*** 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*
Holy #@($* batman. On the latest 0.24 about 1h45m after the reboot.
I'm a happy camper at this moment. I need to figure out which server this hit, and keep hitting it again for the tests.
@Telek wrote:Holy #@($* batman. On the latest 0.24 about 1h45m after the reboot.
I'm a happy camper at this moment. I need to figure out which server this hit, and keep hitting it again for the tests.
Did you do a Factory Reset after .24? Modem just rebooted and now on .24 Without having done a reset, speeds still same as.19 Will try factory reset and check again.
Woke up this morning to be pleasantly suprised with DOCSIS 3.1 
I noticed that my ping went down by 3ms, and interestingly enough, the UDP Packet Loss I experienced on DOCSIS 3.0 is gone aswell. I confirmed this by playing a couple games of League of Legends- all games ranged from (0-2 packets lost/min). From what I'm currently observing, I think UDP packet loss is only experienced on DOCSIS 3.0. @RogersDave does DOCSIS 3.1 handle UDP packets differently from DOCSIS 3.0?
I'm suspecting that Active Queue Management (DOCSIS 3.1) is the driving force behind this.
@Telek wrote:
@rjmaxim wrote:Did you do a Factory Reset after .24? Modem just rebooted and now on .24 Without having done a reset, speeds still same as.19 Will try factory reset and check again.
I did not. Didn't touch it, actually. I've been doing speed tests all day, haven't seen that high yet, HOWEVER I am not sure that speedtest.net / Ookla is actually setup to reliably handle gigabit speed tests. I might have just gotten lucky on this one.
I did Full Factory reset and you can see the speeds below. Also included DSLreports speed test usingn 12 streams.
| OOKLA Speed Tests / Date - Time | Bell/Toronto | Shaw/Winpeg | Rogers/Tor |
| Feb 6 - 11:15 DOCSIS 3.0 (2.0.10.13) | 269/45-13 | 329/36-31 | 310/47-8 |
| Feb 6 - 16:40 | 91/28-11 | 92/32-30 | 88/41-5 |
| Feb 7 - 07:40 | 259/45-6 | 350/32-31 | 340/48-8 |
| Feb 7 - 11:30 | 279/45-9 | 350/37-30 | 398/37-5 |
| Feb 7 - 16:45 | 268/35-14 | 334/29-29 | 333/22-10 |
| Feb 8 - 08:10 | 296/47-6 | 347/38-30 | 381/48-8 |
| Feb 8 - 11:30 | 293/46-10 | 346/37-30 | 438/48-8 |
| Feb 8 - 16:05 DOCSIS 3.1 (2.0.10.19) | 89/17-10 | 91/19-32 | 91/26-4 |
| Feb 8 - 20:10 | 89/38-11 | 91/34-30 | 90/38-4 |
| Feb 9 - 08:15 | 318/46-7 | 358/34-29 | 328/46-4 |
| Feb 9 - 11:30 | 91/47-6 | 91/37-30 | 90/41-7 |
| Feb 9 - 16:45 | 92/41-17 | 92/32-30 | 92/31-10 |
| Feb 9 - 21:30 | 90/20-20 | 89/26-32 | 82/30-9 |
| Feb 10 - 10:00 | 273/46-6 | 352/34-29 | 374/41-7 |
| Feb 10 - 16:30 | 247/19-17 | 334/19-30 | 323/28-8 |
| Feb 11 - 08:15 | 290/47-9 | 346/43-29 | 91/46-4 |
| Feb 12 - 12:10 | 265/30-9 | 345/26-30 | 354/22-5 |
| Feb 12 - 16:45 | 267/30-11 | 329/28-30 | 362/18-4 |
| Feb 14 - 10:00 | 327/19-6 | 269/20-31 | 371/16-5 |
| Feb 14 - 16:45 | 308/10-7 | 296/13-31 | 352/14-8 |
| Feb 14 - 20:20 | 267/8-14 | 256/9-30 | 364/9-9 |
| Feb 15 - 11:00 | 313/43-14 | 366/42-30 | 268/44-3 |
| Feb 15 - 16:45 | 177/24-20 | 177/21-27 | 372/27-7 |
| Feb 15 - 22:30 | 160/15-132 | 87/7-32 | 299/13-7 |
| Feb 16 - 18:00 DOCSIS 3.1 (2.0.10.24) | 127/31-16 | 199/29-31 | 261/33-8
|
On 2.0.10.19 now...
Tests from 7:11pm eastern. Yeah, I know this is primetime.
@gp-se wrote:@RogersDave got .24 a few hours ago, network is SLOW, so I checked my DOCSIS Logs:
@gp-se, I just ran a remote test on your modem and can clearly see signs of interference at 591 MHz and possibly at 597 MHz.
For the geeks out there, this is really close to a quarter wavelength of WiFi channel 1 (2401-2423 MHz).
My best recommendation is to swap this modem whenever you have a chance.
Dave
@fedge wrote:On 2.0.10.19 now...
I missed you in the update today as I still have your CGNM-3552 modem listed. If I missed anybody else, send me a private message with your new information. I'll update the list tomorrow and perform a second wave of upgrades.
Dave
I got the new Firmware .24
2.0.10.24 (February 16, 2017) *
- Tentative Fix: Slowly degrading speed over time
- Tentative Fix: Latency build up over time
All looks and feels good!
Downstream Overview
| Port ID | Frequency (MHz) | Modulation | Signal strength (dBmV) | Channel ID | Signal noise ratio (dB) |
| 1 | 591000000 | 256QAM | 5.900 | 31 | 38.983 |
| 2 | 363000000 | 256QAM | 2.700 | 10 | 40.366 |
| 3 | 369000000 | 256QAM | 3.100 | 11 | 40.366 |
| 4 | 375000000 | 256QAM | 2.600 | 12 | 38.983 |
| 5 | 381000000 | 256QAM | 1.600 | 13 | 38.983 |
| 6 | 387000000 | 256QAM | 1.900 | 14 | 38.983 |
| 7 | 393000000 | 256QAM | 2.500 | 15 | 38.983 |
| 8 | 399000000 | 256QAM | 3.500 | 16 | 38.983 |
| 9 | 405000000 | 256QAM | 3.700 | 17 | 40.366 |
| 10 | 411000000 | 256QAM | 3.800 | 18 | 40.366 |
| 11 | 417000000 | 256QAM | 4.300 | 19 | 40.366 |
| 12 | 423000000 | 256QAM | 4.800 | 20 | 40.366 |
| 13 | 429000000 | 256QAM | 4.500 | 21 | 38.983 |
| 14 | 435000000 | 256QAM | 3.900 | 22 | 40.366 |
| 15 | 441000000 | 256QAM | 4.000 | 23 | 38.983 |
| 16 | 447000000 | 256QAM | 4.000 | 24 | 40.366 |
| 17 | 555000000 | 256QAM | 5.900 | 25 | 40.366 |
| 18 | 561000000 | 256QAM | 6.600 | 26 | 40.946 |
| 19 | 567000000 | 256QAM | 6.500 | 27 | 40.366 |
| 20 | 573000000 | 256QAM | 6.400 | 28 | 40.366 |
| 21 | 579000000 | 256QAM | 6.400 | 29 | 40.366 |
| 22 | 585000000 | 256QAM | 6.300 | 30 | 40.366 |
| 23 | 357000000 | 256QAM | 2.500 | 9 | 38.983 |
| 24 | 597000000 | 256QAM | 5.600 | 32 | 38.605 |
| 25 | 603000000 | 256QAM | 6.400 | 33 | 38.983 |
| 26 | 609000000 | 256QAM | 7.100 | 34 | 40.366 |
| 27 | 615000000 | 256QAM | 7.300 | 35 | 40.366 |
| 28 | 621000000 | 256QAM | 7.600 | 36 | 38.983 |
| 29 | 633000000 | 256QAM | 7.400 | 37 | 38.983 |
| 30 | 639000000 | 256QAM | 6.600 | 38 | 38.983 |
| 31 | 645000000 | 256QAM | 5.900 | 39 | 38.605 |
| 32 | 651000000 | 256QAM | 5.300 | 40 | 38.605 |
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 | 30596000 | ATDMA - 64QAM | 40.750 | 1 | 6400000 |
| 2 | 38596000 | ATDMA - 64QAM | 43.000 | 3 | 3200000 |
| 3 | 23700000 | ATDMA - 64QAM | 39.750 | 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 |
@JohnBeaudin wrote:
This is huge!
I have a few more questions for you if you dont mind..
what was your ping playing LoL on D3.0 vs D3.1 did it went down? and how much?
and if you play other games, are you getting the same results?
I'm just as excited as you are!
Regarding my ping on LoL, because I was affected by the UDP packet loss issue on D3.0 my ping was somewhere between 28ms-65ms. NOW, with D3.1 I'm experiencing a constant 24-27ms- a great improvement!
I also played a game of Battlefield 1 tonight and averaged a ping of 24ms. Everything seemed extremly fluid, and I experienced no issues at all.
@Telek wrote:
That's interesting. Is the implication that there's insufficient shielding? Or is it that the shielding is actually doing the reverse, and causing resonance inside the shielded area? What is it that you look at to determine this?
Based on my experience, this happens if the DOCSIS tuner is not sufficiently shielded (or the shield is not perfectly aligned on the tuner).
I look at the error rate (QAM codeword errors) on each of the individual SC-QAM channels.
Dave
-
500100 views
-
295 Likes
-
-
