dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1774
share rss forum feed


MitzyG

@tresourcegroup.com

Intermittent QOS Drops!

I have a new construction home in a BRAND new area (it was a bunch of trees only 10 mos ago). I have FTTP with CAT6 running into the house. I moved in 3 mos ago.

Coincident to the move, I got Vonage service. I had previously had TMobile at Home but they have since discontinued the service and the required router was getting old and I couldn't get a new one.

I previously had Uverse FTTN 18mbps and never had an issue with the TMobile at home VOIP service.

I moved to the new house, 24mbps, FTTP (which I thought was better than FTTN with copper to a 35 yr old place). I now have intermittent QOS issues which are causing dropouts on the phone. Most of the time it's 96-98%, but occasionally goes down to 39%, 69%, 70% etc.

I've spent 2 weeks and many hours on the phone with support, I've had 3 visits, 1 to change the RG, two where the guy was mad and walked off. The third visit, he suggested that I switch to another internet provider!

I researched and the only options are Uverse and Comcast. I'm not convinced that Comcast is a better internet provider and had previously switched away from them while at my old house because at "busy" times, it was hard to get consistent service.

I have two ideas to fix this since ATT seems to have no clue and is now almost accusing me of being crazy since NOTHING is wrong.

1. I ordered a new router with QOS settings, I'll reprioritize the traffic to the Vonage/voice service, everything else is lower priority.

2. I'm now considering Comcast for TV only. I read that Uverse prioritizes TV when you're watching or recording. I record tv all day. My thought is that if I drop uverse tv I won't have the TV prioritized over "the rest of the traffic" and then I can use my router (above) to prioritize what's left for Vonage/Voice. Besides, I'm learning that Comcast and some other cablecard devices will fix another complaint...lack of streaming of recorded tv to my ipad.

I'm thinking that Comcast is probably ok for TV, Uverse has a better internet service and my tv is affecting the internet.

Thoughts???


Darknessfall
Premium
join:2012-08-17
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Comcast
·AT&T U-Verse

1 edit
I would rather have Comcast Internet and U-verse Phone/TV to be honest.

That's what we have

$96 for U300(3 receivers) and unlimited home phone. Then $19.99 for Comcast's Performance tier(22 down /4.5 up with bursts up to 50Mbps + download).
$115.99 + fees for 360 channels, three receivers, reliable home phone with on screen caller ID, and fast and reliable internet .

I don't know why you're having QOS issues that bad at all. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can help you .

nephipower

join:2012-02-20
San Antonio, TX
reply to MitzyG
First you need to double check that you have FTTP and 24 mbit internet.

Right now it is not possible for FTTP customers to have 24 mbit internet. The fastest they offer FTTP users are 18 mbits and many people here have complained about this issue ad nauseam.

However perhaps you are confusing that you have a 25 mbit profile to service your 18 mbit internet.

The 2nd question I have is where are you getting these QOS percentages?

Have you tried turning off several of the firewall settings because that could be the cause of your issues.

Follow the steps below

1. On the 2Wire router, go to Settings -> Firewall -> Advanced Configuration
2. Uncheck the following: Stealth Mode, Block Ping, Strict UDP Session Control.
3. Check everything under Outbound Protocol Control except NetBIOS.
3. Uncheck NetBIOS under Inbound Protocol Control.
4. Uncheck all the Attack Detection checkboxes (7 of them).
5. Click Save.


ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:9
Pretty sure if you have GPON FTTP you can have 24/3. BPON FTTP is limited to 18/1.5 at this time


MitzyG

@tresourcegroup.com
I'm pretty sure that they think I can have 24mbps because when we've done the test I get between 20-22mbps on the speed test. Unless you check internet frog where I get consistent 16mbps (which I think is because it's trying to go from Houston to Los Angeles)

QOS is found at www.internetfrog.com Apparently, Vonage recommends this to find out whether the QOS is consistent. They also suggested this test: »myspeed.visualware.com/indexvoip.php

I have my router on the way so I'm going to try to emulate the mac of the att router and see if I can improve both the line and the QOS so that it prioritizes the phone, not the tv. If that doesn't work (or maybe even if it does), I'm changing to Comcast for tv. I hate Comcast as a company, but there are some features I like, such as stream to the ipad that I can get with the HomeRun Prime and a cable card. But my first priority is getting the phone working.


MitzyG

@tresourcegroup.com
reply to nephipower
Ok...I made the changes you suggested and so far, the lowest QOS I get is 86% with no tv channels recording. I recorded one tv channel and it was down to 79% at its lowest. Then when I started to record 2 channels, the lowest went down to 63%.

I admit that I probably didn't do a scientific test and I didn't do enough for a statistically significant result. But I get the feeling that the TV stream is impacting the QOS for the "rest" of the traffic. HMMMMM...


Darknessfall
Premium
join:2012-08-17
kudos:6
Are you sure you have your TVs connected directly to the RG and not through your router?

GusHerb94

join:2011-11-04
Chicago, IL
kudos:1
reply to Darknessfall
said by Darknessfall:

I would rather have Comcast Internet and U-verse Phone/TV to be honest.

That's what we have

$96 for U300(3 receivers) and unlimited home phone. Then $19.99 for Comcast's Performance tier(22 down /4.5 up with bursts up to 50Mbps + download).
$115.99 + fees for 360 channels, three receivers, reliable home phone with on screen caller ID, and fast and reliable internet .

I don't know why you're having QOS issues that bad at all. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can help you .

How are you getting Performance for 19.99? The only way one can receive performance around here for that price is if you are an existing customer, and are adding internet service for the 12 month promo price of 19.99.


Darknessfall
Premium
join:2012-08-17
kudos:6
Because it was an offer :/. New customer offer for 19.99 1st year/34.99 2nd with a 1 year contract.


MitzyG

@tresourcegroup.com
reply to Darknessfall
I do have them going through my router, not the RG. I have two TVs, one router, and a phone. That's 4 ports. The router only has 4. So what if someone had another TV? EEK?

Also...the field manager came by to talk to me and I admit, I was unhappy. But in the process he confirmed that the TV does take priority (in which case, it should be higher priority on the RG and I'm not sure moving it back will do much, particularly because the vonage device is on the RG so the bottleneck isn't at my router). He said that not using Uverse tv is highly likely to eliminate the vonage problem. So I think that's what I'll do. HMPH! Not pleased at all...and I hope I don't have some sort of binding agreement...for service - I need to consult with them to find out.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
said by MitzyG :

I do have them going through my router, not the RG. I have two TVs, one router, and a phone. That's 4 ports. The router only has 4. So what if someone had another TV? EEK?

I have tons of devices connected to my home network including the set top boxes. You can use a crossover cable to plug another switch into the RG and add plenty of ports. In my case I have one port connected to a VLAN for just my set top boxes for the TVs and another plugged into a VLAN going to my home internal router. Everything else sits behind that router that acts as a zone based firewall.


My home network diagram

--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/


brookeKrige

join:2012-11-05
San Jose, CA
kudos:3
reply to MitzyG
Your dropouts: mostly affecting your voice outgoing (complaints from other end of call), or you hear it on incoming voice, or both? Not correlated with distance to the destination?

To prioritize over TV, needs a Switch that supports QoS configuration (another recent post rumored such exist).

internetfrog: defines their QoS score as "level of consistent download capacity", at least appears measured during a bulk speed test. (Not clear if they auto choose servers in different geographic locations, unlike visualware which lets you pick)?

visualware: has a VOIP test that gives "estimated MOS" score plus all four of up & down, jitter & packet-loss, measured during a simulated 10-sec VOIP session. (More useful IMO).

Other sites deploy visualware tools, often without clear choice of server location, etc. i.e. »www.onsip.com/tools/voip-test

Could ping your ATT default gateway (or your vonage server), doing say count of 2000 packets, and interval of 0.03, to crudely emulate VOIP transmitting 30ms of data per packet, for example, to record overall stats of packet loss & standard deviation. Compare with & without TV streaming.

# ping -c 800 -i 0.02 -q -n talk.google.com
PING talk.l.google.com (173.194.79.125): 56 data bytes

--- talk.l.google.com ping statistics ---
800 packets transmitted, 800 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 41.872/42.645/50.557/0.635 ms


Darknessfall
Premium
join:2012-08-17
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Comcast
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to MitzyG
said by MitzyG :

I do have them going through my router, not the RG. I have two TVs, one router, and a phone. That's 4 ports. The router only has 4. So what if someone had another TV? EEK?

Also...the field manager came by to talk to me and I admit, I was unhappy. But in the process he confirmed that the TV does take priority (in which case, it should be higher priority on the RG and I'm not sure moving it back will do much, particularly because the vonage device is on the RG so the bottleneck isn't at my router). He said that not using Uverse tv is highly likely to eliminate the vonage problem. So I think that's what I'll do. HMPH! Not pleased at all...and I hope I don't have some sort of binding agreement...for service - I need to consult with them to find out.

From what I heard:
Your TVs should be separated from your devices such as Vonage and internet devices in the network. If both are on the same part of the network then the TVs will flood the other devices on the network. If you want them on the same thing then I think you need a switch that works with the TV's traffic.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
said by Darknessfall:

From what I heard:
Your TVs should be separated from your devices such as Vonage and internet devices in the network. If both are on the same part of the network then the TVs will flood the other devices on the network. If you want them on the same thing then I think you need a switch that works with the TV's traffic.

The RG floods all ports with the TV video multicast streams. No matter how you connect the devices and the switches, there will be a point when the other latency sensitive traffic has to traverse a connection that is being flooded with the video. The key is that you need a switch that does not do input buffering to prevent head of line blocking and can appropriately groom the traffic in its interface output buffers to prevent the video packets from creating to much jitter and delay with smaller voice packets.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/


Forosnai

join:2011-09-30
kudos:2
Incorrect. The RG will not send the IPTV multicast traffic out of one of its LAN ports if there is no receiver downwind of said port.
The OP has caused their own VoIP problem by having receivers plugged into their router. Simply buying a dumb switch to use just for the receivers to isolate them should fix the problem.
See »Network setup for U-verse or any other archived post on this forum on IGMP packet snooping.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
I can tell you that I witnessed multicast flooding out all ports on my RG for the past week. I verified the multicast mac addresses on the interfaces on my switch. I enabled IGMP snooping on my switch and cleaned it up.

The strange thing tonight is that I was just cleaning up dead config on my switch and removing some old VLANs and cleaned up my igmp snooping config. From before to after I noticed that the RG was no longer forwarding all the multicast traffic at my switch anymore. I'm not sure that the IGMP snooping on the RG is bulletproof. It may need a kick in the pants every now and then to stay honest.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/

CplEstesUSMC

join:2005-02-16
Douglasville, GA
What IOS did you use to get IGMPv3 working on a 3550 ?


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
I'm running c3550-ipservicesk9-mz.122-44.SE6. The IGMPv3 functionality is supposedly limited. I could not find a complete list of what specifically is or is not supported. I do know that it supports the Fast Leave option.

Now that I "fixed" the Multicast flooding issue on the RG, I was able to do a Direct crossover from my 3725 router to the RG instead of passing through an isolated VLAN on my 3550.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/


joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:6
I connect the TVs to the RG directly and then another router to a different RG port and no multicast flooding. If you go RG -> Switch without IGMPv3 -> STB then yes you will see multicast flooding on that 3rd party switch.
--
PRescott7-2097


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
said by joako:

If you go RG -> Switch without IGMPv3 snooping -> STB then yes you will see multicast flooding on that 3rd party switch.

If you want to expand the port capacity of your network and support Uverse TV service optimally on anything but the supplied RG, you should find a switch that supports IGMP snooping. It actually does not have to be IGMPv3 aware for it to work as expected. As long as it minimally supports IGMPv2 it should do the trick. There are lots of halfway decent Cisco switches on eBay for $50-200 that can easily fit the bill.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/