BTW, I have a weitd problem with my Mikrotik/Buffalo combo - dropped a PM to both you and rizvanrp

Mind to share the problem with Mikrotik?

Well I really don't mind whatever IP they assign as long as TM can provide the intended service speed.
My problem is whenever I'm on 175.x it is totally unstable & slow, cannot even open page properly, sometime even worst than Streamyx.
The download/upload speed between 0.8~2.5MB only, I'll never get more than 3MB on my VIP5.

But after I keep disconnect & connect again until I get 110.x then the speed straight away back to normal.
The exact same situation happen to my friend in Kepong.

Previously a TM CS officer did explain by right the 175.x should provide equal speed as 110.x but somehow they are facing problem to assign 175.x at my area.
The funny thing is, after the total black-out last week and my letter to MCMC, I'm having a 110.x IP for almost 4 days already without disconnection.
So, how do we explain this?

Again, I'm quite sure, there are many customers out there who hit the same problem, if we continue to keep silent about this, we'll forever complain and TM will forever tell us "we have network problem" as their de-facto generic response to close the case for good.

I'm not familiar with those IPv4 / IPv6 things, it seem like very soon that all the 4.3 billions IPv4 addresses will be completely run out by end 2011.
Perhaps TM already run low on IPs now, whether TM has deployed or get ready IPv6 or not, they should address this business issue & plan upfront first, rather than simply assign customer back to some old Streamyx IP pool without proper bandwidth arrangement & adjustment.

And let's see how much TM is going to boom us again to migrate to IPv6 later on .....

Mind to share the problem with Mikrotik?

Oh, I was referring to the SpeedTest.net result.
If I'm on 110.x I can get around 4.8Mb/s down/up and uTorrent can go around 550kb/s down/up
But once on 175.x can never go near these speed.

Seriously, the problem isnt with Mikrotik. Something has changed in Unifi's network after the big outage

Pre-configured Mikrotk/Buffalo which was running well for months before the Dec 8 outage wasnt able to reconnect after Unifi recovered.

Unifi Techs came and exchanged a new DLink 615 v2 - which was able to connect on first try.

Initially I thought there was something wrong with my Mikrotik/Buffalo combo but tonight I found out the issue.
I reconfigured my Buffalo to have WAN with VLAN tagging 500. and immediately was able to connect

This is regardless if I set Mikrotik to "always strip" or "add if missing"

Maybe I made a mistake somewhere - but I am pretty sure Mikrotik was "always strip" before the big outage and I didnt need the Buffalo to PPPOE over VLAN 500.
Now I need to use VLAN 500 on my Buffalo and basically any port mirrored on the Mikrotik.

IPTV on VLAN600 still requires "always strip"

For what it's worth ,  at least its working now and I am able to dump the DLINK 615v2

Will check more tomorrow - and will even try to update my Mikrotik RB250GS to firmware 1.3 and retry.

My point is that whether an IP address range is Unifi or Streamyx or something else range is entirely their decision, nothing we can do. And due to available free IPv4 addresses running out, the ranges we get will be even more confusing than now. I predict that we'll see private IP addresses with CGNAT in 2011 starting with mobile broadband services. Public IPv4 addresses will probably become a paid option in 2012.

TM has always been very poor in terms of providing consistent routing within their IP ranges since the early days of Streamyx, don't expect a simple MCMC complain will make any difference to their persistent network issues.

I just tested on my RB250GS (SwOS 1.2) with Buffalo WHR-G300N (PPPoE without any tagging), both internet and IPTV are ok.
Later I upgraded it to SwOS 1.3 tested again also no problem at all.

So I think something wrong on your RB250GS.....

My setup as follows:

BTU[LAN1] --> [LAN1]RB250GS[LAN4] --> [WAN]WHR-G300N
..........................................[LAN5] --> IPTV






If you wish to run dd-wrt on your router (only Ralink or Atheros chip), you may create vlan?.500 tagging and plug-in directly to BTU.
For IPTV, you may follow Riz's guide to configure as bridge for IPTV only.
So you don't really need the RB250GS.

Seriously, the problem isnt with Mikrotik. Something has changed in Unifi's network after the big outage

Pre-configured Mikrotk/Buffalo which was running well for months before the Dec 8 outage wasnt able to reconnect after Unifi recovered.

Unifi Techs came and exchanged a new DLink 615 v2 - which was able to connect on first try.

Initially I thought there was something wrong with my Mikrotik/Buffalo combo but tonight I found out the issue.
I reconfigured my Buffalo to have WAN with VLAN tagging 500. and immediately was able to connect

This is regardless if I set Mikrotik to "always strip" or "add if missing"

Maybe I made a mistake somewhere - but I am pretty sure Mikrotik was "always strip" before the big outage and I didnt need the Buffalo to PPPOE over VLAN 500.
Now I need to use VLAN 500 on my Buffalo and basically any port mirrored on the Mikrotik.

IPTV on VLAN600 still requires "always strip"

For what it's worth ,  at least its working now and I am able to dump the DLINK 615v2

Will check more tomorrow - and will even try to update my Mikrotik RB250GS to firmware 1.3 and retry.

I was planning to upgrade to VIP5. Is the capping effective yet? I'm heavy downloader, what happened if I exceed the 60gb usage? TM will capped my bandwidth or charged me for extra usage?

If both your DIR-615v2 and Buffalo can connect directly, this already rules out a configuration change on their side (router MAC address filtering?). It's likely an issue with your RB250 configuration.. redo the configuration (double check the port forwarding and VLAN setting -- http://unifi.athena.my/mikrotik_rb250gs.html ). If you need to set VLAN500 on the Buffalo, the Mikrotik is not doing its job. And when you want to test the RB250 again, plug your PC directly into the port and use the operating system PPPoE dialer.

Your last option would be to enable port mirroring and manually analyze the PPPoE discovery -> logon sequence using wireshark.

im pretty sure capped u.

First of all I would like to thank rizvanrp for his work on setting up the RB250 for use with your existing/favorite wireless router. I've purchased the RB250 (fw1.3) and using his article to setup the RB250 and running 24/7 for the last 3 weeks without any problem. I concour with him, if you need to setup Vlan500 on your router, RB250 is not configured correctly. Mind you not all routers can setup vlan and you should use only PPoE dialer on your router if you are using the Mikrotik else why purchase the latter?

Why use the mikrotik setup, some may ask? Well the Dlink615 is a melon, it runs hot and wireless signal is very poor and variable. I'm using my old Dlink 655 and also the TPLink941, both runs cool and give very good wifi signal getting 3-4 bars downstairs when the 615 hardly gives 2 bars. I can confidently run the mikrotik and BTU 24/7. I can also use my old Dlink 600 configured to run DDwrt and using its PPoE dialer.

Cheers

If both your DIR-615v2 and Buffalo can connect directly, this already rules out a configuration change on their side (router MAC address filtering?). It's likely an issue with your RB250 configuration.. redo the configuration (double check the port forwarding and VLAN setting -- http://unifi.athena.my/mikrotik_rb250gs.html ). If you need to set VLAN500 on the Buffalo, the Mikrotik is not doing its job. And when you want to test the RB250 again, plug your PC directly into the port and use the operating system PPPoE dialer.

Your last option would be to enable port mirroring and manually analyze the PPPoE discovery -> logon sequence using wireshark.

Agree with you. I've been using the RB250GS for the last 2 - 3 months and never once the switch hanged or something like that. Since you have both the TPLink941 and DLink 655, both of which I am considering to buy, could you comment which is more stable and which gives better throughput? Thanks.