dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
38
share rss forum feed

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to mlord

I wonder what the cause of the 02.08 problem actually is?

Now that we've cracked "fixing" the DCM475 modems, I'm wondering what the actual problem is with the 02.08 firmware. Sure, some people with it suffer frequent disconnects/reconnects, but.. why? And why not everyone with that firmware?

One idea, is that it's related to the hourly DHCP renewals that Rogers is switching to in several areas. I wonder if perhaps the 02.08 firmware doesn't deal well with DHCP renewals.. not much of an issue for month-long renewals like we used to get, but with hourly renewals perhaps..

Anyone got any evidence one way or the other?

Thanks


dissilusion

@teksavvy.com
I for one can say that the disconnect issues on my 2.08 firmware were definitely related to the channel bonding upgrades in my area. Before then, the modem was rock solid.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

2 edits
reply to mlord
said by mlord:

One idea, is that it's related to the hourly DHCP renewals that Rogers is switching to in several areas. I wonder if perhaps the 02.08 firmware doesn't deal well with DHCP renewals.. not much of an issue for month-long renewals like we used to get, but with hourly renewals perhaps..

The general theory until now is that the hourly DHCP renewals are put in for areas undergoing upgrade to 4 channel upstream bonding, and that Rogers switches the area back to 7 day renewals after the upgrade is complete. You'll see some mention of that in the 4-channel bonding threads.

The problem with the 2.08 firmware? Who knows.. Last year, or more like the summer of 2011, it was believed that the 2.08 firmware was actually causing some disconnect problems. Like, the 2.08 firmware didn't work well with some CMTSs, in particular associated with Brampton. I think this is the main thread:
»Modem Reset Everyday in Brampton + Slow Download Speeds

Here's another:
»[Cable] BRAMPTON Disconnects DCM 475

Edit: TSI Martin should be able to confirm exactly though
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to dissilusion
said by dissilusion :

I for one can say that the disconnect issues on my 2.08 firmware were definitely related to the channel bonding upgrades in my area. Before then, the modem was rock solid.

Which is great to know, but.. It is important to remember that upstream channel bonding is just a lot harder to do than anything that went before. So, the issue you saw effected all docsis 3 modems regardless of firmware.

What did you do to fix your issues? Did a firmware upgrade improve things, or did a technician come out and fix signal levels? Can you describe a bit about how a firmware was implemented and when the improvement was obvious (like, did Teksavvy ship a new modem)?
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
We've got documentation in this very thread of a simple firmware update to 02.16 on the same physical modem clearing up this kind of issue.

I'm (much) more interested in what triggers the issue. Increased channel-bonding is a definite clue, that has been cited many times by many users. It's not clear to me if it's the channel bonding itself though, or the lowered DHCP lease times that accompany it in most (all?) areas. Or some other factor perhaps.

???

nbinont

join:2011-03-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
said by mlord:

We've got documentation in this very thread of a simple firmware update to 02.16 on the same physical modem clearing up this kind of issue.

I'm (much) more interested in what triggers the issue. Increased channel-bonding is a definite clue, that has been cited many times by many users. It's not clear to me if it's the channel bonding itself though, or the lowered DHCP lease times that accompany it in most (all?) areas. Or some other factor perhaps.

???

I've got DCM475 with STAC.02.08 and 8x4 bonding (+5dBmV)256QAM down/ (45dBmV)16QAM up. 60 min leases. I don't have a disconnect issue here (anymore).

chrisl83

join:2011-06-21
Almonte, ON
reply to dissilusion
My modem was perfect before 8/4 bonding. The day rogers changed it over the modem flaked out on me.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
said by chrisl83:

My modem was perfect before 8/4 bonding. The day rogers changed it over the modem flaked out on me.

Mmm.. okay, so some people show a pretty direct connection between 02.08 flaking out on 8/4, whereas others have no issue.

So no direct guaranteed connection there. That really just leaves a couple of possibilities then: (1) signal levels, except many people with issues report excellent signal stats, and (2) it depends upon the brand/model/version of equipment Rogers deploys at the local node (most likely) or at the CMTS (less likely).

I'm not sure if there's a good way to determine the brand/model of gear at the local node -- maybe nmap could figure it out if we had an IP address for it. But I think (?) the first IP we see in a traceroute is the CMTS, not the local node. Or is it?

traceroute teksavvy.com
traceroute to teksavvy.com (206.248.155.70), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 tomato (xx.xx.xx.xx) 0.419 ms --- my local router/firewall

2 10.124.5.1 (10.124.5.1) 7.628 ms --- CMTS ??
3 69.63.255.189 (69.63.255.189) 15.282 ms --- Rogers router ??

4 fallowfield3.cable.teksavvy.com (24.52.255.78) 8.195 ms
5 fallowfield3.cable.teksavvy.com (24.52.255.77) 13.828 ms
6 2120.ae0.agg01.tor.packetflow.ca (69.196.136.77) 14.127 ms
7 206.248.154.117 (206.248.154.117) 25.048 ms
8 206.248.155.70 (206.248.155.70) 24.025 ms


dissilusion

@teksavvy.com
reply to Teddy Boom
I first waited for about a month to see if it would clear up, it didn't. Multiple daily reboots. As well I also waited to see if TS was going to announce a company wide directive for the issue. As none was forthcoming, and as the modem was purchased and still under warranty through TS, the exchanged it for a modem with the 2.16 firmware.

nbinont

join:2011-03-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to mlord
said by mlord:

So no direct guaranteed connection there. That really just leaves a couple of possibilities then: (1) signal levels, except many people with issues report excellent signal stats, and (2) it depends upon the brand/model/version of equipment Rogers deploys at the local node (most likely) or at the CMTS (less likely).

Possibly also (3) the upstream modulation used for the upstream bonded channels. I have 16QAM up, but others have 64QAM up. 64QAM is a bit more work and a different code path on the modem.