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***

[RyzenFX]

@David161 I think you understood me wrong. Unfortunately 2.0.10.27 does not fix the issue with the guest network however version 2.0.10.29 will most likely fix that issue. 2.0.10.29 Should be releasing within the next 2-3 weeks.

However, it is good that you exchanged your modem with the black dot to ensure that you have shielding against interference. 

[David161]

Ah darn, I guess it was wishful thinking. I actually did think the current firmware fixed the issue on the black dot modems as it was originally reported as resolved until I said I still had the problem. I guess getting a shielded modem is good, even though I didn't have issues which I could attribute to shielding.

[mf152]

I've been reading this thread, and I'd like to understand the mentality of fighting this battle with the CODA-4582.  Why are you doing this.  Is Rogers forcing you to use the CODA?  It provides virtually no benefits over the Rocket modem.   If Rogers is providing something that is defective from the get-go, and making excuses about different dotted versions, different cabling, shielding, etc, then this product is not as advertised and there should be a lawsuit.  Class-action.  Or at least provide a free rocket modem, take this off the market, and stop using the customers as a huge beta test like was done with Navigatr (as you recall, it took 18 months from launch to get the Navigatr to a point where it was somewhat acceptable).    Explain to me why it's so important to you to have this "Docsis 3.1" and CODA.  Two threads with hundreds of pages of questions.  Why isn't the media reporting on this? 

Not trolling here, just a serious question. 

[RyzenFX]

To me, I think it's simple. The CODA hands down is definitely a stronger modem than the Hitron A.C lineup and it provides many benefits.

For example, the new CODA supports 802.11ac WAVE 2. This technology has MU-MIMO (multiple input multiple output) which allows the gateway to simultaneously talk to multiple devices at time which significantly lowers latency on WiFi devices and gets rid if that annoying WiFi slow-down that is seen on the Hitron A.C. series.

I have noticed how scaringly close the latency is with Ethernet. When watching the same livestream with my Galaxy S7 and computer, my Galaxy s7 would only be 2-3 seconds behind my computer which is connected by Ethernet.

I also do quite a lot of gaming and the CODA significantly improves with this due to its use of DOCSIS 3.1. This in particular is the reason why I switched to this modem. I realized the potential of this technology and how it could lower ping, improve speeds, and lower congestion through its use of OFDM/OFDMA carriers. As a gamer, I find it important that this will improve my gaming experience

In no way Rogers would want to take this modem off the market. It frees up congestion within the network and it definitely worth it especially when they made it clear that they still want to make use of the cable infrastructure. Plus, they need to compete with Bell and it makes it very cost effective to deploy D3.1 CMTS' and modem compared to Bell's 1+Billion fiber rollout.

Despite all the headaches with this modem, I believe that it was worth it going through the problems and providing feedback. With the community feedback we're able to improve the Internet service for everybody in the network just not ourselves. It's pretty humbling to be honest.

[JohnBeaudin]

I agree with you @RyzenFX , was quite the run but D3.1 on the downstream had a HUGE impact for me here, I can't wait for D3.1 upstream to be deployed.

[David161]

I obviously don't speak for anyone except myself, but I see your point and absolutely agree.

My "adventure" started with an email from Rogers which said I was REQUIRED to upgrade my modem. This was not optional and it specifically said I needed to exchange my old modem for the new one.

Soon, I discovered browsing files from a WIFI connection was not working. As I have computers which only connect via WIFI, this was a crucial problem that I could not go without. Since I didn't experience the problem with my old modem, I posted in the forum describing the issue. That's when I found out it is a known problem and the beta firmware fixed it; thus I had no option but to accept their beta firmware agreement. As you've probably read, fixing some issues also brought on regression problems where the Guest network stopped working. I don't know all the different problems being worked on, but, for certain this is just one of many even though the modem is released to the public.

I personally believe some sort of compensation is in order since being their beta tester was not fully voluntary. I hope Rogers realizes the frustration they forced upon us and would do the right thing.

[mf152]

@David161 thank you for the clarification. I had no idea that people were forced to accept this modem.  I have never received such an email and feel fortunate for that.   I regularly watch these forums (did so similarly for Navigatr for 16 months, until I decided it was time to upgrade my old TV box running SARA to a Navigatr experience).  I will watch with interest to see whether this so-called new gateway that is being worked on will be released. 

[Hiitchy]

@Datalink Turns out it was just an error on my end. For some reason my router switched to SLAAC instead of DHCPv6, and was looking for a static IP. Anyway, I seem to have a 19/20 result from ipv6-test.com which I'm pretty happy with.

This begs just one more question, has Rogers not assigned any IPV6 hostnames yet? Because I don't seem to be getting one, hence the 19/20 result. I'm pretty sure it's not a big deal but I was just curious about that.

[Datalink]

@Hiitchy Rogers doesn't assign an IPV6 hostname and I don't know if there are any plans to do so.  I suspect that there are no plans to do so. 

[VivienM]

---

@Datalink wrote:

@Hiitchy Rogers doesn't assign an IPV6 hostname and I don't know if there are any plans to do so.  I suspect that there are no plans to do so. 

---

I think it's more that assigning an IPv6 hostname for your private network is impossible. Rogers' DHCP server assigns to your router a particular subnet, but it has no idea what IPs in that subnet are being used or not. Reverse DNS for every possible IP in that subnet, because the address space is so huge, is also not that practical with traditional DNS servers.

Rogers DOES put a reverse DNS hostname on the 'outside' interface of your router. Without NAT in IPv6, that doesn't do much good though.

I feel like I read some IETF document discussing what to do about this...

[DJ18]

Hey guys, I just got this modem and I am rather new to this modem and router stuff...can someone explain to me how to update my modem's firmware? Does it update automatically or do I have to do something additional? Thanks!

[Datalink]

@DJ18 all updates for the modem are pushed out to the modems by Rogers.  For the CODA-4582, on a first time boot up with firmware V2.0.10.24 or lower, I believe that the modem should update to the latest production version which is V2.0.10.26T2 within 48 to 72 hours of its first boot on the network.  After that version is loaded, whenever the modem boots, there is a check done to determine the latest firmware version available.  If there is a newer production version available, it will load that version.  So that provides two paths for production firmware, either pushed out as a regular update, or upon boot up where a firmware check is done.

Now, if you happen to be a gamer, you should request the Trial Firmware which is currently at V2.0.10.27   That version has protocol scheduling improvements made to it which results in reduced latency thru the modem.  That latency reduction is good for gamers, VOIP and any other latency intolerant applications.  When you sign up for the Trial Firmware, your modem is placed on a Trials list where those modems continue to receive the Trial Firmware versions before they are released in a general release to the network as the latest production version firmware.  The aim of those trial versions is to improve upon the performance of the 4582 at this point in time.  Depending on what you use the modem for, that might not mean anything, or, it could mean a great deal.  Every user is different in that regard. 

To sign up for the Trial Firmware, have a look at the following post which contains the instructions to do so:

http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/Internet/CODA-4582-Open-Issues-for-Investigation/m-p/395229#M45...

[DJ18]

Ok thanks for your response! I have one more question, if we sign up for the trial firmwares, is there any way to back out of it? Because if I factory reset back to the default firmware version and I'm still signed up for the trial firmware, they would still push the trial firmware to me correct?

[Datalink]

At any time you can send a message to @CommunityHelps to have your modem removed from the trials list.  With the current situation of V2.0.10.27, it you ran a factory reset, you would return to V2.0.10.26T2 and stay there unless you requested a reload of the trial version for your modem.   At some point, when .27 is released as  production version firmware, then all modems with .26 and below should be loaded with .27.

Just to note, the firmware check on boot up is a very recent addition to the existing firmware, as is the return to the previous production version if a factory reset was done on a modem running trial firmware.

[DJ18]

Wow thanks for your quick replies! I have just confirmed with communityhelps that I want to be in the trial firmwares! So about how long will I have to wait for version .27? I just use it normally and when the update is pushed to my modem it will reboot and update to the newest firmware automatically?

[Datalink]

You should see the update later today or tomorrow.  There is a process established to add the modem to the trials list and push the trial version to the modem.  As this involves more than one internal group at Rogers, it doesn't happen immediately, but, I think you should see it within the next 24 hours. 

If you log into the modem now, the Software (firmware) Version shown on the STATUS page will tell you what version is currently loaded.  If you're not around when the modem has updated, you can always check that version.  It will read 2.0.10.27 after the update and automatic modem reboot, which is part of the update process.  When you know that the trial version load is finished, run your own modem restart.  Unplug the modem power, wait for 15 to 20 seconds and plug it back in to force a restart.  I've found that a restart after an update is required to see the best performance out of the modem despite the fact that the modem reboots on its own.

If you are around while the modem is updating, just let it go through the process.  The front LEDs will go out at some point as the modem goes thru the update process.  Not to worry, thats part of the update process.

As long as you don't do a Factory Reset, the modem will remain at 2.0.10.27 until the next trial version is loaded.

[techpro2]

yep. i have the blue front lighta covered with white tape but the whole unit emits far to much light and i cant sleep with any light. so i am forced to shut it off nightly. i am just going to find the light or wire to the light and remove it cut it kill it with fire. 

[boozilla]

So I have not been able to use my CyberGhost VPN with this unit. It does work fine with other routers. Their tech support has been very responsive and helpful, but unable to solve my issue. Suggestions have been "Turn Off IPv6, use local DNS, add IPs to DNS, uncheck 'Use TCP instead of UDP'

No luck. Any thoughts?

[Datalink]

Don't quote me on this,but I suspect that the latest firmware version doesn't have an IPV6 DNS entry.  I don't have my modem in Gateway mode at the moment so can't confirm that.  I think it was in previous build but might have been been dropped out. 

The problem and solution is with IPV6, which is a conundrum.  Due to the lack (I suspect) of an IPV6 DNS that is user selectable in the modem, any attached device that is running on IPV6 will use Rogers DNS.  The exception would be if you entered an IPV6 DNS address manually into the IPV6 Ethernet Properties for a laptop or desktop for example.  In that case it wouldn't matter what was in a modem or router for the IPV6 DNS, the laptop or desktop would use the internal addresses first.  

IPV4 doesn't have that issue as you can manually add the DNS addresses.  If your VPN will operate via IPV4, you can simply reboot the modem.   It will pick up the latest firmware version released today, V2.0.10.27.  In the BASIC .... GATEWAY function tab is modem operating mode, IPV4, IPV6 or Dual Stack (both available).  When the modem has finished updating, you can log into the modem, navigate to the BASIC .... GATEWAY tab and choose IPV4 as the operating mode.  Save the setting, then navigate to the BASIC .... DNS tab, flip the LAN DNS Obtain from auto to manual to display the manual DNS entry windows and enter the VPN IPV4 DNS addresses.  Save the setting and reboot the modem using the ADMIN .... DEVICE RESET .... Reboot function.  

Now, the only kicker in all of this is the fact that UDP performance is much much better with IPV6 running and in use.  From what I saw today in my testing, IPV4 UDP performance takes a real beating.  We're talking about running 40 Mb/s up, 500 Mb/s down, in UDP without error when IPV6 is used.  With IPV4, that drops down to about 1 to 2 Mb/s.  I have to run more tests with this tomorrow.  So, the question is, is that sufficient to run your VPN.  It all depends on what you do with it and how much bandwidth it takes.  

[boozilla]

Wow, you rock! Thanks for the speedy and detailed reply and for raising the performance issues. I'm on 2.0.10.27, followed those steps and still was not able to get the VPN to connect only using IPv4 with the manual DNS's. I wish there was an error log to share. To be continued...

[Datalink]

@boozilla, reboot the device(s) to ensure that they only have an IPV4 address present.  I'm assuming that the VPN provider does provide an IPV4 service only?  Does it fire up at all or are you having troubles connecting?

I will make it a point to check on, and inquire about the IPV6 DNS address entries if necessary.