Giga Hub 2.0: PPPoE passthrough/2nd PPPoE session capped (average 330 Mbps) on 3 Gbps plan

[Velaris]

Hello,

I'm on a 3 Gbps plan and I'm seeing a repeatable/hard throughput cap only when using PPPoE on a downstream device (PPPoE passthrough / second session).

My setup:

- Bell Giga Hub 2.0
- Downstream router: UniFi Cloud Gateway Fiber (UCG-Fiber) connected to the Giga Hub 10G port

What works:

- If the UCG-Fiber WAN is set to DHCP (e.g. behind the Giga Hub 2.0/double NAT), I can reach full speed (~3 Gbps).
- If my PC is behind the Giga Hub 2.0 on DHCP, my PC (1GbE NIC) reaches the expected ~1 Gbps.

The problem (reproducible):

When I establish a PPPoE session from a device behind the Giga Hub, throughput is capped around ~300–330 Mbps.

Repro 1: PPPoE from UCG-Fiber

- UCG-Fiber WAN set to PPPoE using my b1 credentials
- Result: ~300–330 Mbps (repeatable), despite 3 Gbps plan

Repro 2: PPPoE from a Windows PC (bypassing UCG-Fiber)

- PC connected by Ethernet to the Giga Hub 2.0
- PC NIC: 1GbE, cable: Cat6A
- Created a Windows "Broadband (PPPoE)" connection using the same b1 credentials
- Result: same cap at ~300–330 Mbps (repeatable)

Because the same cap occurs even when PPPoE is established directly from a PC (*no* UniFi router involved), it points to the Giga Hub 2.0 PPPoE passthrough / secondary PPPoE session path rather than my router.

Can you confirm:

- Is this a known issue on the Giga Hub 2.0 (firmware-related)?
- Is there a firmware update or hardware replacement option to resolve PPPoE passthrough speed caps?

Thanks

[MrCaspan]

Show how did you do this did you just overwrite Lease times because this is a know bug in V1 & V2 of the hub? or did you just set a static IP address? I have deep understanding of networking just FYI do this for a living so feel free to be detailed 🙂

[dks]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It took a while to figure out, but it is possible to make ADMZ work properly, at full speed, without network drops or re-connections. But you need a higher level of router than what you can purchase off the shelf at Best Buy. 

No special hardware required, but a deep understanding of network topology and routing is an asset.

---

This is a core truth. 99% of Bell's customers do not have a deep understanding of network topology, routing and other networking issues. They want a plug and play solution. To expect a different level of service and concomitant support is not realistic in Bell's service model. There have been such services offered in the past, but they are known mostly by word of mouth, if they even still exist. The closest might be eBox, which is owned by Bell. 

[Gio1234]

ScratchMang, I would love your guidance as I’ve been struggling to figure this out, I have the UCG Fiber that I’m hoping is more than capable.

[MrCaspan]

Very well said @Anonymous this is exactly the answer Bell please listen to this as this is exactly what we need!

[vscenic]

Hi ScratchMang, I’ve been using the unifi platform for several years. I’d be interested in your solution.

Thank you for your help.

[N2Narcosis]

Because you haven't shared the steps here? Your comment saying your solution was on reddit seems to no longer be here but I have a copy in my email.

It can be found here:

"For those having issues with the aDMZ on their GigaHub 2.0

One solution, that has proven to work, is to configure 192.168.2.1 as onlink, meaning the router treats it as directly reachable through the WAN interface despite the subnet mismatch. OPNsense and pfSense call this Far Gateway and can easily be configured in the GUI. UniFi gateways, however, do not expose an onlink or Far Gateway option.

The reported UniFi workaround is to create two static routes:

Bell ADMZ Route 1

Destination Network: 0.0.0.0/1

Type: Interface

Interface: WAN

Distance: 1

Bell ADMZ Route 2

Destination Network: 128.0.0.0/1

Type: Interface

Interface: WAN

Distance: 1

Leave the UniFi WAN connection configured for DHCP.

Together, these routes cover the entire IPv4 address space and force traffic directly through the WAN interface, bypassing UniFi’s inability to use Bell’s off-subnet 192.168.2.1 gateway normally.

Also ensure that your internal network is not using 192.168.2.0/24, as that would conflict with Bell’s gateway network.

I cannot guarantee this will resolve every UniFi configuration, as behaviour may vary between models and firmware versions. My own setup has been extensively tested and is stable using OPNsense, which properly supports onlink through its Far Gateway option. The two-route configuration should accomplish the same objective."

Works great on my Express 7. Thank you for figuring this out.

[MrCaspan]

Very well said.. Let hope this forum stay open to ideas and thoughts. As another person with over 30 years experience in IT and even before I was even paid to do IT.. this type of behavior pushes the real experts away that understand and want to help Bell with these solutions. If this is not the correct place let us know so our experience and wisdom can be put to use if we want to help solve a problem.

I have an ENTIRE blog devoted to helping others when others said things could not be done or let's not talk about this or that. I was also sick of being told it can't be done by the echo chamber of support. We put a lot of time and effort into our support that is taken for granted or ignored while the next users modem just hums along because of the hard work of a few.

Open communication is the ONLY way to do this!

Let's hope this forum keep open to new ideas and thoughts that might differ!

[YIPay]

Hey,

Just coming from telus land in BC and this weirdness with not being able to setup and use my own routers has thrown me a bit. I live in a relatively big house where the giga hub has reach issues. I had initially done a cursory research and thought PPPoE would work and ordered a set of TP Link's Deco 7s. Admittedly I have limited networking know how, so wanted to check, is there a way to get your setup to work with my new routers or is it a lost cause and I should return them. 

EDIT: I have the 3 gig connection, Giga hub 2.0 with fw 3.11.3.1

[MrCaspan]

It looks like that router only has 2.5 Gbs Copper on them on them unless you have the elite models for fibre. what exact models do you have as there are tons of options either way IMO

[Vanadiel]

Setting up your DECO system in AP mode should work fine. They do not need bridge mode or ADMZ mode when using it in AP mode.

DECO AP mode. 

[YIPay]

Sorry, I should have clarified. Ultimately I do want to use the decos as full routers and remove GigaHub from the picture as much as possible.

[YIPay]

I have BE77.

It has 1xSPF+, 1x10G port, 1x2.5G and 1x1G port

[yokushka]

That one is not working well on UCG-Fiber, no need to explain why.

[dg6464]

I've been quiet for a bit just testing the various options out.

I have to say that by far... the simplest solution has been just using a plain old DHCP WAN on my firewall/router (OPNsense) alongside standard DMZ on the Bell Gigahub (not Advanced DMZ), with a DHCP reservation on the Bell Gigahub for the IP given to the WAN interface of the firewall/router.

I initially thought this would cause issues due to double-NAT, but I just kept all of the NAT rules / port-forwards on my OPNsense that existed whilst using my PPPoE setup for external services, Xbox, Nintendo, etc.

I have had zero issues thus far for over 3 weeks. I have full symmetrical 3Gbps speed, zero connectivity issues, Open NAT on all gaming platforms, no issues from externally-facing services.

This is definitely the interim method I would recommend to anyone experiencing issues with PPPoE on their own router/firewall whilst all users wait for the new .3 or .4 firmware revisions. It's simple. It works. No messing around with poorly-implemented PPPoE passthrough or poorly-implemented ADMZ due to modem firmware that probably should have had this solved considering the massive amount of in-field time these modems have had (at least Gigahub 1.0) and millions of users to pull testing data from.

[YIPay]

thanks, I will probably start of slow with AP -> pppoe -> then ONT level.