Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[skyeci]

I have repeatedly asked sky pro fibre team about g.inp re my line status and they told me they had be given no information about it.

[Chrysalis]

There is two things going on.

The first is removal of g.inp on lines identified to be at risk of the problems. Unknown when these lines will get re enabled.

The second is some lines were never activated for testing purposes (my line is in this group) and in a few weeks these lines will get enabled.

You say people that haven't had G.INP enabled yet will get it in a couple of weeks. Can I ask where you got this information please?

From within BT, I cannot say the name sadly. If you want some more authenticity, kitz can back me up as I gave her the full info.

[kitz]

I can confirm that someone within BT has said that G.INP should be re-enabled within the next few weeks after completion of testing.

Chrys has tried to get permission to quote direct, but met the same stumbling block I sometimes have in that you sometimes get info, but cant quote direct or give a name.  All I can do is say that the info he got certainly does look genuine and it comes from a reputable source.

[les-70]

  When on fast path the well known DLM ES was/is a reliable guide to loosing fast path.  The same figures did not seem to work for a return to fast path once interleaved.  A much lower ES threshold seemed to apply for the reverse transition.  Given the impact of interleaving this seemed reasonable although the apparent absence of a reliable guide figure for a return to fast path was annoying. 

 My question now is once a line has settled down from any DLM reset or initial imposition of G.INP, how big might downstream ES rates have to get with downstream G.INP applied, for something more aggressive to be imposed by the DLM? Might this be the old criteria or given that G.INP seems effective a stricter criteria.

  Also what might the first imposed more aggressive action be? A imposition of interleaving or a speed cap?  I find it hard to quickly answer the question from mydslwebstats but with some effort an answer might be guessed at.  Looking at Hauwei DSLAM users perhaps a speed cap is first choice for more aggression.  It is harder to say for ECI users at this time.

[forceware]

I've had g.inp removed from my line. I had no issues when it was active, no DLM instigated reboots and 2-0 es per day.

[NewtronStar]

It would seem bizarre to take G.INP away from users not effected and introduce G.INP to others who never got G.INP the word for it is bonkers.

So they remove G.INP on all 206 firmware cabs then they unpause the rollout for 204 cabs they then downgrade the 206 firmware to 204 and then rollout the G.INP again

[burakkucat]

I have, for some time, had a peculiar "tingle in my whiskers".

It was that very same tingle that prompted me to type this post. I think I can now expand it a little and say --

"Discount any firmware update for ECI B-FOCuS /r modems but do not discount a firmware update or an operational configuration change for the ECI Hi-FOCuS M41 Mini-Shelf MSAMs."

Please also consider what Chrysalis has mentioned . . .

And, finally, remember that a watched pot never boils. 

[forceware]

My cabinet is on 204 at the moment

[S.Stephenson]

Has it ever been 206?

[forceware]

No

[NewtronStar]

That is the anomaly to all this forceware there are 204 & 206 not effected it all seems very weird and why I wish some of the guys in the know could give a we bit more info without naming names just put it into there own words what is happening

[forceware]

I've a sneeky suspion that they are removing from all lines. Unless someone else on my cabinet is having issues and they've removed it on all lines from the offending cabinet.

[NewtronStar]

I don't understand how they can segregate one cabinet from another and know who is affected and who is not, the only way would be to remove G.INP from all ECI active users then apply the fix then roll it out again with all fingers crossed can this be done in two weeks I don't think so

[forceware]

I don't think so either, I feel the g.inp rollout mk1 and mk2 would give us a good idea of time scales. Maybe a bit shorter as there are less eci cabs.

[NewtronStar]

Gezz no been there done it waited for 3 months for G.INP to come back on my line 2015, the way it worked during the G.INP halt was no removal of G.INP unless you had a DLM reset or changed ISP with a different DLM profile.

The change from MK1 to MK2 who still had G.INP applied to their line was seamless they just lost G.INP as standard on the upstream.

Now users are being forced off G.INP on ECI cabs and changed to fastpath with loads of errored seconds