Youview streaming floods my SkyQ box

leightonrleightonr Posts: 4Member
I have a BT Home Hub 6 broadband router which connects to a Cisco 110 Series SG110-16HP switch. All my devices such as WAPs, Sky Q box and now YouView box connect to the Cisco SG110-16HP switch.
I have only recently bought the BT YouView Box now if I stream BT Sport on the YouView box, my SkyQ miniboxes disconnect.  I have done a bit of googling and it seems that this occurs because BT Sport uses multicast to broadcast the programs & it floods other devices like Sky Q. It affects the SKYQ main box , preventing it from sending wireless transmissions to the mini boxes.
I have read that the solution is to configure IGMP Snooping on the switch to only send the IPTV data stream to the port that requested it, namely the Youview box, not flooding all devices. But I don't think the SG110-16HP is configurable.  Do I need to replace this or where would I connect a new switch that supports IGMP Snooping into the network to prevent the flooding.
Thanks

Comments

  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Posts: 784Member ✭✭✭
    Hello @leightonr and welcome to the forum.
    The BT hub should already be configured for IGMP snooping, so a work around would be to connect the YouView box directly to one of the ports on the router rather than through the Cisco switch. If this is not possible then you would have to replace the Cisco with a managed switch which supports IGMP.
    Although I don't like them, you could use powerline adapters to connect the YouView box directly.
    Hope this helps,
    John.



    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • Tim CTim C Posts: 436Member ✭✭
    The solution is simple as @Anaglypta suggests.
    Switches that support IGMP will sort this , although I wouldn't bother with the managed type as that's just an over complication. I've used & recommended TP-Link SG105 or SG108s as these will do the trick nicely.
  • leightonrleightonr Posts: 4Member
    Thanks @Anaglypta.  Unfortunately not possible to connect the YouView box directly to one of the ports of the HomeHub although I could use powerline adaptors to get there (they are ugly).
    I've been reading around and have more or less given in to replacing my Switch - however do I need a managed switch ?  I have been looking at TP-Link TL-SG116 16-Port Desktop Gigabit Ethernet Switch - which is unmanaged but seems to support IGMP. Thanks

  • RoyRoy Posts: 15,208Member ✭✭✭
    Anaglypta said:
    Hello @leightonr and welcome to the forum.
    The BT hub should already be configured for IGMP snooping, so a work around would be to connect the YouView box directly to one of the ports on the router rather than through the Cisco switch. If this is not possible then you would have to replace the Cisco with a managed switch which supports IGMP.
    Although I don't like them, you could use powerline adapters to connect the YouView box directly.
    Hope this helps,
    John.



    Depending on what is where, it might be equally possible to connect the Sky Q box directly to the BT Home Hub, and avoid the problem that way.

    But while the automatic QOS on the switch will certainly prioritise the multicast to the BT YouView box, it seems odd that the Sky Q box would be the only device on the switch affected, and even odder that the Sky Q box would still work, and yet the mini boxes disconnect, which sounds more like a WiFi issue. And yet you haven’t introduced any new WiFi devices into the mix...
    This is not the YouView that I knew  :'(
  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Posts: 784Member ✭✭✭
    Hello @leightonr ,
    It doesn't have to be a managed switch, but it does have to support IGMP snooping. Looking at the spec of the TP-Link TL-SG116, this supports IGMP Snooping, and QoS 802.1p/DSCP Priority. It's plug and play, so should just work out of the box.

    A managed switch would give you greater control, but as @Tim C says, may be overkill.

    John.


    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Posts: 784Member ✭✭✭
    edited 29 May 2019, 10:06AM
    Roy said:
    Anaglypta said:
    Hello @leightonr and welcome to the forum.
    The BT hub should already be configured for IGMP snooping, so a work around would be to connect the YouView box directly to one of the ports on the router rather than through the Cisco switch. If this is not possible then you would have to replace the Cisco with a managed switch which supports IGMP.
    Although I don't like them, you could use powerline adapters to connect the YouView box directly.
    Hope this helps,
    John.



    Depending on what is where, it might be equally possible to connect the Sky Q box directly to the BT Home Hub, and avoid the problem that way.

    But while the automatic QOS on the switch will certainly prioritise the multicast to the BT YouView box, it seems odd that the Sky Q box would be the only device on the switch affected, and even odder that the Sky Q box would still work, and yet the mini boxes disconnect, which sounds more like a WiFi issue. And yet you haven’t introduced any new WiFi devices into the mix...
    @Roy ,

    I have to say from the outset that I don't own a Sky Q box, nor know what its capabilities are, but I can imagine the Q box not coping well with a deluge of unexpected multicast packets and probably blindly relaying all that traffic over its WiFi connections to the detrement of the mini boxes.

    John.
    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • RoyRoy Posts: 15,208Member ✭✭✭
    Anaglypta said:
    Roy said:
    Anaglypta said:
    Hello @leightonr and welcome to the forum.
    The BT hub should already be configured for IGMP snooping, so a work around would be to connect the YouView box directly to one of the ports on the router rather than through the Cisco switch. If this is not possible then you would have to replace the Cisco with a managed switch which supports IGMP.
    Although I don't like them, you could use powerline adapters to connect the YouView box directly.
    Hope this helps,
    John.



    Depending on what is where, it might be equally possible to connect the Sky Q box directly to the BT Home Hub, and avoid the problem that way.

    But while the automatic QOS on the switch will certainly prioritise the multicast to the BT YouView box, it seems odd that the Sky Q box would be the only device on the switch affected, and even odder that the Sky Q box would still work, and yet the mini boxes disconnect, which sounds more like a WiFi issue. And yet you haven’t introduced any new WiFi devices into the mix...
    @Roy ,

    I have to say from the outset that I don't own a Sky Q box, nor know what its capabilities are, but I can imagine the Q box not coping well with a deluge of unexpected multicast packets and probably blindly relaying all that traffic over its WiFi connections to the detrement of the mini boxes.

    John.
    I’m trying to envisage the circumstances where @leightonr can have a router connected to a switch and the switch connected to the YouView box and Sky Q box, without PLAs, and yet those would be needed to connect the YouView box to the router? I hypothesise, perhaps, a concealed Ethernet cable from router to switch? In a channel where you might or might not be able to pull another Ethernet cable through.

    So if I understand this all correctly, connecting the Sky Q box directly to the router will stop the multicast flooding on that, as the router will know not to send these packets to the Sky Q box, and this would stop the issue with the Sky Q box?

    But as the YouView box, target of these packets, is on the switch, these packets are sent to it, and the switch, not knowing about IGMP, sends these packets to every device on the switch?

    Which I don’t understand, as the packets are targeted at the IP address of the YouView box only, and so shouldn’t go anywhere else? Or in multicast, are they not targeted, so the switch sends them to every device on the switch?

    I can understand the load on the switch, and that the switch would have to forward these packets to other switches, if there were any, as it doesn’t know which of these the target local IP address is located on.

    Or are we saying that the correct tree for PIM-SM, which should embrace only the YouView box, can never be established on a switch that doesn’t support IGMP Snooping, because it can’t act on the Join/Prune messages that come back for itself, and just the one Join message getting back to the router is enough to keep the multicast packets coming to the switch, which sends them on to every device on the switch?

    Which aren’t, apparently, affected by all these extra packets like the Sky Q box apparently is, but must be getting an excess load of packets they have to discard? And making a rather better job of it than the Sky Q box is?

    I’m in learning mode here.......
    This is not the YouView that I knew  :'(
  • Tim CTim C Posts: 436Member ✭✭
    edited 29 May 2019, 12:19PM
    I speak from personal experience , well my son's experience.
    His situation was the Sky Q box on the same switch - a Netgear - as a Youview box (the zapper). The Q mini boxes were on the Q box's mesh wifi system and as soon as the Youview box started streaming BT Sport then the Q minis were disconnected. The multicast transmission flooded the Q box effectively disabling it's mesh wifi system.
    The Netgear switch didn't support IGMP Snooping.
    I replaced that with a TP-Link SG105 - later replaced by the 108 as he needed more ports - and immediately the problem was resolved, as the IGMP Snooping capability directs the multicast stream to the port that requested it.
    It's only an issue with the mesh wifi system , any Q minis connected to the router by ethernet were unaffected. His router btw is an Asus DSL-AC68U which is the same as mine.
    I've recommended this solution to a few users over on the BT Community forum, which they've found effective.
  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Posts: 784Member ✭✭✭
    edited 29 May 2019, 2:00PM
    Hi Roy,
    Just to add a little more detail about multicast packets, they are actually UDP packets rather than TCP packets and are a kind of broadcast packet - so not aimed at a particular IP address or device, but to any device that is listening for them.

    The packets are expected to arrive in a timely fashion, and in the correct order as the listening device has no way of asking for a packet again or reordering them. This can lead to corruption or pixelation of the stream.

    I'm guessing that most devices connected to this switch are at the end of the chain, i.e. computer, bluray player etc and as such can safely ignore the multicast traffic, however the SkyQ box (as confirmed by @Tim C ) is servicing a wireless mesh network and as such has a "duty of care" to pass the packets on in case one of its connected wireless devices is waiting for them! And to quote you from another thread, the Q mini's are then trying to "drink from a firehose" :smile:

    This is probably a design fault on the Q box since as we all know,  just about every router in the world will try to prevent multicast traffic from reaching their WiFi interfaces!

    John 
    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • leightonrleightonr Posts: 4Member
    @Roy @Anaglypta @Tim C  Thanks for all of the suggestions. I wasn't able to respond sooner as we moved out to have decoration done.  I've had a bit of an epic fail on this - I replaced my Cisco SG110-16HP with an expensive Cisco 220-26P because it had IGMP snooping and PoE which I needed for some devices.  Alas enabling IGMP snooping on the Cisco switch does not alleviate the problem.  Having read these suggestions, I am now going to run an additional Ethernet cable to my BT Home hub so that I can try connecting the SkyQ box or the youView box directly to a different port on my BT Home Hub and see if that works.  Tbh I wish I'd never seen the YouView box - as it has become an expensive experiment and a personal challenge to sort out.  Thanks for all of the help
  • GoodbyeGoodbye Posts: 325Member
    edited 9 July 2019, 9:57AM
    Assuming you purchased youview primarily to watch BT sports why dont you save yourself all the hassle and just watch watch it on the Q box? There is absolutely no benefit having both as youview in your case beings nothing new to the table, well except grief. 
  • Tim CTim C Posts: 436Member ✭✭
    Are the Q box & Youview box located in the same place and if so how are they connected to your router?
    If they're together and you have an ethernet cable to a switch & those 2 units fed by that switch then I'd say the switch is the issue. If this is the scenario then what switch are you using?

  • leightonrleightonr Posts: 4Member
    @Tim C the Q box and Youview box both connect to the Cisco switch but the switch only has one connection to the BT Home hub router.  Actually I think the powerline adaptor suggested by @Anaglypta would have provided a solution but I became obsessed with understanding it and resolving it without the powerline adaptors.  It's not too difficult to have install alternative ethernet connections near my BT router and then that gives me options of separating the Youview box and Sky Q at the router.
    @Goodbye - in fact I have the BT Sport app on my mobile phone and I use it casting to my TV.  The reason I got myself into this situation is 1. the Youview box came cheap as part of broadband deal 2. trying to provide a solution for Airbnb guest room (I am maxed out on Sky Q miniboxes) and 3. my obstinacy and doggedness when faced with a problem.
    In fact if I'd worked out how to get this page to ping me whenever there was a reply rather than me having to poll it, I would have seen the extremely helpful answers sooner and saved some money.
    Anyway, I feel I've learned a lot from everybody's answers on here and I like that. I'll sell the Cisco 220 as I don't need it now.  Thanks everybody for all of the help.
Sign In or Register to comment.