ECI Line Card 0xb206 vs 0xd086

Broadband Related > FTTC and FTTP Issues

(1/3) > >>

Ixel:
I don't know if this is the right place to post this but it might interest a few people perhaps. What I've found is that 0xd086 is shown on the ECI /r (unlocked) as newer than 0xb206.

The following is 0xd086 on my second line (used on AAISP):

--- Code: ---ATU-C Vendor ID: Infineon 208.134
ATU-C System Vendor ID: 43,45,20,49,65,74,65,6C
Chipset: Lantiq-VRX200 Unknown
Firmware Version: 5.8.1.8.1.6
API Version: 4.17.18.6
XTSE Capabilities: 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x2
Annex: B
Line Mode: G.993.2 (VDSL2)
Profile: 17a
Line State: UP [0x801: showtime_tc_sync]
Forward Error Correction Seconds (FECS): Near: 89708 / Far: 1177
Errored seconds (ES): Near: 1103 / Far: 183
Severely Errored Seconds (SES): Near: 0 / Far: 0
Loss of Signal Seconds (LOSS): Near: 0 / Far: 0
Unavailable Seconds (UAS): Near: 35 / Far: 35
Header Error Code Errors (HEC): Near: 0 / Far: 0
Non Pre-emtive CRC errors (CRC_P): Near: 546 / Far: 0
Pre-emtive CRC errors (CRCP_P): Near: 0 / Far: 0
Power Management Mode: L0 - Synchronized
Latency / Interleave Delay: Down: Fast (0.0 ms) / Up: Fast (0.0 ms)
Data Rate: Down: 75.255 Mb/s / Up: 15.990 Mb/s
Line Attenuation (LATN): Down: 17.9dB / Up: 24.0dB
Signal Attenuation (SATN): Down: 17.8dB / Up: 23.8dB
Noise Margin (SNR): Down: 6.0dB / Up: 6.0dB
Aggregate Transmit Power (ACTATP): Down: 6.7dB / Up: 13.0dB
Max. Attainable Data Rate (ATTNDR): Down: 75.661 Mb/s / Up: 15.956 Mb/s
Line Uptime Seconds: 1902
Line Uptime: 31m 42s
--- End code ---

This is 0xb206, same DSLAM and cabinet just a different line card (used via Zen for my original and first line):

--- Code: ---ATU-C Vendor ID: Infineon 178.6
ATU-C System Vendor ID: 45,43,49,20,74,65,6C,65
Chipset: Lantiq-VRX200 Unknown
Firmware Version: 5.8.1.8.1.6
API Version: 4.17.18.6
XTSE Capabilities: 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x2
Annex: B
Line Mode: G.993.2 (VDSL2)
Profile: 17a
Line State: UP [0x801: showtime_tc_sync]
Forward Error Correction Seconds (FECS): Near: 159 / Far: 121341
Errored seconds (ES): Near: 0 / Far: 519
Severely Errored Seconds (SES): Near: 0 / Far: 3
Loss of Signal Seconds (LOSS): Near: 0 / Far: 1027
Unavailable Seconds (UAS): Near: 898 / Far: 898
Header Error Code Errors (HEC): Near: 0 / Far: 0
Non Pre-emtive CRC errors (CRC_P): Near: 0 / Far: 0
Pre-emtive CRC errors (CRCP_P): Near: 0 / Far: 0
Power Management Mode: L0 - Synchronized
Latency / Interleave Delay: Down: Interleave (10.0 ms) / Up: Interleave (8.0 ms)
Data Rate: Down: 52.981 Mb/s / Up: 11.379 Mb/s
Line Attenuation (LATN): Down: 20.7dB / Up: 24.5dB
Signal Attenuation (SATN): Down: 20.1dB / Up: 24.4dB
Noise Margin (SNR): Down: 6.1dB / Up: 6.1dB
Aggregate Transmit Power (ACTATP): Down: 6.7dB / Up: 6.9dB
Max. Attainable Data Rate (ATTNDR): Down: 62.147 Mb/s / Up: 11.430 Mb/s
Line Uptime Seconds: 171
Line Uptime: 2m 51s
--- End code ---

So 0xb206 is apparently v178.6 and 0xd086 is apparently v208.134. I wonder if d086 is limited to newer line cards or whether more line cards in ECI cabinets will get changed to this at a later date?

Also yes, I know my stats on the second line are still bad (error seconds are through the roof, about 3-5 error seconds for every 10 seconds of uptime by the looks of it). It's not affecting the connection however, and I'm also amazed DLM hasn't intervened yet unless the locked ECI /r I was using was reporting different statistics. If DLM intervenes tonight then I might try and find out what firmware version the ECI /r locked modem may be using and then try to put that on my unlocked ECI /r. Unless someone happens to know the version or know where I can get the file?

Anyway, hope someone finds this useful and hope I've posted this in the right section (if not please move it accordingly).

renluop:

--- Code: ---AAISP ATU-C System Vendor ID:43,45,20,49,65,74,65,6C
Zen ATU-C System Vendor ID: 45,43,49,20,74,65,6C,65
--- End code ---

Likely irrelevant, but why is the order of elements in the IDs different?

Ixel:

--- Quote from: renluop on October 17, 2017, 03:33:23 PM ---
--- Code: ---AAISP ATU-C System Vendor ID:43,45,20,49,65,74,65,6C
Zen ATU-C System Vendor ID: 45,43,49,20,74,65,6C,65
--- End code ---

Likely irrelevant, but why is the order of elements in the IDs different?

--- End quote ---

Good question, I wonder why too as I don't know. Surely can't solely be related to the version being different?

burakkucat:
AAISP ATU-C System Vendor ID: 43,45,20,49,65,74,65,6C
Zen ATU-C System Vendor ID: 45,43,49,20,74,65,6C,65

Taking those two lines, we can see that each Vendor ID is a sequence of blocks of 8-bits.

Notice that a sequence of 16-bits from one line is just the same from the other line, if you exchange the two 8-bits blocks.

[Edited to correct my nonsense about the number of bits.]

Browni:
Little endian display vs big endian?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version