jimbstars
@emc.com
| reply to EG
Re: 3 Years of Upload Dropping - Severe Packet Loss
EG,
Yes you could be right. I still have a SB2100 modem -- could be that one is more sensitive to high signal level perhaps??
Albie's problem with downloading test just stalling in mid-stream sure sounds familiar vis a vis my old problem. In my case you could see the modem lights wink out and restart etc.
Albie, what did the tech's say about possible too high signal level?? Anything?? Then again I imagine they are trained that a high signal is a good signal -- no matter how high it might be.
On my low sign problem I had my neighbor across the street run the signal webpage on her modem and it showed up as -5 dbmv. I was jealous of her good signal level.... |
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
| reply to albie81
Got me to thinking... and I read another recent thread here where someone was talking about modem signal levels, and that directed me to the FAQs regarding this issue, so I decided to compare my modem levels, to the recommended levels.
They are as follows:
Downstream
Power Level: +10dBmV (Modem) vs. -10 to +10 Recommended
Looks like I am at the upper end of what is Recommended, but still within "Acceptable" limits.
Signal to Noise Ratio QAM256: 37 dB (Modem) vs. At least 33 or higher Recommended
Once again, this appears to be in the acceptable range.
Upstream
Power Level: +41 dBmV (Modem) vs. +35 to +52 Recommended
This also looks like it's right in the middle of what is the recommended ranges.
As I read that, all the Modem levels are within reasonable limits.
Am I correct about that???
I am so confused now.
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
| reply to jimbstars
said by jimbstars :
Then again I imagine they are trained that a high signal is a good signal -- no matter how high it might be.
I don't believe that is correct..
On my low sign problem I had my neighbor across the street run the signal webpage on her modem and it showed up as -5 dbmv. I was jealous of her good signal level....
I'd rather see it at +5dB to consider it as good, but that's just me.
-5dB is weaker but still in spec. I like stronger as the lesser of 2 evils.
Zero is ideal.
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to albie81
Please try the following two commands and note the "(x% loss)" statistic from each:
ping -t 10 www.comcast.net
ping -l 1460 -t 10 www.comcast.net
Each should take about 10 seconds to complete. Both test should return 0% loss.
If the second test shows a lot more loss than the first test, that means that larger packets are either getting clobbered or corrupted. Since it even affected your set-top box, this has to be a problem upstream from your cable-modem (but may still involve an amp or leak on your property).
If they saw it on the curb (which I think you said they seemed to see it at one time at the curb), then it would be upstream of your property.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
|
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
1 edit | reply to albie81
why does this happen?
C:\>ping -l 45332 -t www.comcast.net
Pinging a1526.g.akamai.net [204.2.196.98] with 45332 bytes of data:
Reply from 204.2.196.98: bytes=45332 time=316ms TTL=57
Reply from 204.2.196.98: bytes=45332 time=301ms TTL=57
Reply from 204.2.196.98: bytes=45332 time=309ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 204.2.196.98:
Packets: Sent = 3, Received = 3, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 301ms, Maximum = 316ms, Average = 308ms
and then... i ping again, with ONE more byte of data....
C:\>ping -l 45333 -t www.comcast.net
Pinging a1526.g.akamai.net [204.2.199.64] with 45333 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 204.2.199.64:
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 0, Lost = 5 (100% loss),
I can't ping anything higher than 45332 bytes of data. anything less, and i have no loss, anything higher and it's 100% loss. is there something I don't know about there? I thought the limit for pinging was in the 65k's.......
any tests I get this morning, aren't going to be significant anyway... because my connection seems OK this morning... I will try later... my problem at times is sporadic.
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| beats me, but what you are doing is kinda insane. The results could be some kind of anti-attack reponse. Some intermediate device is tripping out due to "ping flood" or some similar security concern.
Further, without the anti-fragement flag set (-f, I think), I don't know if such results are useful for troubleshooting your problem since we have no idea how the packets are being manipulated along the way.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
|
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
1 edit | which would be the best way to test it then?
i've been using primarily the dslreports line quality testing tool for packet loss, which keeps showing heavy loss between 14% and 90%.
For what it's worth, Comcast is really busting their butt to help me now. A rep from the Executive office in NJ has contacted me, as well as a rep from the Executive office in Philadelphia. And they have been helpful thus far.
I am hopeful that my problem may finally have complete resolution. But I suppose only time will tell.
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Use the tests that show the results in the most reliable way.
My objection to your large packets test is that the packet sizes cause packet fragmentation which is outside of your control. For tests to be trustworthy, they need to be well understood and adding such length adds elements of doubt. And since we're seeing such jumbo packets on ICMP (which is really not much of a user protocol), I don't know what today's networking products are likely to do with them.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
|
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
| Pinging a1526.g.akamai.net [64.86.184.128] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Reply from 64.86.184.128: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 64.86.184.128:
Packets: Sent = 25, Received = 20, Lost = 5 (20% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 136ms, Average = 22ms
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
| not posting this whole one, because i let it run a long time:
Reply from 209.234.252.83: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=57
Reply from 209.234.252.83: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=57
Reply from 209.234.252.83: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
Reply from 209.234.252.83: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=57
Reply from 209.234.252.83: bytes=32 time=704ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 209.234.252.83:
Packets: Sent = 556, Received = 399, Lost = 157 (28% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 3929ms, Average = 79ms
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | That tells me that it doesn't even have anything to do with packet size. It sounds like they're taking you seriously now -- let's let the process work. |
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
| Well,
There's another tech coming out tonight.
And a new user here on dslreports named "comcastbill" contacted me, and turns out, he is the real deal: works for Executive Support in the Philadelphia office (which is about 25 minutes from my house) and he has taken a personal interest in my case. He has requested that I contact him regarding the outcome of tonight's tech visit, to either confirm a resolution, or see how much higher up the tech-knowledge chain of command he needs to go, to get my issue resolved.
Comcast is really reaching out to me now to get this resolved, and I do much appreciate that. I got someone's attention, that's for sure. Should have done this a long time ago, and maybe I never would have gotten this upset.
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
dailu
Premium
join:2003-12-03
Mystic, CT
| reply to albie81
Albie 81,
I just have to commend you on your ability to handle all of this and still maintain a sense of decency. Your situation is truly one from hell.
After Comcast inherited a bunch of those old AT&T routers out in Denver, I started seeing 20-30% packet loss from my connection here in CT, while gaming on Seattle Xbox live servers. Gaming is really an interesting way to get a feel for your connection because when it's not right, it's so obvious. I don't mean Latency, because I play regularly with people in Europe so I know what 200-300 ms pings do to games, but packet loss has another feel all together especially if you're playing a shooter game.
At any rate I just wanted to mention that I have a small understanding of what you're going through, but I doubt that I would have been able to deal with it as you have. I hope the best for you. I have friends who work for Comcast, and I know them to be professional in their work ethic, and they're smart as hell too. I don't think any of the local Comcast service guys compare to my buddies out of state, but maybe you'll get a good tech at some point and get sorted out..
Please let the forum know one way or another. I'm very interested to see if Comcast resolves this, and how they resolve it. If Verizon was offering FIOS in your area, it'd be a no brain-er and you could try another service provider, but some area's don't offer much competition.
Best of luck to you. Maybe you'll even be able to start some gaming, and get your VOIP fired up again.
Dailu |
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
1 edit | Thanks dailu... i see you can understand my pain...
Ao.....
Another tech came out last night.... and he walked in the door, looked at me and said "So, what's the problem?"
I can't blame HIM, but.... he didn't have the slightest idea WHY he was being sent to my house. So, as much fun as it is to do, I had to explain the whole problem... again.... answer the same 20 questions.... again.... *sigh*
I'm sure he was a good tech, and just didn't get a good explanation as to why he was coming out to my house, for a repeat service call. Although, I don't understand how Comcast expects to diagnose and fix the problem, if they leave it up to me... the not-so-knowledgeable customer, to try to pick up the pieces and bring their own techs up to speed every time someone new gets involved. I really kind of just want anyone from Comcast who even thinks about looking into my issue, to read this thread. It will save me from having to re-explain my issues a hundred different times.
It was interesting though... the tech mentioned that Comcast now offers 16mbps service, and i should think about looking into getting that. I was speechless...... as an aside... I was kind of surprised that the tech didn't know what I was talking about when i mentioned "VoIP." He was confused by that term, so I said "Voice Over IP".... again nothing. I had to explain out "Telephone over Internet" before he said.. "OOOOOhhhhhhhh...."
So needless to say, the problem was not diagnosed, nor resolved last night. Even with everything I just posted above, I can't blame the tech for that, because while he was here, the problem was not really present.
But this morning: (32byte ping - www.comcast.net)
Ping statistics for 8.15.32.24:
Packets: Sent = 177, Received = 140, Lost = 37 (20% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 3985ms, Average = 106ms
Ping statistics for 207.138.82.63:
Packets: Sent = 364, Received = 265, Lost = 99 (27% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 2099ms, Average = 53ms
Ping statistics for 165.254.127.81:
Packets: Sent = 62, Received = 50, Lost = 12 (19% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 3497ms, Average = 104ms
And here is a line test from this morning as well: »/linequality/nil/2408807
Sorry for posting so many tests and pings... but, I'm trying to keep this whole thing as documented as possible right now.
Well, time to call Support again I suppose.
EDIT: Don't know what it means, but I see this in the Logs for my modem:
3-Critical R02.0 No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
mike12806
Premium
join:2007-08-28
Milton, MA
 ·Comcast
| reply to albie81
If he has an amp installed, could it be that the amp is not letting his upstream signals through? I have an amp, but made sure it was "suitable for HSI and digital cable". It would make sense, considering his relatively high downstream power level. I know I've read on here somewhere that amps can and do interfere with HSI and digital cable because they impede the upstream signals..... |
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
| reply to albie81
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=53
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=53
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=25ms TTL=53
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 209.170.118.16: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=53
Ping statistics for 209.170.118.16:
Packets: Sent = 78, Received = 54, Lost = 24 (30% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 2819ms, Average = 102ms
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=22ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=24ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=24ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=21ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=22ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=21ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=22ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=22ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=22ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=22ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.15.32.24: bytes=512 time=23ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 8.15.32.24:
Packets: Sent = 114, Received = 82, Lost = 32 (28% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 713ms, Average = 37ms
--
"What happens when the clock reaches 999?"........ "Nothing. You just suck." |
|
gar187er
Premium Alcoholic
join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE | reply to albie81
i would love to take my 860 plug into the ground block, run my ping test and smile, as i cant imagine this issue being a line problem.... |
|
albie81
Premium
join:2005-01-04
Mount Laurel, NJ
| said by gar187er  : i cant imagine this issue being a line problem.... care to expound? |
|
CT3
@comcast.net
| reply to mike12806
said by mike12806 :If he has an amp installed, could it be that the amp is not letting his upstream signals through? I have an amp, but made sure it was "suitable for HSI and digital cable". It would make sense, considering his relatively high downstream power level. I know I've read on here somewhere that amps can and do interfere with HSI and digital cable because they impede the upstream signals..... Most amps just allow the signal to pass without active assistance. So it is unlikely [though possible] unless the amp has gone bad. Some amps are bidirectional and amplify the return signal helping the modem in cases where there are too many splitters, or too long of a run of cable to get back to the plant.
albie, take an extension cord, plug the modem in at the cable on the side of the house where it comes in, if it continues to do this, the problem is before your house wiring or the modem itself. If it stops, the problem is after the drop.
recommendation if it continues swap modem, at cable store or force next tech to and try it again or have him try it. |
|
CT3
@comcast.net
| reply to albie81
said by albie81 :said by gar187er : i cant imagine this issue being a line problem.... care to expound? I believe he is being factitious. |
|
