| reply to mlord
Re: I wonder what the cause of the 02.08 problem actually is? 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 Boomk kudos Received
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:7 | 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:10 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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.
??? |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Bruce Telecom
·Start Communicat..
 ·voip.ms
| 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). |
|
| 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:10 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Bruce Telecom
·Start Communicat..
·voip.ms
| 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. |
|
