wired in sky box acting as an access point seems to intefere somehow with access to the hue bridge, even if the hue bridge is nowhere near the box and Im not connecting via the box.
In the end I moved my extender to the office and set it up as an access point, turned off the wifi on the mini box and it all seems to work.
Bit of a pain as in theory the sky box working as an access point was quite an elegant solution,. now Ive got to buy another access point and a switch. Hey ho.
Might be worth adding that I first tried to connect the mini box wirellesly via the access point, but it wouldn't connect to the main box as I think was expected.
10 Jun 2021 10:57 AM
Glad you got it all working.
The trick is to avoid having certain 3rd party devices between Sky Q devices.
The particular devices to avoid are those which don't support slightly oversized ethernet frames, and the usual way to solve that is to buy a device with a gigabit ethernet port vs a fast ethernet port as no spec sheet will mention anything about ethernet frame sizes, this is more of an implied thing.
Even though a powerline device may never get to gigabit speeds and one could reason, why buy the more expensive one?, it's worth doing so because the chips that power these gigabit ports tend ports support oversized frames which is a hidden requirement of any device used as part of extending the Sky Q mesh such that LAN device to device traffic will work flawlessly.
What can make this hard to reason about is that:
So people can easilly end up with a system that at first glance appears to work fine, and then find over time, little scenarios of device A can't talk to device B on their LAN and be utterly stumped. It stumped me too until I just bit the bullet and started doing what were effectively wire taps on my network to figure out where data was getting thrown away (on an 100 mbps port) and why (because the frame was to big for it).
10 Jun 2021 11:12 AM
Ok, thanks for the info @Mad+Sweeney that makes a bit of sense.
Do you think its possible that my original setup would work if I upgraded my tplink adapters then?
10 Jun 2021 12:41 PM
@oliverthompson79
Yes, I'd suspect that the original topology would work fine if you upgraded the TP-Link powerline adapters to some with gigabit ports on them.
There is a way to prove the problem lies with that original setup in the particular way I've described.
It obviously takes time and effort to do, and only worthwhile to peak curiosity or give a little more confidence that changing the the adapters will be the solution.
If you are able to connect a computer to the Wifi in the garden office. Open up the terminal or command shell and ping the Hue hub with some extra command line switches shown below and which differ depending on your computer's operating system. Most people nowadays know about ping, but not all the extra options it has. These options fatten up the ping to allow for testing if frame size could be an issue that is stopping two devices from being able to communicate with each other:
(Mac) ping -D -s 1472 <ip address of hue hub>
(Windows) ping -l 1472 -f <ip address of hue hub>
(Linux) ping -M do -s 1742 <ip address of hue hub>
I've checked that the Hue hub will be happy to pong back when it gets these fattened up pings as I have a Hue hub myself. I use Macs so I haven't double checked I got the command line switches correct for the other operating systems.
In your case with the garden office as everything once was, I'd expect this to fail, but as you drop the number 1472 down it will eventually start to work somewhere at or just before you've lowered the number by 14.
You can repeat the test from different places in the network of course and find that where it does work right out the gate with 1472 and does not. Success vs failure should match up with whether those places could control the Hue or not in your original experiments.
ping itself includes 28 bytes of its own gunf so 1472+28 goes to make 1500 which is the limit impossed on the main payload in ethernet standards. So what this test does is test at the upper limit of the standard. When Sky Q does tunnelling it adds a little extra (14 bytes) and that's what breaks things if 3rd party device can't cope with those extra bytes the Sky Q device has made things non standard.
As the number is being lowered by the person doing the experiment and things eventually work, what you'll end up discovering is just how much extra the powerline adapters are happy with, it may be 0 if you have to lower all the way to 1458 or somewhere in between.
Note: When connected via Wifi you'll find that your OS may not let you yourself go over the limit if you were to try a number larger than 1472 yourself. Setting up your computer to be able to do that is more involved and not really worth it. So only focus on lowering the number if you do feel like some more experiments before shelling out. on new powerline adapters.
10 Jun 2021 01:08 PM
Wow. thanks for the detailed information @Mad+Sweeney , I shall try that out.
11 Jun 2021 12:36 AM
Ok, quick update. My new setup seemed to be working, but now its stopped again for some reason.
I tried the expirement suggested by @Mad+Sweeney and indeed, I can only ping the hue hub with 1462 bytes from the location where I can't connect and the full 1472 from where I can.
I have ordered a new powerline adapter which will also double as an access point, hopefully killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
I will let you know how I get on.
11 Jun 2021 07:10 PM
I have upgraded my powerline adapters from AV600 to AV 1300.
Absolutely no difference. I am gutted.
Is it worth going for AV2000 or a different make of powerline dapter? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
11 Jun 2021 09:07 PM
@oliverthompson79
I wouldn't totally dispare quite yet.
Which exact powerline adapters did you end up getting ?
Did you go with your last mentioned plan to get a set where one was also a wireless access point, put that in the garden office, and was it connecting via that access point that still didn't work to control the hue, or another configuration instead ?
11 Jun 2021 10:42 PM
@Mad+Sweeney , yeah, that's the setup I went for. I also tried moving the bridge to the office but same result.
It probably shouldn't bother me as much as it does tbh, it's only connecting to hue from the office and the printer from the house, I just hate the fact it's not working as it should!
20 Jun 2021 01:54 AM
With your new powerline devices where one acts as an access point, you'll have given yourself two setups to try, so it would be pretty bad luck not to get it all working one way or another however there are more variables to play with. The two setups are broadly:
a) Ignoring the inbuilt AP of the new adapter and just swapping like for like the new powerline devices with new ones and hoping that because they're newer/gigabit that they'll support larger frame sizes.
b) Using the access point facility in the new powerline device and in effect bypassing Sky Q's problematic tunneling for LAN traffic between non Sky Q devices.
So for b), which is the current plan, what should be possible is to in effect bypass the Sky equipment entirely for traffic between a control device and the Hue hub. The Sky Q router will still do DHCP to supply IP addresses but that will be about it. You'll need to disable any DHCP server inside the powerline adapter that acts as an access point therefore.
I'd focus on just that part first, so ensure the Hue hub is connected close (no Sky Q equpment in between but switches would be OK) to the powerline adapter in the house, and a have phone/comupter acting as the controller to switch lights on/off connected to the other powerline adapter's access point in the garden office. I'd not have any other powerline adapters in use either, just the two between the house and the garden office.
I'd recomend having the Sky Q mini box switched off when you first do all this.
This way you'll just be testing the effectiveness of the powerline connection on it's own so to speak.
If it doesn't work then there is more to the story (like another device) in the mix.
If that all works then turn on the Sky Q mini box.
If things start going wrong from that point then there are things to try and more specifics to dig into.
--
If you did want to go with a) instead then the feature to search for spec wise for the powerline adapters is support for 'jumbo frames'. Note that it will not be on any spec sheet, but you may find people asking about support for these in forums that reference the particular model's you've purchased. I myself have TL-PA9020PKIT AV2000 adapters and tested their capacity for jumbo frame support by putting a computer either side of them with jumbo frames enabled on the ethernet adapters of each computer and pinged between them using the options discussed before.
However if you're going with option b) then don't get hung up if your new powerline adapters don't support jumbo frames. It would have been possible for example to have used the old ones and added a basic access point into the garden office to do a variant of option b. This AP being normal would not try to tunnel LAN traffic to the main sky Q TV box like the Sky Q mini box does.
--
I do have a sneaky suspician that there may be some more to this that isn't evident from the thread, so if nessesary, drawing a diagram that has everything on it could help as perhaps there is an old swith or another set of powerline adapers or something in the house that isn't playing nice.
I also have another thought that the powerline connection from the home to the garden office might not be all that reliable and perhaps sometimes worse than an wireless connection. This would explain why sometimes things work and sometimes they don't as wireless connections have a larger permissable (as standard) frame size which is more than enough for Sky Q's tunnelling, vs wired connections which if they all kept stricly to standard won't work all with Sky Q's.
11 Jan 2022 01:32 PM
I have a very similar issue, when a device is on SkyWiFi it cant communicate with devices on the LAN, such as a CCTV box, managed switch.
If I connect my laptop to my own wifi, not via any of the SKy hibs, it works fine. Issue is deffo with SKy WiFi.
If I have 2 devices on SkyWiFi, is a laptop runninv Virtual box, a server in the VM environment is not visible to another laptop on the Sky WiFi network. Move them off Sky, to my own wifi, on teh same subnet, but on teh LAN side of teh hub, all is well.
There is some issue deffo with devices communicating through SkyWifi, since a recent firmware upgrade.
I am running 5.14.2405.R.
Summery, devices on SkyWiFi cannot communicate with a device on the LAN, or another wifi deviced. despite being able to ping each other fine!!!!
This discussion has been locked
Sorry, you can't reply to this discussion as it's been locked by our Community Managers.