Here are my event logs from today is anything specific indicated?
The DOCSIS event logs is shown here
|1||11/21/2017 08:05:28||82000200||critical||No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|2||11/21/2017 08:06:04||84020200||warning||Lost MDD Timeout;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|3||11/21/2017 08:26:35||82000200||critical||No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|4||11/21/2017 08:26:35||82000300||critical||Ranging Request Retries exhausted;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|5||11/21/2017 08:26:35||82000600||critical||Unicast Maintenance Ranging attempted - No response - Retries exhausted;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|6||11/21/2017 08:26:36||82000300||critical||Ranging Request Retries exhausted;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|7||11/21/2017 08:26:36||82000600||critical||Unicast Maintenance Ranging attempted - No response - Retries exhausted;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|8||11/21/2017 08:58:06||82000400||critical||Received Response to Broadcast Maintenance Request, But no Unicast Maintenance opportunities received - T4 time out;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|9||11/21/2017 08:58:24||82000200||critical||No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|10||11/21/2017 08:58:36||82000400||critical||Received Response to Broadcast Maintenance Request, But no Unicast Maintenance opportunities received - T4 time out;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|12||11/21/2017 09:26:36||82000400||critical||Received Response to Broadcast Maintenance Request, But no Unicast Maintenance opportunities received - T4 time out;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|13||11/21/2017 09:26:57||85010200||warning||TCS Partial Service;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|16||11/22/2017 01:58:51||90000000||warning||MIMO Event MIMO: Stored MIMO=-1 post cfg file MIMO=-1;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|17||11/22/2017 18:34:31||82000200||critical||No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=aXXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|18||11/23/2017 09:11:46||90000000||warning||MIMO Event MIMO: Stored MIMO=-1 post cfg file MIMO=-1;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
|20||11/23/2017 16:22:29||90000000||warning||MIMO Event MIMO: Stored MIMO=-1 post cfg file MIMO=-1;CM-MAC=XXXXXXXXXXX;CMTS-MAC=00:17:10:90:da:12;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;|
I am grasping as the family is on me every day since the upgradeDownstream Overview
|Port ID||Frequency (MHz)||Modulation||Signal strength (dBmV)||Channel ID||Signal noise ratio (dB)|
|Receiver||FFT type||Subcarr 0 Frequency(MHz)||PLC locked||NCP locked||MDC1 locked||PLC power(dBmv)|
|Port ID||Frequency (MHz)||Modulation||Signal strength (dBmV)||Channel ID||Bandwidth|
|1||30596000||ATDMA - 64QAM||40.000||1||6400000|
|2||38596000||ATDMA - 64QAM||43.250||3||3200000|
|3||23700000||ATDMA - 64QAM||40.000||2||6400000|
|Channel Index||State||lin Digital Att||Digital Att||BW (sc's*fft)||Report Power||Report Power1_6||FFT Size|
Hello Rogers Community.
Here is my issue, hopefully someone can help me out... I will try and keep it short.
I used to be in the 250u Plan before (250down/20up) for the past two years.
It was time to get a better deal which I thought I am getting by upgrading to 500U plan.. 500mb down speed.
With it of course came along the Coda4582 as you all may be aware.
All fun and exciting for us who love internet and are a bit techy...until i plugged that modem in and noticed the speed was nowhere near 500. With the older (Advance Wifi Modem) I was getting consistent speed on wifi from any device (laptop/imac/tablet/tv/etcc)... with this Coda modem... horrible.. one device has 50mb, one has 200, one has 100 one has 300??..
I have called and got a tech in and its been an on-going issue and they pretty much ended up with .... WELL you are paying for a wired speed not wireless speed.... like Who The ---- has a wired computer nowadays?... everything is wireless.. I have been a rogers customer for over 15 years and I am ready to leave any minute if this doesnt get resolved asap. Been patient for a month now...
I think the new modem CODA-4582 is the issue... Wired, i do get good speed Wifi is bad compared to my older modem.
Can anyone help on this? Please and Thank you
@FITIMS can you have a look at the following post regarding modem wifi settings and looking at one's wifi environment and see if setting and channel changes might resolve some of the slow wifi issues. Note that beamforming is not enabled on the modem. That will probably increase the receive signal levels by a dbmw or two, but, that alone might help increase the data rates by one or two levels on the modulation and coding scheme:
@Datalink Thanks for your reply.
I have followed that guide from that link you sent me and made the changes as suggested for both 2G and 5G and the results are the same.
Although I couldnt find the "beamforming" option when I logged inside the modem to enable it? or maybe I missed it, but I did check couple times. (maybe i missed it?)
The app on the link, WIFI Analyzer, doesnt really show me anything, unless I dont know what to look for, but I am looking if I can see what channels are occupied by neighbours which I cannot seem to find.
Thanks in advance.
@FITIMS, beamforming is not enabled in the 4582 modem and there are no plans to enable it. So, as a result, there is no user option available either. That is normally found on routers which use 802.11ac wifi, so, if you were to purchase a router, that would or should be available for use.
For the channel selection, I suspect that you are able to see numerous 2.4 Ghz networks that are present in your neighborhood. The problem in that case is to determine which of the channels 1, 6, or 11 have the least amount of competition, both in terms of the receive power level from other networks which might compete with your networks, and then number of networks on any of those channels. Ideally, for both the 2.4 and 5 Ghz networks, you would have somewhere around 40 to 45 dBmW, or greater separation in power levels between your network receive power level and that of the nearest competitors. At that amount of power separation, you can expect your network to operate normally. As that power level separation is reduced, depending on how far away those other networks are from your home, you will see increasing difficulties in running your own network. So, looking at a wifi analyzer, you're looking for a 2.4 channel, normally 1, 6, or 11 that offers that combination of fewer competitors and greatest level of separation in power levels from your network to the nearest other network. The same applies for the 5 Ghz channels in the channel 149 to 161 range that offers the same. Since the 5 Ghz channels have a shorter range you should see far less networks in the display.
In terms of running a wifi analysis my recommendation would the following devices to run the analysis:
1. The modem's built in wifi scanner
2. A laptop running inSSIDer
3. A smartphone app
The reasoning in this case is that the modem has three 2.4 antenna and four 5 Ghz antenna. A laptop usually has two antenna, sometimes three in the case of a higher end MAC, and sometime only 1, in the case of an everyday laptop. The smartphone might have one, maybe two antenna. What this all boils down to is the fact the number of antenna will determine how sensitive the device is, the greater the number of antenna, the better receive and transmit capability it will have, including the ability to see other networks that perhaps a single antenna smartphone or laptop can see.
If as you indicate, you can't see other 5 Ghz wifi networks, that could mean that you're in luck and there is no competition in the channel 149 to 161 range. Or, depending on the device that you are using, it might not be very sensitive to other network if its only running a single antenna, or, perhaps the device doesn't support 5 Ghz networks. I'm thinking specifically of laptops that only have 2.4 Ghz capability, and there are a good number of them around. We keep running into problems on the forum when new customers arrive with equipment that only supports 2.4 Ghz networks, much to their surprise and disappointment. If you fire up the Wireless Survey, which is located in the ADMIN .... DIAGNOSTICS tab, you should be able to very quickly determine if there are other 5 Ghz networks running nearby. The data is text only, but, if you copy that data, you can dump it into something like MS Excel and expand the channel and received power level data to determine if there is any other nearby competition and what channels in that 149 to 161 range are open. Typically there is a base channel, and extended channels. Users set the base channel and the modem or router takes care of the extended channel management. Any scanner should show the base channels that are in use.
Hope this helps.
@Datalink Thanks for the explanation.
I got an app for my Imac and Believe me I do have a lot of competition. More in the 2G than 5G. But even in the 5G there is still a lot of them. I also did the Wifi Survey and here it is...
|6||JENNY FROM THE BLOCK||xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx||WPAPSKWPA2PSK/TKIPAES||-87dBm||11NGHT20||NONE||N/A||YES|
I notice that Channel 149 is pretty busy. in 20mhz and 80mhz..
I did set my 5G on 40mhz Channel 157. Will this interfere with Kitty?
I dont notice any big improvement in speed though ?
***Edited, removed MAC address***
What you will end up doing is competing with Kitty for Channel 157 air time. When a modem/router/user device is done with a channel, there is a pseudo random timer that runs in every device. The first device to time out wins the channel. That would occur in the case where the wifi receiver recognizes that the channel is occupied, even if it can't decrypt the data. In the case of the other users for channel 149, there is a chance that the wifi card will simply ignore them due to the power levels. The power level in this case puts 0 dbmw at the top and descends from there, so an increasing negative power level indicates less received power from that transmitter. Typically the best you will do from your own modem to device is in the range of -40 to -45 dbmw. I would say that Kitty must be your next door neighbor, from looking at the received power level on the modem.
So, the question comes down to the results on Channel 157, with nearby competition, versus running on 149 or 161. I would set the bandwidth to 80 Mhz and let the modem, in conjunction with the user device, determine what extension channel is in use for each broadcast. Run a speedtest, with 80 Mhz bandwidth for channels 149, 157 and 161 and choose the best of the three. Run that test at the location where you would typically use your laptop/tablet/smartphone. Use the www.speedtest.net Toronto or Montreal Rogers servers, depending on which is closer to your home. Those servers have the horsepower required to run gigabit speedtests . In terms of using 80 Mhz wide channels, for each broadcast, there is a clear channel check that is carried out by the receiving device. That check is requested by the transmitting device but, its actually done at the receiving end. Simply, the receiver determines if any of the extension channels required for 40 or 80 or 160 Mhz is occupied. If any of the extension channels are occupied, the transmitter will default down to 20, 40 or 80 Mhz wide channels. It depends on the user selected channel bandwidth and the results of the clear channel check. This is done for every transmission, so, it changes on the fly.
Fwiw, I'm also competing with my neighbors in that same channel 149 to 161 range. Despite that competition, I get better data rates, with the higher power outputs in that channel range than I do with the lower channels starting down at channel 36, which only run 50 or 200 mw for output power versus the 1 watt at the higher channel ranges. In the lower channel range, for my location, I have far less competition. Despite that, our wifi rates are higher in the higher channel ranges. To know that, one would have to run a test for both the low and higher channel ranges and run that test at a location where the devices in question are typically used. There will be a varience in the results as a result of the physical range from the modem to the user device. At some point, if you typically run the devices at closer ranges, you might find that it makes no difference between the low and high channel ranges, in terms of the speedtest results.
Some additional food for thought, I'm not sure if its available in your firmware version. In the WIRELESS .... ADVANCED settings, you might find a DFS setting. If its there, and you enable that, you will have access to the mid channel range between the low and high 5 Ghz channels. You might be the only one of the block. Here's a link to a site that shows the Dynamic Frequency Selection channels in Canada:
If that Dynamic Frequency Selection is available and you want to try it out, have a look at the following post:
I would try both 80 and 160 Mhz wide channels.
Unfortunately running a wifi network isn't just a matter of setting it up and letting it run itself. There is some level of knowledge required to fine tune the wifi settings and determine where the best operating channel might be, and that might take some experimentation. Changing the wifi settings will get you out of the slower rates that can occur with the default settings. From there, its a matter of determining what channel to use.
At the end of the day, if you live on wifi, strongly consider buying a router and running the modem in Bridge mode. My personal prefernce is for routers with external antenna. I would advise anyone running 500 Mb/s and higher to look for a router with the fastest processor available. To run higher data rates and any security features, and or plus VPNs, and other features will take a considerable amount of horsepower, compared to what we traditionally think of in terms of routers. So, strongly consider whats available with 1.8 Ghz procesors and go no lower than 1.4 Ghz processors. Also look for external antenna, which gets the antenna off of the motherboard and away from any shadowing effects that can be caused by the motherboard components.
"And you are certain the router will help with speed?" There is never a certainty to any of this, but, I would expect you to see better wifi rates with a good router. However, every site has its challenges, how many other transmitters are running nearby, and what are they're received power levels compared to your network. Its all part of the mix, and one needs to throw in the house cabling, or lack thereof in order to come up with a good working solution.
Fwiw, we have an older Asus RT-AC68U which has an 800 Mhz processor, and a newer Asus RT-AC86U which has a 1.8 Ghz processor. The 68U is still a very good router and I would recommend that to anyone who is running slower speeds and has absolutely no plans to run higher speeds or numerous functions down the road. I have it configured for speed rather than functions and it will top out at 900 to 910 Mb/s on the downstream side and at least 58 Mb/s on the upstream which is at the top of the service plan. The 86U, with the same configuration will top out at 950 to 960 Mb/s on the downstream and 58 Mb/s on the upstream. Both routers can probably run much faster on the upstream if they were running on a plan that allows higher upstream limits. I think the best that I've seen in terms of wifi from the 68U is around 400 Mb/s on a 5 Ghz network. The 86U will do at least 600 Mb/s on wifi, maybe higher if I wasn't competing with my neighbors for clear channels. I saw that today after loading Merlin's AsusWRT instead of the stock firmware. I was running a test to look at the IPV6 Stateful configuration. In any event, Stateless IPV6 works, Stateful doesn't. The 86U is a very new router, essentially the same form as the 68U, but, with a much faster processor. So, it looks like Stateful IPV6 configuration is a problem for both stock firmware and Merlin's AsusWRT at the present time. Its early days for this router and no doubt there will some bugs to iron out. This is the only real problem that I've seen so far and probably the only reason that I've noticed it is because I would prefer to run Stateful IPV6 for modem test purposes. So, going to have to come up with a Plan B, or C, .......
Fwiw, the 86U is what I would describe as a mid-range priced router, when compared to the lower and higher prices you will see. It does have Multi User MIMO, which allows the router to broadcast to 4 devices simultaneously, but, it doesn't have two 5 Ghz radios which the higher end routers have which splits the 5 Ghz band into a low band network and a high band network, each with its own radio. Since we don't have MU-MIMO devices in our home, there isn't any justifiable reason to buy an extremely expensive router, and, I have a greater interest in wired performance versus wifi performance. With better wired performance, the wifi performance also improves. With a 1.8 Ghz processor, which I'm satisfied with for the time being and a price tag at the time of $230, that wasn't a terrible price. Its currently listed at $269.99. Depending on your time horizon, I'd wait for a sale to occur. Keep your eyes open for a sale price.
Depending on your circumstances, I'd recommend either an RT-AC1900P, which is the succesor to the RT-AC68U, or the new RT-AC86U. The 1900P has a 1.4 Ghz processor, the 86U has the 1.8 Ghz processor. If its in your budget, I would recommend the 86U for the faster processor.
Now, food for thought, Asus appears to be in the middle of a code rewrite for its routers. This may or may not be the result of a U.S. FCC lawsuit that occured about three years ago in which Asus ended up with a 20 year firmware inspection order. Asus was slow at that time in distributing a firmware update to resolve access to AICloud features from what I remember, so, the FCC took them to court. The code rewrite appear to be out for three or four routers including the 86U and the older 68U & 1900P. So, little by little that code rewrite will probably cover the entire product line except for some older routers that might be aged out. So, the code is very new and it looks like Stateful IPV6 is a problem. I don't expect to be long before its corrected but, at the same time, I'm surprised that it hasn't been commented on elsewhere. Beyond the stock firmware is Merlin's AsusWrt. Merlin is widely respected with the router firmware community, based on his ongoing support for the Asus line of routers. His firmware includes various enhancements and updates, usually at a faster pace than Asus. Although he relies on Asus for the base files, he is pretty responsive when it comes to resolving issues that he can control. The recent Asus rewrite is resulting in some closed code sections which don't allow Merlin to change those sections. We'll see how this is going to work out as time progresses.
There is another RE that is running a TP-Link router and seeing very good wifi rates. I don't remember off the top of my head what the particular model is, I'll have to try to find it. No guarantees on that one. My only comment on TP-Link is from a comment that I saw in their forums which indicated that they were slow to provide updates to the modem.
Netgear also make routers, but, interestingly they appear to filter IPV6 ICMP, which is required to run IPV6. This is a situation that has gone for some time and I haven't seen any resolution to date, although I haven't been keeping track of it.
DLink is another choice but we've seen users run into issues with those. Basically its a matter of moving up in data plans only to discover that the router doesn't have the horsepower to keep up
Beyond that, we get into routers like PfSense, OpenSense, Sophos, etc. These are essentially pc's with dedicated software running which turns them into a router. With a typical pc processor, these are much faster than anything you will otherwise find, except for a multi-core Microtik router. With these routers there is a definite learning curve, but, with the processing power that is available, you can do much more in terms of running security functions, VPNs, etc, etc.
So, this takes a little crystal ball gazing. You have to ask the following questions of yourself:
1. What am I looking for, an all in one that does everything, or, possibly a PfSense, OpenSense type of router with additional wifi access points around the house;
2. Are you a techie, who doesn't mind tinkering with routers and networks, or, are you looking for something simpler with reasonable performance;
3. Is your home wired with RG-6 and ethernet cabling (Structured wiring) to every room which makes it easy to locate the modem and any routers and switches throughout the home, or, do you need wifi from a central point which will reach throughout the home. The 68U and 86U were/are parked at the front of our house and reach to the back and upstairs without any issue. The basement is hardly used, so, can't vouch for that. If necessary I can park the 68U downstairs as the house is wired with Cat-5e cabling.
4. Is there any possibility that you could be looking for gigabit service down the road, in which case you're going to be interested in buying the fastest processor that you can buy (within your budget) looking for several years of service.
Ok, that should do it for now. I'm sure that others will chime in on this one. If you're considering buying a router, you basically need to take stock of what it is that you currently do, and what you want to do. With increasing network speeds, that translated into processor speed, and some amount of money to afford that.
Hope this helps.