Sponsored Links

Sky Broadband starting to share IPv4 addresses between users

I think if you connect a non-Sky router it will allocate you an IPv4 address, it just means the vast majority of their users who use the router they are sent and never touch a port forwarding entry don't take up address space that they don't absolutely have to use.
A non-Sky router, or any Sky router other than their most recent one currently.
 
Not sure, I presume older Sky-supplied routers don't speak MAP-T so would trigger the mechanisms to disable it. 3rd party routers definitely shouldn't work with MAP-T.
 
I think third party routers aren't supported, they could just issue ipv6 only and say if you need IPv4 either use the supplied router or figure out how to get MAP-T to work.

It's quite possible they will roll out updates to the other supplied routers to add MAP-T support.
 
third party routers aren't supported
Sky Italia broadband customers can use third party routers (that's a law requirement), based on OpenWRT. I think there's something from Zyxel and Technicolor as well. No support of MAP-T from other vendors like AVM or Asus so far.
 
Sponsored Links
I've been with Sky Broadband for a while, recently re-contracted (on FTTP) and was sent a new Sky Hub Max router (which I didn't need, but I've swapped it over from the old Sky router anyway).
Out of interest, did you take Sky's WiFi add-on or did they just send you the new Sky Hub Max router by default? As previously, it only came with the WiFi add-on for an extra charge.
 
Out of interest, did you take Sky's WiFi add-on or did they just send you the new Sky Hub Max router by default? As previously, it only came with the WiFi add-on for an extra charge.
@Mark.J I did not take the add-on, and the MySky app is still trying to upsell it to me, so I know it isn't active. Interestingly, both of my adult children recently moved to Sky Broadband (within the last 8 weeks)) and both got the Hub Max without the additional Wifi add-on, so I'm guessing they're shipping it as the standard hub now, or at least in this general area (we're all in GU postcodes).
 
Sky Italia broadband customers can use third party routers (that's a law requirement), based on OpenWRT. I think there's something from Zyxel and Technicolor as well. No support of MAP-T from other vendors like AVM or Asus so far.
Ok, but I'm not sure that's the law in the UK. In practice if you can make it work, and swap it back for fault diagnosis a blind eye is turned, but there is no right or obligation to support third party routers

What I was trying to say is the option to use a router without MAP-T support, to get your own unshared IPv4 address may not last.
 
Ok, but I'm not sure that's the law in the UK. In practice if you can make it work, and swap it back for fault diagnosis a blind eye is turned, but there is no right or obligation to support third party routers

What I was trying to say is the option to use a router without MAP-T support, to get your own unshared IPv4 address may not last.
I'm not sure it matters much to Sky if a small minority of customers chose to use routers that don't support MAP-T.

For the user, they'd either end up allocated a dual-stack IPv4/v6 configuration as today, and that's just one of the IPv4 addresses Sky can't share with other users, or they end up with IPv6 only depending on Sky's preference. Of course, Sky could just eventually switch off support for all non-MAP-T routers.

From a Sky perspective, if they support users with their own routers without MAP-T, keeping in mind they've got control of the majority of users' routers (either by a natural churn/upgrade cycle giving them MAP-T routers, or by introducing software support for MAP-T in the older Sky hubs), then they've increased their IPv4 'capacity' by a little less than 8x (with a 8:1 default MAP-T sharing ratio). The odd user who wants their own router isn't going to negatively impact the significant uplift in their IPv4 capacity that MAP-T brings Sky.
 
Sponsored Links
there is no right or obligation to support third party routers
Correct, especially when it comes to the phone service. In Italy ISPs must provide their customers with all the configuration details, so they can configure the telephone service on their 3rd party routers.
That doesn't apply to UK ISPs AFAIK.
As explained in the PDF documents, MAP-T was the main choice because allowed Sky Italia to comply with 3rd party router regulation.
 
True. I think Sky have become a little more tolerant of third party routers. When I used one there was no need for any extracting of usernames and passwords like I believe there used to be.
 
I'm not sure it matters much to Sky if a small minority of customers chose to use routers that don't support MAP-T.

For the user, they'd either end up allocated a dual-stack IPv4/v6 configuration as today, and that's just one of the IPv4 addresses Sky can't share with other users, or they end up with IPv6 only depending on Sky's preference. Of course, Sky could just eventually switch off support for all non-MAP-T routers.

From a Sky perspective, if they support users with their own routers without MAP-T, keeping in mind they've got control of the majority of users' routers (either by a natural churn/upgrade cycle giving them MAP-T routers, or by introducing software support for MAP-T in the older Sky hubs), then they've increased their IPv4 'capacity' by a little less than 8x (with a 8:1 default MAP-T sharing ratio). The odd user who wants their own router isn't going to negatively impact the significant uplift in their IPv4 capacity that MAP-T brings Sky.
This is why I commented I suspect you get the old behaviour on 3rd party routers, Sky wont want complaints about single stacked IPv6, its less headache and less technical burden to just have these devices behave as before, like you said they will still be saving almost 7/8 of IP allocation.
 
Correct, especially when it comes to the phone service. In Italy ISPs must provide their customers with all the configuration details, so they can configure the telephone service on their 3rd party routers.
That doesn't apply to UK ISPs AFAIK.
As explained in the PDF documents, MAP-T was the main choice because allowed Sky Italia to comply with 3rd party router regulation.
Yes as far as I understand it they need to support third party routers, but not all of them. If the model you have has or can be upgraded to support MAP-T all is well if not, well you need to switch router.

In the UK just because a third party routers works now, doesn't mean it has to continue too.
 
hadn't heard of map-t either until now. this sucks. but im not using their router anyway. is this on all of sky? I am able to port-forward whatever I want but as mentioned, i'm not using their router. at all.
 
Sponsored Links
I actually think this is a pretty innovate and great piece of piece of tech, if implemented in such a way that eliminates double NATing. Auto assignment of a public IP if not using a MAP-T device would be a great step! As others have said, many won’t budge from the ISP supplied router, so the impact of public IP availability for the few who do is negligible.
 
I'm not sure it matters much to Sky if a small minority of customers chose to use routers that don't support MAP-T.

For the user, they'd either end up allocated a dual-stack IPv4/v6 configuration as today, and that's just one of the IPv4 addresses Sky can't share with other users, or they end up with IPv6 only depending on Sky's preference. Of course, Sky could just eventually switch off support for all non-MAP-T routers.

From a Sky perspective, if they support users with their own routers without MAP-T, keeping in mind they've got control of the majority of users' routers (either by a natural churn/upgrade cycle giving them MAP-T routers, or by introducing software support for MAP-T in the older Sky hubs), then they've increased their IPv4 'capacity' by a little less than 8x (with a 8:1 default MAP-T sharing ratio). The odd user who wants their own router isn't going to negatively impact the significant uplift in their IPv4 capacity that MAP-T brings Sky.
Frankly if you want a static IP address you probably aren’t going to be a target of Sky for a customer. Me personally I’d rather just go somewhere that offers it, as opposed to trying to bodge something together with 3rd party kit.
 
True. I think Sky have become a little more tolerant of third party routers. When I used one there was no need for any extracting of usernames and passwords like I believe there used to be.
It used to actually be in their terms and conditions that you had to use their router. I never did in the 13 years I had connectivity from them but they never stopped me or made any fuss. If I needed support I’d drop the Sky router back in for that period only. Often times if something went wrong it was something I had done, so having their router was a useful troubleshooting step to help rule out whatever I had done to the network.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6024)
  2. BT (3638)
  3. Politics (2720)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2143)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1899)
  10. 4G (1813)
  11. Virgin Media (1762)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1404)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules