CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation

[RogersDave]

*** This post was last edited May 2, 2017 ***

Good morning Community,

As I mentioned in a post two days ago, we have received the next firmware 2.0.10.20 from Hitron. We are currently running initial testing on this version and will push it out to participants in the firmware trial program as soon as it passes initial testing.

However, while running these tests, we discovered abnormal behavior with ICMP and are awaiting feedback from Hitron today to asses how this will be addressed. As soon as I this is confirmed, I’ll update the change log with the correct version information and start pushing it out.

In parallel, we are still working on the following high priority items. In some cases below, I requested affected customers to reach out to me via private message. If you do so, please include your modem MAC address in the subject line (even if we exchange messages daily) as there are a lot of you reaching out to me daily 🙂

UDP Packet Loss

The investigation for what has been reported as UDP packet loss is still ongoing. We have deployed a probe at one fellow forum member on both a CODA-4582 and a CGNM-3552 to collect additional data. We are actively working with Hitron and Intel on the results observed.

Based on what we know so far, in most instances UDP packet loss is coupled with higher uplink usage in the area. Although the impact is noticeable in specific logs (League of Legends), the root cause for the perceivable impact (while playing) is likely related to bufferbloat (see next issue).

Bufferbloat

When comparing the performance of a CODA-4582 to a CGNM-3552 in the same network conditions, the CODA-4582 consistently reports higher bufferbloat when tested on DSLReports.

Update April 12: The solution for this problem will come in two folds. It will require a change in software which will possibly be included in 2.0.10.27 but more likely in 2.0.10.28 and a change in network configuration.

The network configuration change is not compatible with the current firmware so this change will only come after a vast majority of the modems are running the new code. We are however looking at a way to make the change only for specific modems to support testing in the community.

Update April 22: This problem seems resolved in firmware 2.0.10.27

5 GHz WiFi Low range for channels 36 to 48

Lower WiFi channels on the modem have a much smaller range. This is due in part to the limit imposed by Industry Canada to maximum transmit power.

Furthermore, the current automatic channel selection (auto mode) tends to select the lower channels when in similar load conditions.

Workaround: manually select higher channels (149-153-157-161)

Update April 22: The channel selection algorithm has been improved in firmware 2.0.10.27

Loss of OFDM Channel Lock

Under some RF conditions, the modem fails to lock properly on the OFDM channel. This typically result in variable performance.

Update April 12: This problem is resolved in 2.0.10.26T2

List of connected device does not get fully populated

This is a known issue that has been tracked since firmware 2.0.10.13. We are making improvements at every firmware but it is not a perfect system.

The situation is worst after a reboot or firmware upgrade as the list gets reset and must be repopulated as devices renew their DHCP lease.

NAT Loopback not working for wired clients

When setting up port forwarding to an internal server, it is possible for a client on WiFi to reach the server using the external IP/port. If the client is on a wired interface, it doesn't work.

Update April 12: This problem is resolved in 2.0.10.26T2 (not confirmed)

LAN Counters not working

Some customers reported that LAN counters (especially in bridge mode) are reporting inaccurate values.

This problem has been reported to Hitron for investigation.

Unexpected modem reboot

Some customers reported their modem reboots unexpectedly. We have also seen this behavior in our lab.

Update April 12: This problem is resolved in 2.0.10.26T2

Missing SC-QAM Channels

After a reboot, some modems are missing SC-QAM channels. A fix has been implemented in 2.0.10.26T2 to address this behavior but it has not corrected all scenarios.

Investigation continues with Hitron.

WiFi Survey

The WiFi Survey functionality in firmware 2.0.10.26T2 (and possibly before) reports incorrect SSID names.

Guest Network

When connecting to the Guest Network, an error message is displayed "only allow DHCP client to use this wireless".  This has been reported in firmware 2.0.10.26T2.

Update April 22: This issue has been resolved in firmware 2.0.10.27

Update May 2: It seems this issue is not fully resolved and still experienced by some users

---

Future Planned Improvements

The following are items that we are working on in parallel of the above.

• Improvement in WiFi speeds
• Improvement in latency / bufferbloat

Dave

*Edited Labels*

[RogersDave]

---

@Hybrid_Noodle wrote:

@RogersDave I completed the buffer bloat test. (On 1G/50 Plan). I ran the test 3 times when hardcoding the 'Down megabit/sec" to 1000. Ran this test 3 times with the following results

Test 1 (930/31) - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/8752386

Test 2 (838/25) - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/8752648

Test 3 (877/22) - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/8752724

I ran the test one final time with the default settings with the following result

Test 1 (817/23) - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/8752878

---

This is in line with what I am seeing on my modem on a 1G plan (where the speedboost feature is disabled). Most of my tests were always resulting in a score of B or C for bufferbloat while lower tiers were often seeing results of F.

[Jeffj]

@RogersDave 

YOur suggestion to fix the downlaod speed helps the download BufferBloat it seems a fair bit. But the upload is still pretty high.  Instead of an F i get a C now. at 250Mbps down 

At 100 Mbps down i can get B bufferbloat, THe downstream is always GReat, upstream still pegs the buffr bloat graph on occasion. 

[RyzenFX]

I don't really think that disabling speedboost would be advantageous in anyway despite it showing better results in DSL Reports' speed test.

[14N]

---

@RogersDave wrote:

---

@Coccino wrote:

So I bought a TP-Link Archer C2600 but have not set it up. Is the issue on the C2600 as a whole or is it selected? I have yet to find time to actually install it on my end so I may just wait it out for the *.21 firmware

---

I believe the issue affects the stock firmware of the TP-Link C2600. Running DD-WRT or OpenWRT would likely work.

Dave

---

What's with CODA (bridge mode) that prevents the router in getting an IP address? It works fine with the previous Gigabit modem and when CODA is not in bridge mode. Isn't it if running the router in DD-WRT or OpenWRT will cut the speed in half?

[LSTA]

---

@RogersDave wrote:

@LSTA, @mikeepolmic, @Dragus, @traghipp, @hood

All of you reported experiencing speed degradation over time (somewhere between 30 minutes to 12 hours). One question asked by Hitron is if this degradation occurs only using a Wired connection or if it occurs on both WiFi and Wired?

Also, did any of you run firmware version 2.0.10.13 or 2.0.10.14 for a couple of days without experiencing this issue (was it introduced by 2.0.10.19)?

Thanks

Dave

---

I thought I'd replied earlier today, but maybe I hit Cancel instead of Post.

Rogers & Hitron technicians stopped by this morning to investigate how in about 10 to 24 hours, roughly once a day, my bandwidth on a wired connection will drop from 940-960mbps to under 10, sometimes 0.2-0.8mbps. It immediately resolves itself on a reboot.

I left a PC running plugged in to the router with TeamViewer on it, so when it next happens, a Hitron technician can run a series of troubleshooting commands to explore what might be wrong.

Strangely, I'm now looking forward to the next time service degrades that much, since I'll be able to help fix it. 🙂

Louis.

[LSTA]

I thought I'd replied earlier today, but maybe I hit Cancel instead of Post. (Edit: I didn't, as I wasn't able to post this, twice now! Here's hoping a third time is the charm...)

Rogers & Hitron technicians stopped by this morning to investigate how in about 10 to 24 hours, roughly once a day, my bandwidth on a wired connection will drop from 940-960mbps to under 10, sometimes 0.2-0.8mbps. It immediately resolves itself on a reboot.

But as it happens, it last occurred at 10pm the night before, and I'd rebooted the modem then, so it wasn't occuring while they were here. I have a PC running that's plugged in to the router with TeamViewer on it, so when it next happens, a Hitron technician can remotely run a series of troubleshooting commands to explore what might be wrong.

Strangely, I'm now looking forward to the next time service degrades that much, since I'll be able to help fix it. 🙂

Louis.

[mikeepolmic]

Hi Louis,

Mine does the same thing, but every 6 hours - pretty much like clockwork 🙂 ... so I'm going to be looking forward to hearing what you find out ...

Good luck!

Mike

[Patrick9591]

@RogersDave

Hardware Version 1A
Software Version 2.0.10.19

100u plan without bandwidth limiter:

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/8755858

100u plan with bandwidth limited to 85mbps down and 9 mbps upload via ASUS RT-N66U:

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/8756305

Before i was getting lots of fluctuations from Grade F during congested periods and Grade D during the day. Now i am experiencing A's by setting my bandwidth cap between 80-90% via QOS. 

[prateeck7]

@RogersDaveYep, I am getting 'C" grade in bufferbloat as per your instruction. My best so far. Download was below 80ms and upload was above 1000ms. Not the best but better than before.

Now in a simple layman term, what needs to be done here? I don't know if the speedboost is good or bad.

[gp-se]

nothing needs to be done, it's just the way the test calculates buffer bloat. Speedboost is a GOOD thing.

[VivienM]

---

@gp-se wrote:

I don't think your connection is bad, the problem with torrents is depending on seeds/peers its not consistant. I think if speedtest.net shows you as getting good speeds then that is your real speed.

---

The other thing with torrents is that, depending on your settings, they can be VERY hard on your NAT device.

If you are doing a speedtest, that's one TCP session that needs to be NATted.

If you are doing torrenting with, say, 200 connections, that's 200 connections (plus there are always some disconnections and some new ones) that the NAT device needs to keep track of.

So a NAT router that can easily handle one connection at 800 megabits/sec could easily only have the processor capacity to do 300 megabits/sec of heavy torrenting. If you are using a router that lets you observe its processor activity, that would be an interesting angle to explore...

[Triple_Helix]

@RogersDave I have been noticing very bad speeds for over the past hour and have never seen speeds like this? It must be the rogers network in North Oshawa near 5 points mall?  And I did another reboot of the Modem and the same results. 250/20

Downstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Signal noise ratio (dB)
1	591000000	256QAM	7.500	31	40.366
2	363000000	256QAM	4.800	10	40.946
3	369000000	256QAM	5.300	11	40.366
4	375000000	256QAM	5.100	12	40.366
5	381000000	256QAM	4.400	13	40.366
6	387000000	256QAM	4.900	14	40.366
7	393000000	256QAM	5.100	15	40.366
8	399000000	256QAM	5.700	16	40.946
9	405000000	256QAM	5.900	17	40.366
10	411000000	256QAM	6.000	18	40.366
11	417000000	256QAM	6.400	19	40.366
12	423000000	256QAM	6.700	20	40.366
13	429000000	256QAM	6.400	21	40.366
14	435000000	256QAM	6.000	22	40.366
15	441000000	256QAM	5.800	23	40.366
16	447000000	256QAM	5.600	24	40.366
17	555000000	256QAM	8.100	25	40.366
18	561000000	256QAM	8.600	26	40.366
19	567000000	256QAM	8.400	27	40.366
20	573000000	256QAM	8.500	28	40.366
21	579000000	256QAM	7.900	29	40.366
22	585000000	256QAM	8.000	30	40.946
23	357000000	256QAM	4.700	9	40.366
24	597000000	256QAM	7.000	32	40.366
25	603000000	256QAM	7.500	33	38.983
26	609000000	256QAM	8.500	34	40.366
27	615000000	256QAM	9.000	35	40.366
28	621000000	256QAM	9.100	36	40.366
29	633000000	256QAM	9.000	37	40.366
30	639000000	256QAM	8.000	38	38.605
31	645000000	256QAM	7.200	39	38.983
32	651000000	256QAM	6.800	40	38.983

OFDM Downstream Overview

Receiver	FFT type	Subcarr 0 Frequency(MHz)	PLC locked	NCP locked	MDC1 locked	PLC power(dBmv)
0	NA	NA	NO	NO	NO	NA
1	NA	NA	NO	NO	NO	NA

Upstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Bandwidth
1	38596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	43.750	3	3200000
2	30596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	41.750	1	6400000
3	23700000	ATDMA - 64QAM	40.500	2	6400000

OFDM/OFDMA Overview

Channel Index	State	lin Digital Att	Digital Att	BW (sc's*fft)	Report Power	Report Power1_6	FFT Size
0	DISABLED	0.5000	0.0000	0.0000	-inf	-1.0000	4K
1	DISABLED	0.5000	0.0000	0.0000	-inf	-1.0000	4K

[gcw23]

Received the .20 firmware this morning before heading to work.  Did a couple speed tests and everything seemed like it was fine.  Tried 4 or 5 servers and was getting around 890/20 which is a lot better than I was getting before around 300/2.  Came home from work and ran a couple more tests, and the speed is terrible again.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/5959779331.png

Both were taken at 12:40am.    Currently running in bridge mode, connected to an Asus RT-N66U.  

[damir]

I must say that i do not remember the last time i had this 'slow' download speed.

I had issues with upload recently due to the issues on my node, but that was 'fixed'.

Since i got this .20 firmware, i can't say that i am very happy with down speed especially, upload is so so, far from advertised speed 'of course' (sadly), but download .. on Gigabit, 150-250, the most i saw was 700mbit, but not for long.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/5961800909.png

I can't say .20 is the reason for this, i don't know, but, it started happening since i got it.

[amd7674]

Your Asus RT-N66U is too slow to handle 1GB speeds.   I had to upgrade my n66u to Asus AC1900P (dula core CPU at 1.4Ghz) in order to handle 1GB speeds.    I'm puzzled how you were getting 890/20...  Perhaps run some tests without N66U in the picture.

---

@gcw23 wrote:

Received the .20 firmware this morning before heading to work.  Did a couple speed tests and everything seemed like it was fine.  Tried 4 or 5 servers and was getting around 890/20 which is a lot better than I was getting before around 300/2.  Came home from work and ran a couple more tests, and the speed is terrible again.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/5959779331.png

Both were taken at 12:40am.    Currently running in bridge mode, connected to an Asus RT-N66U.  

---

[timlocke]

My old Rogers modem failed on 12/1/17 and when I retired to the Rogers store they gave me one of these.  Said it was all they had and would work on my 100Mbps service.

Needless to say it had those open issues. I use IPV6 and have a Dlink router.    Took it back and they found  an ACSMR which works perfectly.  Now my 'net is working again I find this thread which would have saved 1/2 a day.

oh Well... I am sure that the majority of people who used the modem in Gateway mode will never notice before the firmware update.

[Vikentieff]

Just curious, did they give you a white coda-4582 or a new black one?

[robbyf]

I've never seen a black one before. 

Mines white and I have very poor connection.

I'm getting 10% of what I should be getting, 20Mbps at best. I'm rated to do 250 but used to pull in over 320 on older eqiupment.

I can't really use netflix or gamecenter live unless I reduce the quality to 480 res. which looks awful on 4k.

[Vikentieff]

---

@robbyf wrote:

I've never seen a black one before. 

Mines white and I have very poor connection.

I'm getting 10% of what I should be getting, 20Mbps at best. I'm rated to do 250 but used to pull in over 320 on older eqiupment.

I can't really use netflix or gamecenter live unless I reduce the quality to 480 res. which looks awful on 4k.

---

I was replying to timlocke. He says he exchanged the modem today, and I assume they give him a modem from a new shipment, which I've heard are now black.

[timlocke]

A white one

[gp-se]

is this true there is a new batch of black modems? anyone else heard of this?