Rogers Hitron CODA-4582 Hardware

[Double_K]

Announced 13-December-2016 by @RogersDave  http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Getting_connected/message-id/379...

Credit to @Hybrid_Noodle

Hitron website: http://www.hitron-americas.com/product/coda-4582/

Datasheet: http://www.hitron-americas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CODA-4582-Datasheet.pdf

60W Power Supply built into unit

Pictures of Hardware Version 1A:

***Added Labels***

[gp-se]

I wish they would go Broadcom and get away from this Intel Puma issue. I don't think Intel even cares to be honest, they don't seem to be in any rush to fix the issues with PUMA. Intel did the bare minimum fixing ipv4 icmp, then they stopped. It would open Intel's eyes if vendors would stop buying PUMA and instead bought the competition.

[VivienM]

---

@Double_K wrote:

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

@eddiethefunnyon wrote:

---

In the first place, Rogers should've done testing for a few more months instead of rushing the product out. It's a really really good modem... if Hitron and Rogers gave it some time to polish we would be at a better state.

---

But it seems Rogers rushed it out because of the problems with the Puma 6 latency... would everybody be better off if they were running Puma 6 modems for 3-6 months longer?

---

As one of those who aren't affected, I'm very glad Rogers came out with the CODA-4582 when they did.  Had nothing but problems with the Puma 6 modem and had to go back to the Cisco DPC3825 before this new modem came out.  Maybe all these problems will convince Rogers to launch the Broadcom BCM-3360 based DOCSIS 3.1 modem from Netgear

http://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/cable-modems-routers/CM1000.aspx

---

Netgear?!?!?!?

Having had my share of flakey equipment from them, I'm not sure they'd be the best bet. I'd rather have Arris or.. who owns Cisco's cable modem business now?

But as someone else pointed out, you will NEVER see a straight modem on Rogers. Not when all the major competitors all advertise included wifi. And knowing people, if they gave a straight modem, people would scream "but when I was with the competitor I got wifi for free! now you want me to spend $100 on a router that you won't support?!?!? rogers sucks!!!!!!!"

So gateways with bridge modes are all we'll get...

[Double_K]

---

@eddiethefunnyon wrote:

Most likely if they were to go for a Broadcom based D3.1 unit, they would go for a gateway. Too many customers would be upset switching to a modem.

---

Was more thinking of the choice for the customer.  CM1000 modem for those who only want bridge mode / have their own router, and CODA-4582 for those who want a router/firewall/WAP/modem all in one.

[VivienM]

---

@Double_K wrote:

---

@eddiethefunnyon wrote:

Most likely if they were to go for a Broadcom based D3.1 unit, they would go for a gateway. Too many customers would be upset switching to a modem.

---

Was more thinking of the choice for the customer.  CM1000 modem for those who only want bridge mode / have their own router, and CODA-4582 for those who want a router/firewall/WAP/modem all in one.

---

But... think about the logistics.

Most importantly, if you have two different devices with two different vendors/chipsets, that means TWO different sets of bugs, two different sets of firmware, etc. (I know there is an assumption around here that a straight modem would be bug-free- need I remind you that the US people who identified Puma 6 disease were using straight modems from Arris and those modems performed no better than bridged CGN3s?)

One advantage of the bridge mode approach is that when a bug in the DOCSIS side of the gateway is fixed, that bug fix applies to both bridge and gateway mode customes.

What Rogers needs more than anything, IMO, is to standardize on one device and fix all the bugs with it. They've been launching too many devices in the last year and a half or so - CGN3ACR, CGN3ACSMR, the 3552, and now this thing. Right now, they're supporting the 4 Puma 6 gateways, the DPC3825 (did they ever add IPv6 to it?), the CGN2, plus the SMC and D2 modems that are mostly abandoned.

[gp-se]

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

@Double_K wrote:

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

@eddiethefunnyon wrote:

---

In the first place, Rogers should've done testing for a few more months instead of rushing the product out. It's a really really good modem... if Hitron and Rogers gave it some time to polish we would be at a better state.

---

But it seems Rogers rushed it out because of the problems with the Puma 6 latency... would everybody be better off if they were running Puma 6 modems for 3-6 months longer?

---

As one of those who aren't affected, I'm very glad Rogers came out with the CODA-4582 when they did.  Had nothing but problems with the Puma 6 modem and had to go back to the Cisco DPC3825 before this new modem came out.  Maybe all these problems will convince Rogers to launch the Broadcom BCM-3360 based DOCSIS 3.1 modem from Netgear

http://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/cable-modems-routers/CM1000.aspx

---

Netgear?!?!?!?

Having had my share of flakey equipment from them, I'm not sure they'd be the best bet. I'd rather have Arris or.. who owns Cisco's cable modem business now?

But as someone else pointed out, you will NEVER see a straight modem on Rogers. Not when all the major competitors all advertise included wifi. And knowing people, if they gave a straight modem, people would scream "but when I was with the competitor I got wifi for free! now you want me to spend $100 on a router that you won't support?!?!? rogers sucks!!!!!!!"

So gateways with bridge modes are all we'll get...

---

I wish they would go back to Cisco or Arris (Motorola), now we got CASA and Hitron 😞

They may have saved on initial hardware with CASA/Hitron, but the software and support must be costing Rogers a ton trying to fix these issues. Intel Puma 6 has soo many issues, and it looks like these issues carried over to Puma 7, which isn't surprising since I'm sure the base code is similiar. 

I've had Rogers service since the Wave days, and it was rough back then, but it was new technology having the internet over cable, and was amazing compared to 56k dial up. But it's 2016 now, and the internet is required in our day to day lives, and having a reliable fast connection shouldn't be an issue. I can understand the frustration people are having, it's like having spotty hydro/water service, this is something we use/need daily. Hopefully Rogers does the right thing and resolves these issues, by going with a different vendor cutting their losses with Puma. 

[JohnBeaudin]

That would be the dream CASA/Hiltron have been a nightmare, but I think they invested too much with them and now we are stuck with a poor product.

Rogers Dave is doing an amazing job he's really doing the best he can with the hardware he have in hand , I want to take a moment to thank him for his works.

However as a customers it would be nice that rogers invest in better equipement, but we can only hope!

[VivienM]

---

@JohnBeaudin wrote:

That would be the dream CASA/Hiltron have been a nightmare, but I think they invested too much with them and now we are stuck with a poor product.

Rogers Dave is doing an amazing job he's really doing the best he can with the hardware he have in hand , I want to take a moment to thank him for his works.

However as a customers it would be nice that rogers invest in better equipement, but we can only hope!

---

As has been said before, I don't think they picked Hitron because of price. They've gone with Hitron because Hitron continously delivers the newest technology sooner. Does anyone else have a D3.1 gateway currently shipping? Did anyone else have a 24-channel D3 modem when Rogers launched the CGN3 series 3-4 years ago?

The problem is, because Hitron is the first manufacturer to ship a product with whatever the new chipset/technology is, I think there are more bugs. Intel fixes those bugs, and by the time other manufacturers ship product based on the same chipset, the bugs have been fixed. (Or, in the case of the Puma 6 latency bug, that hasn't been fixed) In effect, Rogers' customers become Intel's beta testers.

I don't see what the solution is - Rogers has clearly made a decision to i) target the high end, and ii) be aggressive in deploying the newest technology. Many MSOs in the U.S. would rather be selling 20 megabit plans on 4-8-channel D3 hardware rather than doing 250-gigabit plans on 32-channel D3 or D3.1, and I suspect that's what most manufacturers other than Hitron focus on. (I suspect the same thing may be true with the Casa CMTSs) That has not been Rogers' strategy.

[Double_K]

---

@VivienM wrote:

But... think about the logistics.

Most importantly, if you have two different devices with two different vendors/chipsets, that means TWO different sets of bugs, two different sets of firmware, etc. (I know there is an assumption around here that a straight modem would be bug-free- need I remind you that the US people who identified Puma 6 disease were using straight modems from Arris and those modems performed no better than bridged CGN3s?)

One advantage of the bridge mode approach is that when a bug in the DOCSIS side of the gateway is fixed, that bug fix applies to both bridge and gateway mode customes.

What Rogers needs more than anything, IMO, is to standardize on one device and fix all the bugs with it. They've been launching too many devices in the last year and a half or so - CGN3ACR, CGN3ACSMR, the 3552, and now this thing. Right now, they're supporting the 4 Puma 6 gateways, the DPC3825 (did they ever add IPv6 to it?), the CGN2, plus the SMC and D2 modems that are mostly abandoned.

---

 From a cost structure perspective, absolutely agree.  But at one time, Rogers did offer the Broadcom-based Cisco DPC3825, and the Hitron CGN2.  That was the start of customer's issues with Hitron routers.  While the Pegatron/Broadcom 4322 wireless in the DPC3825 wasn't great, the actual Broadcom BCM3380 DOCSIS chip was stable & dependable (and hence why field technicians even as of last October were still telling customers that if they wanted stability, they should stay on the Cisco).

But the ultimate dependable unit was the Motorola SB5100 on the Express 10Mbps service.  That too was a Broadcom unit, and it never had issues (and was a PURE modem - no router/firewall/WAP/USB NAS/etc.).

The net is that Rogers has had a history of stability with Broadcom-based modems, and significant issues with TI/Intel Puma chips.

RogersDave could probably have a weekend off if Rogers moved to Broadcom (the man was posting responses on this board on Christmas weekend! - that's a dedicated employee!)

[JohnBeaudin]

@Double_K

I agree Dave's doing such an awesome job and life would be so much easier for him, we're lucky to have him!

[VivienM]

---

@Double_K wrote:

---

@VivienM wrote:

But... think about the logistics.

Most importantly, if you have two different devices with two different vendors/chipsets, that means TWO different sets of bugs, two different sets of firmware, etc. (I know there is an assumption around here that a straight modem would be bug-free- need I remind you that the US people who identified Puma 6 disease were using straight modems from Arris and those modems performed no better than bridged CGN3s?)

One advantage of the bridge mode approach is that when a bug in the DOCSIS side of the gateway is fixed, that bug fix applies to both bridge and gateway mode customes.

What Rogers needs more than anything, IMO, is to standardize on one device and fix all the bugs with it. They've been launching too many devices in the last year and a half or so - CGN3ACR, CGN3ACSMR, the 3552, and now this thing. Right now, they're supporting the 4 Puma 6 gateways, the DPC3825 (did they ever add IPv6 to it?), the CGN2, plus the SMC and D2 modems that are mostly abandoned.

---

 From a cost structure perspective, absolutely agree.  But at one time, Rogers did offer the Broadcom-based Cisco DPC3825, and the Hitron CGN2.  That was the start of customer's issues with Hitron routers.  While the Pegatron/Broadcom 4322 wireless in the DPC3825 wasn't great, the actual Broadcom BCM3380 DOCSIS chip was stable & dependable (and hence why field technicians even as of last October were still telling customers that if they wanted stability, they should stay on the Cisco).

But the ultimate dependable unit was the Motorola SB5100 on the Express 10Mbps service.  That too was a Broadcom unit, and it never had issues (and was a PURE modem - no router/firewall/WAP/USB NAS/etc.).

The net is that Rogers has had a history of stability with Broadcom-based modems, and significant issues with TI/Intel Puma chips.

RogersDave could probably have a weekend off if Rogers moved to Broadcom (the man was posting responses on this board on Christmas weekend! - that's a dedicated employee!)

---

I've had the SB5100 and the DPC3825; my parents had a CGN2. Mostly inclined to agree that the DPC3825 (when bridged) and SB5100 were excellent. Yet the DPC3825 must have other issues since Rogers, AFAIK, is still not offering IPv6 on it, while they are doing IPv6 on the CGN2 and CGN3 family... 

But we come back to one very simple issue: is there a Broadcom 24/32-channel D3.0 product? Was it available at anywhere near the same time where Rogers, very early, launched 24-channel D3.0 on the Hitron CGN3/Puma 6 platform? 

BTW, I note that Technicolor (current owner of Cisco's cable modem business) has the CGM423x which competes nicely with the 4582. Does anyone know if it's Broadcom or Puma 7?

(That being said, I should point out that my 4582 has been perfectly reliable in bridge mode. The only Rogers CPE I've had real problems with was my CGN3ACSMR which had to go on the beta firmware for the Casa CMTS-related crash.)

[Double_K]

---

@VivienM wrote:

But we come back to one very simple issue: is there a Broadcom 24/32-channel D3.0 product? Was it available at anywhere near the same time where Rogers, very early, launched 24-channel D3.0 on the Hitron CGN3/Puma 6 platform? 

---

 Well, there's 2 options.  One, the Cisco DPC3825 can support over 300Mbps, so for users on the 100u or 250u package, this modem/gateway could work if Rogers allowed it.

But, to go back in time, how about the Motorola Surfboard SBG6782-AC Gateway by ARRIS in 2013?  It's a Broadcom unit.

I think everyone can agree that the primary reason the CODA-4582 was released so quickly was to address the issues with the Intel Puma 6 chipset.  If Rogers had deployed a Broadcom unit instead of a TI/Intel unit 3 years ago, would they have needed to deploy so many "latest & greatest" modems/routers in such a short timeframe?

[JohnBeaudin]

@Double_K

However it's the age of DOCSIS 3.1 and we need modems that are comaptible with D3.1 

[BS]

---

@VivienM wrote:

But... think about the logistics.

---

@VivienM  That point is extremely valid - I remember when I was responsible for design and rollout of network infrastructure for a mid sized organization, and users would constantly be saying, why can't we have this, why can't we have that, I use this at home and don't have problems.  I would always be, give us time, we will get it right, but no I am not going to try to support unlimited number of combinations of hardware and software - staff were busy enough trying to get one model working well.

So it is always a cost/benefits/resource question at the end of the day and satisfying the customer is easy when everything is stable and generally unchanging and they are statisfied.  If you play around too much, people start getting annoyed and the consumer starts to drive the service provision rather than the careful implementation and testing that is required to get the stability of being able to just do what you need to do and not think about what modem, what speed, etc may be going on.

We are also in a time of rapidly changing technology and the nature of instability during this period is a reality of moving forward.

Bruce

[soundwave80]

Can anyone from Rogers chime in here and give us a update on what's going on with this second recall?

[14N]

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

(That being said, I should point out that my 4582 has been perfectly reliable in bridge mode. The only Rogers CPE I've had real problems with was my CGN3ACSMR which had to go on the beta firmware for the Casa CMTS-related crash.)

---

Not perfect. TP-Link C2600 cannot get an IP when CODA is in bridge mode, D-Link also.

There was no issue with the previous modem. With the .20 firmware, this is not yet fixed.

[lethalsniper]

I have the Tplink archer c7 router would that work with the coda once in bridgemode ?

[RogersDave]

---

@soundwave80 wrote:
Can anyone from Rogers chime in here and give us a update on what's going on with this second recall?

---

Modems are not being recalled per say, we simply asked stores to return their current inventory so that we can perform additional testing on these modems.

We are replacing them with fully tested "black-dot" modems. Customers that already received their unit will not need to return them (unless they are experiencing an issue with the one they have).

Dave

[14N]

---

@lethalsniper wrote:
I have the Tplink archer c7 router would that work with the coda once in bridgemode ?

---

could you try it? the issue is the router cannot connect to the Internet since it cannot get an IP address. You can check in the LAN setting of the C7, if set to dynamic IP, it should show the IP otherwise just 0.0.0.0

---

Thanks

[markopas]

RogersDave has posted up a thread for current outstanding issues and possible fixes on upcoming firmware releases posted here: http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Getting_connected/thread-id/3928...

He updates the first post - read it thoroughly and if there is an outstanding issue that is no listed on the first page then post up a reply in that thread and just be patient.

I am sure the Rogers architecture team is huge but they all have different responsibilities in different areas of the company just like any other org.  I understand how people can be frustrated but at least I know my issue is being looked at and will be posted on the next up coming firmware release .21

[Jeffj]

---

@14N wrote:

---

@lethalsniper wrote:
I have the Tplink archer c7 router would that work with the coda once in bridgemode ?

---

could you try it? the issue is the router cannot connect to the Internet since it cannot get an IP address. You can check in the LAN setting of the C7, if set to dynamic IP, it should show the IP otherwise just 0.0.0.0

---

Thanks

---

Archer C7 works fine with the CODA modem i can personally vouch for its functionality. 

[14N]

---

@Jeffj wrote:

---

@14N wrote:

---

@lethalsniper wrote:
I have the Tplink archer c7 router would that work with the coda once in bridgemode ?

---

could you try it? the issue is the router cannot connect to the Internet since it cannot get an IP address. You can check in the LAN setting of the C7, if set to dynamic IP, it should show the IP otherwise just 0.0.0.0

---

Thanks

---

Archer C7 works fine with the CODA modem i can personally vouch for its functionality. 

---

with TP-link firmware or flashed with Open-WRT/DD-WRT? What is your coda, the one with black dot? The ones reported to have issue with coda is TP-Link C2600 with the first coda, it might be the same as the one with black dot since both have the same firmware.

Thanks