dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
33087
share rss forum feed


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to swalker

Re: [Connectivity] New SB6120/6121 Firmware Released

Interesting! I reviewed my modem logs for the past 30 days, and I can confirm that I've ONLY seen a power level higher than 52dB on upstream channels using QAM16 modulation. Those using QAM64 appear to top out at about 51dB for me. So thanks for pointing me to that information -- I appreciate being corrected and learning something! (Looks like the DSLR/BBR FAQ should be updated to reflect this too, at least as far as when bonding on DS3.0 is in use).

The bug/issue andyross See Profile was experiencing in that thread looks like it should be fixed in 1.0.6.8 (2nd bulletpoint of section 8.1.2 of the release notes posted by DrDrew See Profile); meaning the modem shouldn't continually reboot in that situation any longer.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

bman212121

join:2005-06-09

That's interesting koitsu. That would definitely explain why it T4's faster than I thought it should. (Was thinking 52db max because the QAM16 would show that)

The one thing I'm not sure if it was addressed or not was when I had even better signal levels than I do now my modem would "runaway" and T4. I would start at 44dBmV on all of the channels and it would creep up to 48dBmV. From there it would either go up to 51dBmV and time out or come back down to normal levels. 7dBmV is a lot of swing and might have indicated another issue they were having.



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

Agreed -- 7dB is a very big delta. I imagine some of the techs here on the forum might have some ideas as to how things could start at 44 then eventually "settle" at 51. I personally haven't ever seen that, but I totally believe you, and would love to know how that kind of thing manifests itself (or if it's normal at that). Always interested to learn more about cable tech!
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL

My rough theory is that the modem may not be cleanly transmitting and some noise could be leaking between channels, causing issues at the CMTS.



Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5

join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
reply to koitsu

Perhaps this 6121 datasheet helps... »www.motorola.com/web/Business/Pr···heet.pdf



Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3
reply to travelguy

Any word from anyone else seeing the new firmware?



Oregonian
Premium
join:2000-12-21
West Linn, OR

Nothing so far.



DisturbedDan

join:2005-10-19
Oak Lawn, IL
reply to travelguy

Is 1.0.6.6 the new firmware for sb6121? I'm pretty sure I didn't have that version a week ago, since I never had the open source tab on my modem page. Connection was out for 2 hours last night and went down earlier this morning for a minute or two.


ExoticFish

join:2008-08-31
Stuarts Draft, VA

1.0.6.6 was released a while ago. 1.0.6.8 is what this thread is about.
--
»www.VAJeeps.com



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:5
reply to DisturbedDan

said by DisturbedDan:

Is 1.0.6.6 the new firmware for sb6121? I'm pretty sure I didn't have that version a week ago, since I never had the open source tab on my modem page. Connection was out for 2 hours last night and went down earlier this morning for a minute or two.

The 1.0.6.6 version of firmware was released by Comcast starting back in July: »SB6120 Firmware Updated (7/19/12)


pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1
reply to travelguy

nothing over here either..
still on Firmware Name: SB612X-1.0.3.3-SCM00-NOSH


travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
reply to DisturbedDan

said by DisturbedDan:

Is 1.0.6.6 the new firmware for sb6121?

As has been posted 1068 is currently being tested by a limited number of subscribers. It addresses some of the channel bonding issues introduced in 1066, which was widely deployed a few months ago.


DisturbedDan

join:2005-10-19
Oak Lawn, IL
reply to travelguy

Ah.... my fault. I didn't read something fully.



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to Mike Wolf

I'm currently helping Comcast test 1.0.6.8. I imagine it may be deployed in the field to very, very small/specific areas, otherwise if outside those areas it has to be done manually/on a per-customer basis.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


ExoticFish

join:2008-08-31
Stuarts Draft, VA

What makes you think that ?
--
»www.VAJeeps.com



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

said by ExoticFish:

What makes you think that ?

Because the user mentioned here is not in the same area I am, and it's fairly likely this user did not go to Comcast and ask to test a new firmware version. So there must be small "test regions" in the field.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
reply to pokesph

said by pokesph:

nothing over here either..
still on Firmware Name: SB612X-1.0.3.3-SCM00-NOSH

Have you rebooted your modem recently?

travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

If you are currently on 1033, I wouldn't do anything to try to get 1066. For that matter, Comcast may have suspended deployment of 1066, but I still wouldn't force a reboot.


andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL

There is no proof that the firmware update actually caused problems. I still wonder how many started having problems because they didn't start bonding upstream until after the firmware update and the reboot that requires. Just because Comcast started offering upstream bonding doesn't mean the modem will automatically start using it. You have to reboot it to get enable it.


travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

True. However, I know in my case I was seeing 50/5 with bonded down/up channels on 1033. When 1066 was pushed, I dropped to 20/1.5. Still seeing bonded down channels, but only a single uplink channel. 1088 restored the downlink speed back to 50, and I'm seeing 2 functional uplink channels, but uplink speed is stuck on 1.5.


IndyGamer

join:2012-09-26

Was going to get one of these modems today.

Should I get a zoom instead?

My old 5120 always been reliable but firmware never updated either as far as I know.


ExoticFish

join:2008-08-31
Stuarts Draft, VA

I'd go with the Zoom.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to travelguy

I have a Moto6120 and I'm happy with it.
BUT based on the current Zoom "J" price, IF I was buying today, I'd seriously try to find one (I prefer local shopping whenever possible) nearby.
You can always rent for a few months to see what happens, or buy now a replace it next year, if something better shows up.


travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
reply to ExoticFish

said by ExoticFish:

I'd go with the Zoom.

I would as well, if only because the Zoom is reported to have the ability to bond more uplink channels than the Motos do, if and when Comcast ever chooses to take advantage of that.

That said, it's not clear if the recent problem reports are due to the Moto firmware, changes on the CMTS side or some combination of things. There was a least one report that a Zoom buyer didn't see any change and ended returning the modem.

IndyGamer

join:2012-09-26

I seen the 8 channel vs 4 channels. Seems that would be more reliable if and when my neighbors leave uverse.

Thanks.



Wayne99021
Premium
join:2004-12-28
Mead, WA
kudos:1

Actually the Motorola SB 6140 is a 8 down 4 up modem just like the Zoom.
I have had that modem for about 6 weeks with no problems at all.



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to IndyGamer

The Zoom 5341J on Comcast (at least in my area) does bond to 8 downstream frequencies/channels. Comcast only offers 8 downstream frequencies (705/717/723/729/735/741/747/753MHz) in my area.

More bonded channels does not mean more reliability. I'm happy to refer you to an issue in my area which is affecting 747 and 753MHz caused by 4G/LTE cellular tower interference -- avoiding use of those frequencies is the only workaround at this time.

Now try to imagine what my experience would be like if I had a Zoom 5341J -- and here's evidence I've actually used one -- I'd be forced to use 747 and 753MHz, which would mean roughly 1/4 (technically 2/8) DOCSIS frames coming down the wire would result in the need for retransmission, which means delays + packet loss.

More bonded channels != more reliability. More bonded channels == more load distribution across multiple frequencies, vs. just banging on one single frequency, and eventually more bandwidth (not throughput/speed, but bandwidth). That's it. I feel sorry for anyone who uses the entire downstream spectrum in their area and has SNR issues on specific frequencies -- there's absolutely nothing the customer can do in the meantime but suffer.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.



Wayne99021
Premium
join:2004-12-28
Mead, WA
kudos:1
reply to Wayne99021

Sorry, That should be 6141 not 6140.



Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to travelguy

Could have been an issue on Comcast's CMTS end that got messed up somehow and got straigtened out during a maintenance cycle. Phantom glitches.


catnapped

join:2010-11-22
Elizabethtown, PA

It is something of concern that there's a T4 that stays on top of the log and keeps changing its time on a refresh of the log page? Seems to update the time mark every 30 seconds. Don't remember if I was seeing that before 1.0.6.6 showed up.