New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

Need Help?

That's what we're here for! The goal of the Rogers Community is to help you find answers on everything Rogers. Can't find what you're looking for? Just ask!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply
I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 25

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

It is the newest firmware for this router. ping is pretty unstable. jumpin up and down.

 

ping 192.168.100.1 /n 10

Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63

Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 2ms

 

this is what i get from ping 192.168.100.1. not cool for getting 14ms for pinging own modem. but this is what i get for this firmware i think. still pretty annoying with high ping when playing league of legend. I did have a good ping twice. first time is when i got my modem from rogers technician. second time is when i got my modem from rogers store. but after few hours of usage, the ping started to jump like crazy for both modem. T_T that's not cool.

Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 6,450

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

That looks normal for this firmware version.  Believe it or not, that is the best that you're going to see for any 24x8 modem currently in use in Canada by any ISP.  There are a number of people who play LOL with that modem, my son included who have no problem with ingame ping times.  Having said that, there may be other things going on which might be worth looking at.

 

1.  Are you playing via ethernet or wifi?

2.  If you are using wifi, are you playing via 2.4 or 5 Ghz network?

3.  If you are running an ethernet connection, is the connected port LED at the back of the modem amber in colour,

      denoting a 1 Gb/s connection rate with the pc or laptop, or is it green in colour denoting a 10/100 mb/s connection rate?

4.  What internet plan are you on, in terms of download / upload rates?

5.  Can you log into the modem, navigate to the STATUS.... DOCSIS WAN page, copy the downstream and upstream tables

      and paste them into this thread.  Those are the RG-6 cable signal levels which might be worth looking at.

6.  Can you run a speedtest at http://speedcheck.rogers.com/en.html or www.speedtest.net using the Toronto Telus server

      and post the results?



I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 25

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

I play it via ethernet cable since myself wants a stable internet connection.  I set the modem into bridge mode. So i connected my Asus rt n66u into the modem. the LED at the back of modem shows amber. my plan is ignite 100u which is 100mbps download / 10 mbps upload. And right now i can not access the modem using 192.168.100.1. i can ping it. but i cant access it by chrome or ie. show err_connection_timed_out on chrome. 

 

the result of my speed test: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4833335002

 

thanks

Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 6,450

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

Speed test looks good for the 100/10 plan.  Its a bit odd that you can access the modem using 192.168.100.1.  Does the page come up at all or does it just time out all the time?  Possibly a modem restart might cure that, unplug the power cord, wait for 30 seconds and then plug it back in.  I've never had that issue with my CGN3ACSMR.  With the Asus router running as your main router, I wouldn't expect any issues.  Do you happen to use QOS at all?  And, does the 66U have a NAT Acceleration setting like the 68U does?  Its located in LAN.... SWITCH CONTROL on the RT-AC68U.  If the 66U does have it, it should be enabled.

 

Food for thought, since you are moving up to the 100/10 plan.  Running a router at 100 mb/s or higher often means running the router for speed, or for its functionality.  Below 100 mb/s you can get away with running QOS, traffic monitoring and many other functions which require the router processor to do something with or to the data.  At those speeds you don't see the performance drag that the functions impose on the router as the router has enough horsepower to get everything done without a throughput penalty.  Above 100 Mb/s and those same functions start to impose a performance penalty on the throughput.  Normally that shows up as a throughput drop.  Possibly, it might show up in the ingame ping times.  This is just speculation at this point, but you might want to look at the various functions that you have selected for use in your modem settings.  I run an RT-AC68U and I have the vast majority of functions disabled except for the network protection and the firewall of course.  I run the 250/20 plan and see a max throughput of 328/22 normally, wired and wireless. 

 

There was a firmware update released Nov 6 2015.  It might be worth running the update and then running a factory reset to set the parameters from scratch, setting an absolute minimum number of functions, if any, and running immediate game tests to see if there is an impact on the ingame ping times after you have selected or enabled a function.



I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 25

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

I tried to unplug the power cord and then plug back in. It solve the connection timed out problem. I do not use QOS since it makes my game's ping higher. Rt n66u has the NAT acceleration as well. Mine is enabled. 

 

below is downstream and upstream:

 

Downstream Overview
Port ID Frequency (MHz) Modulation Signal strength (dBmV) Channel ID Signal noise ratio (dB)
1 645000000 256QAM 8.600 9 40.946
2 591000000 256QAM 8.900 1 40.946
3 597000000 256QAM 8.700 2 40.946
4 603000000 256QAM 8.800 3 40.946
5 609000000 256QAM 9.300 4 40.366
6 615000000 256QAM 9.300 5 40.366
7 621000000 256QAM 9.000 6 40.366
8 633000000 256QAM 9.000 7 40.366
9 639000000 256QAM 8.800 8 40.946
10 651000000 256QAM 8.700 10 40.366
11 657000000 256QAM 8.700 11 40.946
12 663000000 256QAM 8.500 12 40.366
13 669000000 256QAM 8.300 109 40.366
14 675000000 256QAM 8.300 110 40.366
15 681000000 256QAM 8.500 111 40.946
16 687000000 256QAM 8.200 112 40.366
17 693000000 256QAM 8.000 113 40.366
18 699000000 256QAM 7.700 114 40.366
19 705000000 256QAM 7.900 115 40.946
20 711000000 256QAM 8.300 116 40.366
Upstream Overview
Port ID Frequency (MHz) Modulation Signal strength (dBmV) Channel ID BandWidth
1 30596000 ATDMA - 64QAM 42.750 2 6400000
2 23700000 ATDMA - 64QAM 42.750 3 6400000
3 38596000 ATDMA - 64QAM 42.750 1 3200000

Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 6,450

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

The downstream are all very high, although still in spec.  Do you happen to live in an apartment, condo, highrise, etc, etc, by any chance?



I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 25

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

No, i live in a detached house. It is a new community.

Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 6,450

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

hmm, ok, its unusual to see the downstream levels that high in a residential area.  Looking back at your google ping tests, they are really unstable.  Are you the only one using the internet, or are there others in the house running various internet connected applications as well?

 

There have been occasional cases come up where the ping times seen by the user were very high, and these were a result of node or cable issues.  What I would do at this point is run a test if there are more people in the home using the internet, and that is to disconnect everyone else and run a game session to see what effect if any that has on the ping times. 

 

If there is no change, call tech support and ask the CSR to run a signal check on the modem and the neighborhood node.  See what the CSR will say about the high signal levels if anything, and if that will lead to a tech visit.  Make sure that the issue of high unstable ping times is noted on file.  It might take a few calls before something is done about it.

 

Rogers Contact Number 1-888-764-3771 (1-888-ROGERS1)



I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 25

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

that ping test is done at the time no one use internet. i contacted the tech support via live chat. i connect to the modem directly and deconnect all my device when i talk to the CSR. the CSR told me the signal check on my modem is fine. They said all good on their side. They did not say anything bout neighborhood node. He told me it is hitron modem's problem which i have doubt about the result he told me since i saw everyone's dowstream is pretty much close to 0. thats why i am seeking help in here.

 

they said signal between -10/10 is normal

Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 6,450

Re: New CGN3ACSMR Modem, not compatible with League of Legends?

Nope, don't believe that for a second.  With 4.5.8.16 loaded and running, random ping times like that are not the fault of the modem.  Can you run a trace down to www.google.com and are you familiar with WinMTR?  http://winmtr.net/     It will run a multiple trace and ping test to your selected target address and show the results in a table.

 

Here's the ping times to google from west Ottawa:

 

ping www.google.com -n 20

Pinging www.google.com [173.194.43.83] with 32 bytes of data;
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.43.83: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 173.194.43.83:
    Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 31ms

 

Here's a WinMTR test:

 

                                     WinMTR statistics                                   |

|                                                        Host              -   %  | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |

|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
|                                                                    10.0.0.1 -    0 |   55 |   55 |    0 |    0 |    0 |    0 |
|                                                          7.11.164.173 -    0 |   55 |   55 |     7 |   11 |   30 |   30 |
|                                                        67.231.220.29 -    0 |   55 |   55 |     9 |   11 |   24 |   24 |
|  van58-9-231-77.dynamic.rogerstelecom.net -    0 |   55 |   55 |   10 |   18 |   44 |   17 |
|van58-9-229-229.dynamic.rogerstelecom.net -    0 |   55 |   55 |   15 |   21 |   44 |   21 |
|                                                  209.148.224.254 -   20 |   31 |   25 |     0 |   20 |   43 |   18 |
|                                                          72.14.222.87 -    0 |   55 |   55 |   16 |   21 |   84 |   21 |
|                                                     216.239.47.114 -    0 |   55 |   55 |   16 |   23 |   90 |   39 |
|                                                          72.14.239.19 -    0 |   55 |   55 |   17 |   21 |   90 |   18 |
|                                  yyz08s09-in-f17.1e100.net -    0 |   55 |   55 |   15 |   20 |  111 |   16

 

If you look at that table, you can see a 20% loss at 209.148.224.254, which in fact is a Rogers address

 

2nd run:

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      WinMTR statistics                                   |
|                       Host                   -   %  | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
|                                10.0.0.1 -              0 |   26 |   26 |    0 |      0 |      0 |      0 |
|                            7.11.164.173 -         0 |   26 |   26 |    8 |    11 |   26 |      9 |
|                           67.231.220.25 -        0 |   26 |   26 |    8 |    13 |   27 |   20 |
|                            24.153.7.230 -         0 |   26 |   26 |    8 |    15 |   92 |   15 |
|                          209.148.231.77 -      0 |   26 |   26 |     9 |   18 |   89 |   15 |
|                          209.148.231.70 -      0 |   26 |   26 |   10 |   16 |   85 |   15 |
|                         209.148.199.187 -    0 |   26 |   26 |      8 |   14 |   80 |   12

 

 

ping www.google.com -n 20

Pinging www.google.com [209.148.210.29] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=  9ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=  9ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=  9ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=  9ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=  9ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=  8ms TTL=59
Reply from 209.148.210.29: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 209.148.210.29:
    Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 10ms

 

Note the high max values of the WinMTR test with good average values.  That is what I expect to see from firmware version 4.5.8.16, reasonable ping numbers with rare occasional high values, but not as high as what yours exhibit.