@RHstats Your setup is actually still fully supportable (from a Rogers perspective) because your XB6 is in Gateway mode and your Xi6 STB's are connected to the XB6, either directly or through the Pods. (In some ways, it's even more so because with your separate private network, your own connected devices are on a different network segment from the Ignite TV STB's.)
The configuration becomes "unsupportable" when you put the XB6 into Bridge Mode and connect the Xi6 STB's through your own router. The support techs won't be able to run full diagnostics from their end and the firewall in the customer-owned router will block their tools from polling the STBs directly.
With my own setup, if I should run into a serious problem, the first thing that I need to do is confirm that the problem replicates in a supportable configuration. (In some cases, a problem duplicating with different setups has even been helpful in the past because we are able to eliminate the XB6 as a contributing factor.)
@RHstats the problem with your current configuration is the double NAT situation. As long as you're not running some high speed application, or possibly gaming, you probably won't notice the double NAT situation. If you have a requirement for high speed applications, or gaming, or port forwarding across the modem and router, then you could run into problems. So, just pointing out, yes, you can run a router behind a modem that is running in Gateway mode. I do that for test purposes when I run a ping test thru the modem, looking for any latency issues. But, its not an ideal configuration so I don't leave the modem in Gateway mode after completing any latency tests.
On the plus side, the network that runs behind your router can't be seen by the Rogers techs, so that configuration does provide privacy for your network. For many users, that is a primary concern.
Double-NAT is an issue and the router also won't get much IPv6 address space. I didn't want to point this out since the setup is working for @RHstats but this is a setup that I would want to avoid, despite it being fully-supported by Rogers.
@-G- Frankly, the double NAT doesn’t bother me. As you say, the set-up works for me and I don’t have any gamers in the house anymore. To tell the truth I’m not an expert, just self-taught with enough knowledge to be able to set up and trouble shoot my router and local networking issues. So what are the issues that I need to be aware of with a double NAT?
@RHstats there are a couple of issues that come to mind;
1. there will be a small delay added by going thru the front end modem, but we're only talking about 1 milli-second or so, according to what I've read.
2. port forwarding could be a problem for any application that requires it, and that could include VOIP phones. Normally, if you have UPNP enabled in a modem or router and that modem or router is the singular device that faces the internet, any local device on your network that demands specific ports forwarded to its LAN IP address will be accommodated by the modem or router automatically. When you have a modem or other router in front of the (second) router, there is no guarantee that the front end modem or router will properly forward the required ports to the second router. This is where the fun starts when you have to forward ports to the second router and then to the device. If that ever comes up, in the modem, assign a static address to the router and then set the port forwarding rules, pointing to the router. In the router, point the port forwarding rules toward the device that requires the forwarded ports. Will this work in practice? Good question. I don't know of anyone who runs port forwarding across two devices, but, if it comes up, give it a try.
If you log into the modem and router, check the UPNP status. If UPNP is enabled, you should see existing port forwarding rules which would have been generated by UPNP. Personally, I've never allowed UPNP to run, and I've never had any issues by not putting port forwarding rules in place. While UPNP does have its uses, it can also be used by malicious applications without the users knowledge which is why I won't let UPNP run on its own. If any application requires forwarded ports, I'll do that myself so that I know what rules are in place and why.
@-G- Frankly, the double NAT doesn’t bother me. As you say, the set-up works for me and I don’t have any gamers in the house anymore. So what are the issues that I need to be aware of with a double NAT?
NAT (Network Address Translation) is trick that your Router/Firewall performs that allows multiple devices on your home network (with private IPv4 addresses) to share a single public IPv4 address (allocated to you by your ISP) and is what actually enables them to connect to systems on the Internet. NAT causes problems for some applications. If you have multiple Router/Firewalls in your network path that perform Network Address Translation, the problems compound and this can sometimes totally break some applications. (If you search the Internet for "Double NAT", you'll see many articles on the topic.)
If all that you are doing is casual web browsing, email, watching YouTube/Netflix and other similar mundane, ordinary tasks, then NAT and Double-NAT are not a problem. Even applications such as FaceTime and Skype can generally can deal with it. However, Double NAT can definitely break applications that have problems with NAT traversal to begin with, such as VPN clients and some VoIP protocols, and can also break applications that either use UPnP or require the configuration of special firewall rules that allow network connections from Internet hosts to systems on your internal private network.