dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
38
smerrikin
join:2011-03-30
Ottawa, ON

smerrikin to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc

Re: Dear Marc...

I agree that it should take awhile for a repair job. Mine is a dhcp error.
Sent the ticket in, 24 hours later they got a reply back from Rogers saying modem firmware isn't compatible. It's a week old dcm476 shipped from teksavvy so I and teksavvy know that the firmware is perfect. Reply sent back to Rogers and now waiting again (12hours now)
First 2 days was the apparent dhcp errors in Ottawa.
I may have to go back to Rogers if they can't fix this in a timely matter as I rely on my Internet for business.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

These DHCP issues are just ridiculous too.

I sent them a list of more then 800 such tickets from last month. They certainly know this is a big problem. This is not the first time we have these issues either.. a year ago we had very similar issues. only difference now is that people aren't offline for weeks.. but only days. either way it's not acceptable.
mlord
join:2006-11-05
Kanata, ON

mlord to smerrikin

Member

to smerrikin
said by smerrikin:

I agree that it should take awhile for a repair job. Mine is a dhcp error.
Sent the ticket in, 24 hours later they got a reply back from Rogers saying modem firmware isn't compatible. It's a week old dcm476 shipped from teksavvy so I and teksavvy know that the firmware is perfect. Reply sent back to Rogers and now waiting again (12hours now)

Took 11 days for a similar issue/resolution here.

Your old modem: what modem/firmware does it have?
If it's the DCM475 with 02.08 on it, then you can get that updated in 20 minutes here for $5 -- makes it useful again as a backup unit, and/or makes it possible to resell it afterward.
smerrikin
join:2011-03-30
Ottawa, ON

smerrikin

Member

My old modem was a sb5100.
Wasn't dead and I kind of regret upgrading. Had it since Rogers started selling them many moons ago.
New one is the 476 with the latest firmware.

Crowbar10
join:2009-06-23
Toronto , ON

Crowbar10 to smerrikin

Member

to smerrikin
said by smerrikin:

I may have to go back to Rogers if they can't fix this in a timely matter as I rely on my Internet for business.

This is exactly what Robbers wants . Also if you're using a residential service for business , you may want a backup just for cases like this ....
jibby
join:2008-03-31

jibby to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

These DHCP issues are just ridiculous too.

I sent them a list of more then 800 such tickets from last month. They certainly know this is a big problem. This is not the first time we have these issues either.. a year ago we had very similar issues. only difference now is that people aren't offline for weeks.. but only days. either way it's not acceptable.

800 tickets in a month just for the DHCP issues? wow, that's insane!

i'm betting 799 of those tickets were closed with 'modem is online' too, lol
smerrikin
join:2011-03-30
Ottawa, ON

smerrikin

Member

I have never had a dhcp error until I upgrade my to a 476. I am regretting buying it and should have not de commissioned my sb5100
My dad (2 blocks away) still has not had an issue with his sb5100 and I just convinced him to never switch. What a waste of money.

HiVolt
Premium Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON

HiVolt

Premium Member

said by smerrikin:

My dad (2 blocks away) still has not had an issue with his sb5100 and I just convinced him to never switch. What a waste of money.

Well, thats all well and good, until Rogers bans all Docsis 2.0 modems from their network one day, including their own customers.

I've never owned a DCM 475/476, I've been on a Motorola SB6120 for 2 years now with TSI (when they first got them) and never had any DHCP issues, for what it's worth... Lucky i guess.
smerrikin
join:2011-03-30
Ottawa, ON

smerrikin

Member

Wondering if its just an issue with Thompson modems?
Anyone having dhcp problems with SB modems?

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy

Premium Member

said by smerrikin:

Wondering if its just an issue with Thompson modems?
Anyone having dhcp problems with SB modems?

This has no effect on the provisioning process...whether its a Thompson modem or an SB modem or a Webstar or whatever kind of modem.

The issue isn't with the modem, the problem is when the modem syncs up and it gets its own IP, then CPE requests an IP, DHCP server goes "Sorry, for your area...no IPs available from the available pool"....

Again, issue is Rogers never really had to worry...they'd manage their own scopes....issue is TSI can't manage their scopes because they don't have any access to the DHCP server in question, otherwise they would see something to the effect of "Scope is almost full, better allocate some more addresses", vs. Rogers who have huge scopes and do a Ron Popeil and set it and forget it because they have ownership of millions of IPs vs TSI and for the most part Rogers doesn't do much looking at the DHCP server because I'm sure its a beast to manage...

So it sucks...it sucks that TSI doesn't really have access to the equipment to manage the problem because I'm sure they'd see it right away and be proactive and assign or reallocate IPs as neccessary....Unfortunately its the downside of the TPIA agreement....

I know TSI has Return on Investment to realize on, but if they realized and just went to the Aggreggated POI, this wouldn't happen at all, because then there would just be 1 scope, vs 1 scope at minimum for each POI and the administrative overhead would go way down....I don't know why they continue to drag their heels on this....because the negative PR and the increased costs in calls to their call centre, weighed vs. going to the Aggregated POI, might show them they'd save some money in the long run....

It costs money each time you call in to them....probably eats up their profit for their customer if they call in just once...I believe in 2007 it was $1.39/minute each time a person called in...between paying for the responding person, + technology, + phone, + building expense, heat, water, hydro, bathroom facilities + depreciation, etc...

Hopefully they've looked at it.
smerrikin
join:2011-03-30
Ottawa, ON

smerrikin

Member

Thanks Nitzguy
Very eye opening for me.
On a good note I just came back online. Slow as molasses but still online

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to nitzguy

Premium Member

to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:

I know TSI has Return on Investment to realize on, but if they realized and just went to the Aggreggated POI, this wouldn't happen at all, because then there would just be 1 scope, vs 1 scope at minimum for each POI and the administrative overhead would go way down....I don't know why they continue to drag their heels on this....because the negative PR and the increased costs in calls to their call centre, weighed vs. going to the Aggregated POI, might show them they'd save some money in the long run....

Nitzguy, I'm not sure where you got that impression from but that's just not true. Aggregated or not, it's the exact same setup.

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy

Premium Member

said by TSI Marc:

said by nitzguy:

I know TSI has Return on Investment to realize on, but if they realized and just went to the Aggreggated POI, this wouldn't happen at all, because then there would just be 1 scope, vs 1 scope at minimum for each POI and the administrative overhead would go way down....I don't know why they continue to drag their heels on this....because the negative PR and the increased costs in calls to their call centre, weighed vs. going to the Aggregated POI, might show them they'd save some money in the long run....

Nitzguy, I'm not sure where you got that impression from but that's just not true. Aggregated or not, it's the exact same setup.

I was basing it on the CRTC tariffs published for connection to each POI....guestimating I guess because I don't know all the variables, but if you had to connect to each POI individually there would be an inherent cost to that (inital setup cost + ongoing monthly cost to maintain each link) would there not?

....Then if its not true, why drag heels and not just move to aggregated POI so you can serve the whole foot print?

If it is the same setup, you'd think that would have been done a long time ago, no?

I was guessing it was a cost issue since it would make no sense to remain dis-aggregated since you have to move to an aggregated POI eventually anyways.....

Sorry if I was completly wrong on this one...just figured it was a $$$ issue.

ChuckcZar
@teksavvy.com

ChuckcZar to smerrikin

Anon

to smerrikin
You better read the Rogers forums on dsl reports. Everyone in Ottawa is also having problems with Rogers. Switching likely won't accomplish anything.
ChuckcZar

ChuckcZar to HiVolt

Anon

to HiVolt
Being a modem tester i also advised everyone to go with the Motorola SB6120 at the time.
amd7674
join:2007-02-19
Nepean, ON

amd7674 to ChuckcZar

Member

to ChuckcZar
said by ChuckcZar :

You better read the Rogers forums on dsl reports. Everyone in Ottawa is also having problems with Rogers. Switching likely won't accomplish anything.

Can you please point me to thread about "everyone in Ottawa" has Rogers problems? I only find one thread with 7 posts in it?

I'm in Nepean (like mlerner) and I don't havy any problems with Distributel using 5120 modem on 18mb service. However my in-laws are down in downtown Ottawa since last Tuesday (8th day today). TSI is sending 2nd Rogers technician this Friday. Last technician said cable signal was good, even was too strong. He even installed 8db attenuator to make signal to be within tolerate specs. He left and said "check your modem in a hour"... the modem still is not working. I tried my 5120 at their house and it doesn't work. However both modems work at my house (Fallowfield POI) Barrhaven. They are on St.Laurent POI.
My friend who is 2 blocks away is on 6120 with Acanac, no issues too.

Not sure what is going on, but it seems Rogers did something to POI (St.Laurent) causing this outage for my in laws. They had perefectly working internet for a year or so, and one day it stopped working... I know the modem is provisioned correctly becasue it works at my house (different POI). Also modem logs shows a lot of DHCP and SYNC errors/warnings... Rogers did something and the 48hrs response time it makes TSI/Distributel/Acanac (all 3rd party) suppliers really BAD... and use customer really frustrated...
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to nitzguy

Premium Member

to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:

....Then if its not true, why drag heels and not just move to aggregated POI so you can serve the whole foot print?

If it is the same setup, you'd think that would have been done a long time ago, no?

I was guessing it was a cost issue since it would make no sense to remain dis-aggregated since you have to move to an aggregated POI eventually anyways.....

It's a dollars issue.
Any ISP on a multi-POI strategy has sunk bundles of money into providing backhaul - money which Rogers will NOT credit toward moving into aggregated POI. So the indie opts to try to return as much as possible on their sunk backhaul costs before moving to aggregated POI. In some (perhaps many) instances, the indie may not breakeven on the individual backhaul circuit costs prior to the CRTC mandated cutover to aggregated POI.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to TSI Marc

Mod

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

Nitzguy, I'm not sure where you got that impression from but that's just not true. Aggregated or not, it's the exact same setup.

The difference between non-aggregated and aggregated POI is the router at which the TPIA traffic is routed off Rogers network ... Aggregated eliminates a few routers at the head end for TPIA traffic ... but it moves them to the aggregated POI ... and makes them huge routers instead!

*IF* Rogers had opted to taken the route of 'Unnaming' hiving off the customer and network IPs onto a "holding" company so that way users wouldn't know from the IP that a customer was Rogers or a TPIA customer, from the IP, and administered all the IPs that way, only identifying them internally, then the problems faced in node splits at the head ends would not have happened.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

What you're talking about is dynamic routing. That's the only difference.

they have dynamic routing for themselves... and static for anybody who's not them. Ip's are assigned via DHCP in any case.. but assigning one of ours relies on a static mapping to exist to know how to get to our routers...

on their end, if they pull a card and remap a node to another part of the network, the dynamic routing just picks up on that and knows how to get out.. for us there's an extra step of making sure the statics are all correct.. removing them from where they were.. and adding them where they now are after a network change.

Dones
join:2008-02-14
Toronto, ON

Dones to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
So will switching to aggregated stop congestion during peak hours?

creed3020
Premium Member
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON

creed3020

Premium Member

It very well could depending on the type of congestion as the the aggregated links are purchased 10gbps at a time I believe. This creates a far larger pool of potential connectivity for the traffic to go through.

If you are encountering congestion at the local node level that is dependent on Rogers upgrading those areas, doing a node split, or you using a D3 modem.
Cyborg994
join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC

Cyborg994 to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

The difference between non-aggregated and aggregated POI is the router at which the TPIA traffic is routed off Rogers network ... Aggregated eliminates a few routers at the head end for TPIA traffic ... but it moves them to the aggregated POI ... and makes them huge routers instead!

You have summarized the tech point well! But from my understanding there is also a huge difference in billing model between aggregated and non-aggregated POI.

My understanding is that Teksavvy is paying a flat monthly fee by fiber in the non-aggregated model, while the fee is by 100 mbit/s increment in capacity in the aggregated model. From the many discussions I have seen on the forum, the non-aggregated model is much more affordable for TSI with the current pricing model, so making the switch is not strictly a tech problem. Also there might be long contracts on those non-aggregated POI fibers, this also drives costs of switching up.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to Dones

Premium Member

to Dones
said by Dones:

So will switching to aggregated stop congestion during peak hours?

The short answer is a definite *no*.

Congestion can happen at many levels.. to the degree that we have enough capacity at the POIs and at our data-center.. any congestion you might have would be at a lower level.

If we were aggregated, the same would still be true except that the capacity at the POIs would not be managed by us anymore...

The only benefit I can see is that by not having to manage the capacity at the POIs, we no longer have to worry about single gig links.. and only the big 10gig links at our data-center. That reduces the amount of work we need to do.. all we would need to do is to say we want to use 5gig out of the 10gig link and they would bump up the ceiling.. and that would be that. internally they would worry about the rest...

the flip side to that though is that we would then be measured and billed at their capacity based billing rate approved by the CRTC late last year... today, to flip over (assuming we didn't have all these contracts for the gig links at the POIs that each have multi year commitments to them that we would have to pay to get out of) would be more expensive on day one. In a year from now, it would be a lot more expensive.

Think about that. we're paying full retail rate now for those links. to convert, we would pay more. that means we'd be paying more than full retail rate... and other incumbents are way higher then them still... just goes to show how obscene those rates are.

...so, no. all aggregated is really doing is taking away responsibility from us and putting it on the incumbent to manage that part of the network. oddly enough, the CRTC wants us to take more responsibility.. but that's another story too.

does that answer your question?