Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => ISPs => Topic started by: guest on October 16, 2007, 08:23:42 AM
-
UKOnline have just revamped all their products so now I have no idea what I'm migrating to on Thursday.
I don't mind if they do limit speeds to 16Mbps (usenet is the only thing I've found that will saturate the connection and losing 2Mbps is no biggie) but the static IP business is ticking me off as I'd already started moving my mailserver to another location.
Oh well I guess I'll find out what their support is like today then. Can't possibly be worse than Be - who have now applied/refunded a charge to my CC 5 times in the last week for no apparent reason (well not one that anybody there can explain ;D)
1Mbps upstream is a bit more like it though. The one thing I will miss about Be is the 1.3Mbps upstream - there's no valid reason for limiting upstream to less than adslmax premium levels IMHO.
Now to summon up the will to call up support - at least I will be able to understand the accents with UKOnline (probably) :)
-
At first I wondered what you were on about - because I just checked their site and couldnt see any changes...
Then I realised I'd used a link direct to their home packages and look what's still up on the site.
http://www.ukonline.net/home/?sso_auth=0
After checking out the new packages they look very sky like to me - (ie the 2/8/16Mb offering) - and we know who theyre owned by anyhow.
So out of curiousity I put my details into their checker and guess what?
As from today (ok probably it should have been yesterday).. I can get "UK online" at this exchange - when I couldnt previously.
Therefore theres no doubt that they are now using the SKY LLU dslams to sell products from their site.
If you signed up to one of their 22Mb products then surely that is what they should be provisioning you at. The UKO dslams have still got to be in place so wonder what they are going to do with those... surely they just cant simply downgrade those existing customers that they do have on the 22Mb package.
IMHO theyre "widening" the areas of where they can offer UKO LLU, by further integration with Sky, and although I see that the UKO product offers some extras aimed at the more "techy type" user ie domain name and static IP, £24.99 could be considered expensive for some when you can get what amounts to the same connection from sky as part of your package for £10 per month.
Be interesting to see what they connect you at though.
-
Interesting. I'd assumed that Sky/UKOnline used the same DSLAMs anyway. Seems rather bizarre installing a DSLAM for Sky and another for UKO unless one is full?
I've emailed them so we'll see what they say.
PS - I don't have Sky TV installed (nor do I want it) so the discounts don't apply to me.
-
>> Interesting. I'd assumed that Sky/UKOnline used the same DSLAMs anyway. Seems rather bizarre installing a DSLAM for Sky and another for UKO unless one is full?
Yes you would think so.. but my line of thinking was that UKO already had a pile of dslams anyhow before they were taken over - and those seem to the ones where you can get (or more correctly could get) the 22Mb product.
Sky has been at this exchange for > 6 months - but previously I couldnt get a UKO LLU product and if I signed up with UKO then the products they were offering me were the standard Max ones.
Admittedly I havent tried within the past couple of weeks.. but I do know for certain that when I was coding the exchange checker not so very long ago (weeks) that UKO wouldnt offer me one of their LLU products and it would have to be BT IPStream if I wanted to go with them.
So this change has only happened within the past few weeks - IMHO most likely to have co-incided with the new product launch yesterday.
Why are UKO only now offering me a product , when a few of weeks ago they wouldn't? - despite that same dslam already being in place for many months.
The only conclusion is they didnt want to offer a 22Mb product on it.
If there was already a "UKO" (Easynet) dslam/msan in an exchange then yes it would make sense to put sky users on that dslam/msan rather than install a brand new one. It would be stupid if they didnt really.
-
I don't know who enabled this exchange - samknows just says "Sky/Easynet:Enabled as of 07/05/2007" so I'd assume it was Sky with that date. Thing is that I specifically checked that 22Mbps was available - UKO told me the line was capable of a minimum 16.5Mbps. I told them that I knew 16Mbps Sky was at the exchange but I'd rather go with UKO and the guy said "yeah we get most of the people who have good lines as we can give them faster broadband than Sky".
Hmmm wait a sec. When I signed up all their website would offer me was 8Mbps (and 1, 2Mbps obviously) so I rang and queried this. The guy I spoke to talked me through the process, but basically I had to click on the 8Mbps service and then something on the backend of the website would run a test and offer 22Mbps if available/suitable - as it did. From what you're saying (if I have you right) that shouldn't happen on a "Sky" DSLAM? In which case it must be UKO but why would they be enabling an exchange (98% residential) in May 2007? ???
Is it just me or does this "limiting" of linespeed get very confusing? Be/O2 are now advertising 20Mbps rather than 24Mbps although its the same service as before. Sky actually do limit it to 16Mbps apparently but UKO don't. Mess or what?
Oh well I think I'll postpone moving the mx for today. There seems little point if I'm going to get a static IP (by default) anyway.
-
btw - just noticed this
UKO will let me sign up today proudly telling me I can get 16Mb - however this is what sky is reporting
Due to high demand, Sky’s Base Mid & Max broadband products are currently sold out in the area where you live. Sky's broadband network continues to roll out across the country and as soon as it reaches your area, you'll be able to get our full range of broadband products.
You already have broadband
Before you can order Sky Broadband, you will need a ‘MAC code’ to switch your broadband to Sky smoothly and with minimal disruption to your service. Click here for further advice in switching to Sky.
Until then, you can get Sky Broadband Connect which at £17 per month is less than the equivalent BT product.
So UKO would be able put me on LLU whilst sky would want me to pay £17 and stay on BT IPStream whilst they stick some more line cards in the dslam.
Somehow I dont think so do you?
-
Gods alone know kitz. Perhaps UKO get to reserve some cards as they are the "business arm" of Sky and they charge more? I can't see it myself but I suppose its possible.
Are you on a big exchange or something? With the exception of the original DSLAM here (the one I went LLU to get off, if you remember?) there is space on every single service. Admittedly you wouldn't want to be on half the services (AOL, CPW, Tiscali, Bulldog) but that's a different story :D
-
>> "Sky/Easynet:Enabled as of 07/05/2007" so I'd assume it was Sky with that date.
Me too
>> I told them that I knew 16Mbps Sky was at the exchange but I'd rather go with UKO and the guy said
Must admit I didnt try that so cant comment
>> Is it just me or does this "limiting" of linespeed get very confusing?
Yep... but then again depends where they are doing the limiting - really have to go out know - but one thing does occur - back in the days of old - way prior to max dsl - remember how BT used to set the line speed on the line cards?
hmmm I wonder if they do have separate line cards for sky and the UKO users - and in which case that may explain why UKO is saying Yes to me and sky is saying NO.
I'm theorising - and dont honestly know - but its the only possibility that I can think of. (unless the UKO site is fobbing me off when they say YES and I'd still have to wait for a new rack or something)
Okies need to go out now.
[edited to add your post and mine crossed]
-
Well I know Be/O2 have only changed their marketing to stop people whinging about not getting 24Mbps*, so perhaps (with the recent Ofcom consumer panel request**) UKO are doing the same thing? I was under the impression that Sky limited their speed to 16Mbps specifically to minimise support calls - things can get VERY flakey up around 20Mbps on "fastpath" (which is really just an interleave depth of 4) on Be and I assume Sky is just the same. On Be you have (well you would if you left the BeBox "open" on the WAN) support people logging into the BeBox remotely to diagnose issues and then altering margins/interleave accordingly. They're trying to automate that now - badly :)
The ADSL2+ extended frequency range is (IMHO) going to be a nightmare once BT roll it out - crosstalk/capacitance etc.
*20Mbps is about the max you'll get on the default interleaving depth Be apply so there's some logic there
**http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3233-ofcom-consumer-panel-asks-isps-to-advertise-real-speeds.html
Edit - in case anyone is wondering, no the Be support people don't advise you that they are logging into your (well its theirs really) router. I became aware of it via IDS logs and got rather annoyed. Ircsome's site thankfully had all the necessary info on how to remove the "hidden" user logins the BeBox has blown into it.
-
Aha - things become clearer. Got email back from Order Enquiries which said I will be on the "old" 22Mbps package but I could "upgrade" to the new package whenever I wanted.
Salient part of what he said :
"While the new package is capped at 16Mb, it is on a lower contention ratio. It was decided that since so few customers get >16Mb anyway, it was worth more to give a little more stability by reducing the line rate. You have to be well under 1km from the exchange and on a good copper line to get the top rates, but everyone can benefit from lower contention."
I've asked :
"So let me just get this clear - the difference between the "old" and the "new" packages is that (potential) contention drops from 33:1 to 20:1; max downstream speed drops to 16Mbps; max upstream goes up from 768kbps to 1Mbps; and there's a free static IP address? Does that sum the changes up?"
I haven't had time to think about this but my gut feeling is that they are right to do this. The only application I can sustain speeds >16Mbps on is usenet and its hardly likely that the article will expire while you are downloading now is it? :D
Back to decorating.....
Edit - he's just replied : "your understanding of the new packages is correct, and it would seem considerably more full than mine! I think I might email you with any queries I have ;)"
-
I notice that theyve now pulled down the page I linked to above and it redirects to their main page, a couple of other pages I looked at this am have now also gone too.
I see theyve also got rid of the 1Mb product at £9.99 too and are no longer advertising IPStream services. The products they are offering now seem to be the same speed rates as what Sky offer.
I really dont see how they can withdraw some of the older accounts though, afterall they must have some customers on the old £9.99 accounts, surely they cant make them upgrade and pay an extra fiver? it would sure be a get out of contract clause :/ Not sure what they are doing about their IPStream accounts either.
Notice they have got rid of the £25 connection fee on the Pro and Premier accounts. I know their packages are classed as unlimited - but is it just me that thinks the lite and pro accounts seem a bit pricey for LLU? (certainly isnt going to atrract the "lighter users")
Just for history records before I change them in my d/b the old accounts they offered were
> 1Mb 9.99 LLU only 12 N 3
> 2Mb 14.99 LLU only 12 N 3
> 8Mb 19.99 LLU exchanges.768k upstream 12 N 3
> 1Mb 19.99 IP Stream 12 N 1
> 2Mb 24.99 IP Stream 12 N 1
>22Mb 24.99 LLU exchanges.768k upstream. 12 N 3
Edited to add
I succumbed and phoned up their free-phone no to ask.
They are now using the sky dsalms and its why they can now offer me 16Mb when they couldnt a few weeks ago.
The other thing is that the new pricing is for both LLU and IPStream and theres no longer any different price structure between the two types. The old accounts remain in force for anyone on them.
D'oh what I did forget to ask is why sky is saying the exchange is full - yet UKO are saying it isnt! :doh:
The guy took my details too and checked availability proudly telling me that I could get the full 16Mb.
Actually the sales guy seemed quite knowledgable and didnt go "huh?" at some of the "key words" that I threw in the conversation.
-
>> The ADSL2+ extended frequency range is (IMHO) going to be a nightmare once BT roll it out
It is Max has been bad enough. All of a sudden "DIY adsl" requires a knowledge of such things as "sync" and "SNR Margin" and bRAS profile.. this is way too much for some people to understand and completely over the head of non-techies and your average joe public.
If youve got a nice SNR Margin, then Ive seen lines up to 40dB scrape the full 8Mb. Come the higher speeds then way more people are going to experience the joys of marginal lines and frequent syncs at differing speeds.
Be*'s approach to this is they wont let anyone outside "x" range on their Pro product.
*Although I have actually spoken to Be in the past about this, and providing you sign a disclaimer saying that you realise the pitfalls of variable syncs and that you could end up paying more for the Pro but not getting higher speeds then they will do this on some marginal lines.
>> no the Be support people don't advise you that they are logging into your (well its theirs really) router.
Nice - not! and something that would annoy me personally immensely! :mad:
However, saying that I think the ability to be able to do so is actually very good, The average joe user doesnt have a clue and it does make things a lot easier if support can quickly do something. There are a number of people that stuggle setting up the basic connection, and telnetting into a router or even struggle with the web interface is probably very high.
Ask anyone who earns the odd pint by going round setting up adsl what its like sometimes - The EU just wont touch anything and hence why so many use the horrible cd set up disks. They dont have a clue whats going on and its the ISP/BT that gets the blame. Its also why BTw have recently increased the visit fee thing - too often the BT engineer was called out and it was things like incorrectly set up filters or routers.:(
-
Ermmm I'm not sure who you spoke to at Be but they were spinning you a line if that is what they told you about Pro. There is an unofficial agreement that if Pro is obviously wrong for your line then they will put it back to Annex A free of charge. It is unofficial though (ie its Brett you need to talk to and his memory is "selective" shall we say?) and the Bulgarians seem to know nothing about this so getting it put back might be harder than you think.
Be is wild west territory kitz in terms of systems/procedures and I've just remembered who Brett Coles reminds me of - the guy who fronts up Hi-Velocity (if they still exist). They both promise the earth then can't be contacted when they have your cash :P
Annex M (Pro) is a sod of a product anyway - remember the upstream is the lower frequency so it tends to pickup all the impulse noise in the house/building. I admin'd an Annex M connection until yesterday and the longest it held sync was about 72 hours. That's on a line much like yours IIRC - you have ludicrously low attenuation don't you?
-
>> I'm not sure who you spoke to at Be but they were spinning you a line if that is what they told you about Pro
:( I got 2 new Be lines signed up, but havent been to see the stats on them yet. Was specifically looking for upstream, they are in their marginal area, but obviously I'd want to see how the line was performing first before requesting this. It was actually the Be guy that told me they could do this.
Like I say if the line cant cope then its not worth it - and even perhaps if it could - its still gonna get more upstream with Be than anywhere else anyhow.
>> you have ludicrously low attenuation don't you?
Statistics Downstream Upstream
Line Rate 8128 832
Noise Margin 12.3 dB 9.0 dB
Line Attenuation 7.5 dB 7.0 dB
Output Power 11.9 dBm 17.8 dBm
K (number of bytes in DMT frame) 255 27
R (number of check bytes in RS code word) 0 0
S (RS code word size in DMT frame) 1 1
D (interleaver depth) 1 1
SNR Margin is normally steadyish at around 12.5 - 14dB. Where its sitting at 12.3 right now is actually about the lowest Ive seen it in a long time. My MRTG graphs make pretty boring reading.
-
Thats a 24Mbps line if ever I saw one.
In general if you don't get full upstream rate (1.3Mbps) on Be then its a local wiring problem. The only people I have ever seen with problems on upstream are people with wiring inside their houses which doesn't have the (modern) master socket. Well there was one guy but it was obvious to me that he had a radio ham nearby from the DMT graph he posted. Everyone else I've seen with less has something dodgy going on - quite obvious in most cases.
For Annex M downstream is the determining factor really (yes I know what I said before) as you'll be borrowing some of the extended ADSL2+ frequency range to use on upstream - so upstream attenuation rate will apply (sort of, providing its measured somewhere sensible?).
I don't believe you'll see sustainable 2.5Mbps upstream on a line which syncs at less than 15Mbps - it will probably sync at that rate but try caning the upstream and it will fall over (sync I mean). That is my experience. Mark Taylor on adslguide has a Pro line and his is apparently rock solid.
Edit - that's 15Mbps fastpath (interleave depth of 4 really).
-
Thanks for the info on the Be lines- theyre prolly best left alone as is.
>> Thats a 24Mbps line if ever I saw one
I know - and why I was so peed off when Be got took over and O2 stopped the roll out. We had a date
Be Unlimited has set an enablement date of 31/07/2007
Be Unlimited has updated the enablement date to 31/08/2007 (Was previously 31/07/2007)
It was one of those that was pulled, they got as far as the neighbouring exchange which did get enabled
Be: Enabled as of 31/07/2007
How sickening or what?
atm dunno what to do -
I know what you think of PN... but can say I am happy with my connection, the exchange is playing ball for once (prolly all the heavies moved to the sky dslam judging by how quick it filled up) and most of the time I can get 7Mbps. I dont do p2p. Usenet if I want anything Im happy to schedule. Believe it or not the way they do things really does work for my usage pattern better than Entas ALT would.
Zen - well I'd be caught out by their hard cap on occasions and besides they dont do a reasonably priced "20:1" for the upstream.
Ive seen Sky connections on this exchange but theyre all the 8Mb ones not the 16Mbers so dunno how it performs. I dont have a sky tv package anyhow.
Easynet is probably about the only thing worth considering but Im not keen on a 12 month contract.
However if I knew there was a backdoor like you seem to have got in by last week for the 22Mb then yeah probably I would have.
So my general thoughts are this connection performs as it should I dont worry about what I use (havent moved over to the BBYW accounts so I get the longer offpeak) and it works for what I want and do so why rock the boat.
I think its only the egotistical in me that wants to say looooooook I can download at 22+Mbps cause I know its gonna be one of the few lines in the UK that could cope well with it.
-
Be changed the enable date on our exchange seven times. I'd just about given up on them when they did enable it.
Re Plusnet - I don't really think about them now and I have no clue at all what their packages are like. My problem with them was always the management and their somewhat cavalier attitude to the law/customers rights (I'm trying to be kind here). That attitude (IMHO) permeated the whole company by around 2005/2006. Someone mentioned recently that they didn't even bother registering under the data protection act until last year? If that's true then it sums them up perfectly. I'd hope that now BT own them they behave in a more reasonable manner but frankly I don't care whether they do or not - once bitten twice shy and all that :)
Re 22Mbps etc - Oh you'd get used to the speed, have no doubt about that :)
-
Back online at :
Downstream : 21365 kbps
Upstream : 764kbps
That's with a margin of 6dB down and 13dB up. Looks interleaved from latency (haven't changed version of DMT tool yet). Speed looks reasonable - I am downloading the headers (24million of them) from a.b.tv to test and that's coming down at 1.6-1.9MB/s. I need to up the margin to 8.5dB and then see if I can get UKOnline to drop interleaving to a depth of 4. That should give me 18.8Mbps with very few CRC errors (1 or 2 per hour).
Dunno whether its the Netgear router (found it lying outside the door an hour ago) or UKOnline but the router takes a fair old while to sort out any routing. Looks OK for now anyway.
Spose I better deal with Be now. Deep joy ::)
Erk the DMT tool for the Netgear DG834GT is pretty bad - no bit loading graph so there goes the ability to look at active, transient noise. I'm puzzled about the interleave depth though - its set to 64 and I'm syncing at nearly 20Mbps on a 9dB profile (at least the DMT tool does that :) ). I don't see how that's possible - surely a 64 bit depth implies about 3Mbps of error correction bandwidth being reserved at that sort of speed? Kitz? See when Be dropped the depth to 4 then that's roughly what I got. I went from 18Mbps to 21.5Mbps or so. ??? ??? ???
If its going to sync at 20Mbps on 9dB interleaved then I don't think I'll bother requesting they drop the interleaving. Nobody here plays twitch games anyway - Clare comes closest with LOTRO but I think anything under 100ms on that is OK.
All very different to Be I have to say. Oh and no Level3 to be seen anywhere <me does happy dance> :clap: :clap: :clap:
Edit (again) - The SNR graph on the Netgear (via DMT) looks very smooth. It really isn't like that. We'll see what tonight brings I guess. Maybe the Speedtouch 780WL is a pile of junk (as I suspected from the start) and the Netgear is superb - although that hasn't been my prior experience of Netgear kit.
-
Hmm it looks like its a reporting issue rather than anything technical. The Netgear reports close to 100% RCO with an interleave of 64 while the Speedtouch reported around 80% RCO so it looks like the Netgear "counts" the error correction and the Speedtouch doesn't. I'm probably just rediscovering the wheel here :P It has 1.02.04 firmware so there is an update available. Then again if it works..... :)
Anyway I think I'll stay on this service rather than switch to their new packages - then again if they put me on 16Mbps, interleave 4 and 1Mbps up then the margin would be such that I wouldn't need DMT. Then again never say never. Decisions decisions.
Two good things however - no Level3 and DNS that doesn't timeout/send malformed requests half the time.
PS - yes I know about OpenDNS but its only a partial answer if it means you have to go further along a Level3 route (I did) to get to the DNS. Level3 transit on Be runs at about 3-5% packet loss continuously and the further you go along the route the worse the issue becomes. Ironically I found I could get to the US OpenDNS servers faster and more reliably than the UK ones. Until recently that is when US transit has been dreadful. I couldn't get more than 100kB/s off usenetserver.com on Be this morning regardless of what route I forced.
-
Replying to myself but meh :P
The DG834GT doesn't seem as good at keeping the connection as the 780WL was. Tweaked the SNR up a bit more so its actually running a tad slower than the Be connection was. If it loses signal/frame again tonight* then I'm going to blow 6.1 firmware into the 780WL and see whether that helps.
*I know what causes it - local noise - but the equipment concerned can't easily be replaced. The noise is conducted (via the mains) rather than radiated so I guess I could try building a band-stop filter if I get sufficiently bored/hacked off :)
-
Sorted thanks to DMT Tool :
Ping statistics for 212.134.11.137:
Packets: Sent = 45193, Received = 45104, Lost = 89 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 489ms, Average = 33ms
That's 12+ hours of pings to the first hop from a laptop connected via wireless.
18.5Mbps down, 768kbps up.
I do have to say that compared to the 780WL the DG834GT is a pile of junk in reporting terms. It has taken 11 resyncs to get this right - damn good job I'm not on IPStream eh :D
I can't get reliable margins etc out of the DG834GT unless I reboot the thing between tests - yeah I know it resyncs but if you resync using DMT then the reported margins stay the same ??? It is really really bad compared to the 780WL - could just be the DMT Tool but I don't think so.
I'll try to summon up the will to blow the ST780WL with standard firmware/profiles this weekend. Its half-term here next week so messing about with routers could prove unpopular. Then again I'm sure there's something in their rooms that needs cleaning/throwing out/sterilising which if past experience is an indicator will take AGES :D
-
Not digested everything rizla as Im in speedreading catchup mode.. but I think If I were you Id keep things as they are for a few days and see how it copes for a week.. and after a firware upgrade for the netgear. You can always drop down to the lower speeds... but you can bet your bottom $ that youd find it much more difficult to go back up now that theyve changed the packages.
>> 18.5Mbps down, 768kbps up
not too shabby :)
>> damn good job I'm not on IPStream eh
too damn right - or we'd be hearing the screaming from here.
-
Hmmm. This Netgear router is junk. Dropped the line again and now the DMT Tool won't work. Rebooted it, powered on/off. No difference - just keeps saying that there's no server running on the port.
Time for it to go back in the box I think.
-
presumably you remembered to enable the telnet server http://router/setup.cgi?todo=debug ? (if you still have to do that with the GT...)
-
I didn't because I don't remember having to do that the first time. Tried it now and it still says no server running :wall: I think I'll be deploying my re-education tool (hammer) soon :P
As an aside is there really no way of saving changes (such as SNR) so they survive a reboot on this thing? If the answer to that is no then I'm going to have to use the Speedtouch.
Edit - enabled "remote management" in the web interface and now the DMT Tool works. Turn it off and the DMT Tool still works. Seriously weird ???
-
Oh well, was worth a shot! Pity it still doesn't work - maybe a factory reset is the next thing?
Presumably the author of the tool will have tried all sorts of things, I would have thought if he hasn't found a way then there probably isn't a way... the tool only just works on the GT anyway doesn't it due to Netgear's very incomplete command shell.
-
Yeah there doesn't seem to be a lot in /usr/sbin - Netgear (as usual) skimping on memory by the looks of things :(
-
I'm stunned. :o
SRA* works if you enable it via the DMT tool. :dance:
There was me messing about with margins as well :lol:
This is superb :)
*Seamless Rate Adaptation - basically your line will adapt to whatever the current line conditions are meaning that your sync rate will change without a resynchronisation being needed So if you have intermittent noise on the line (as I do) then it'll just adapt to the noise without any interruption to your service.
-
SRA no longer works following a "software upgrade" on the DSLAM :(
Well to be more accurate it does actually work until the sync speed needs to be reduced by more than a few kbps (say 200kbps or so) and then the router simply locks up, requiring power cycling before any UDP data (like DNS requests - don't ask me why its just UDP!) can be transmitted or received on the WAN port. ICMP and TCP are fine - as a tracert -d shows. Turning off SRA results in the router resynchronising when SNR decreases appreciably but then its fine.
This coincides with a publicised outage on the DSLAM in our exchange for the aforementioned "software upgrade" and is totally repeatable.
Back to manually setting SNR then I guess :wall:
-
>> SRA no longer works following a "software upgrade" on the DSLAM Sad
Thats a real shame :/ One of the real benefits of adsl2(+) and not using it :(
-
Well I'm not sure that its a case of "not using it". I think perhaps something is just a bit broken in the new DSLAM firmware because it still sort of works. I suspect that the "upgrade" may have had more to do with enforcing the 16Mbps "limit" that the service has now.
I still get more than 16Mbps obviously but perhaps I should start monitoring latency a bit more just in case 22Mbps legacy customers = bad boys and get contended as such. 16Mbps customers are 20:1 max and 22Mbps are 33:1 remember? :P
I think SRA may be a bit problematic in that it tends to run right up to the limit so CRC errors are always present. Not many but I can't help wondering what the real effect is on upstream links. I'm thinking in terms of links across the Atlantic which are usually run at close to 90% capacity at all times*. You get big enough RWINs (from "tuning" sites) and the retransmissions would become significant I reckon. One thing is for sure kitz, none of the current ADSL2+ operators are showing much enthusiasm for SRA. There has to be a significant financial reason for that I think as the savings in support costs are obvious but........ :shrug2:
*By "links" I mean rented transit rather than "We own the fibre". Either way its still expensive - ask Be (Telefonica) who threw at least one 10Gbps transatlantic link at a problem to see the bandwidth saturate on new links within weeks.
-
>>> I think perhaps something is just a bit broken in the new DSLAM firmware because it still sort of works. I suspect that the "upgrade" may have had more to do with enforcing the 16Mbps "limit" that the service has now.
:(
>> There has to be a significant financial reason for that I think as the savings in support costs are obvious but........
I cant quite figure that out ... aside from continually running at max could obviously cause some problems - but surely there are still other configurable aspects such as target SNR?
"In theory 33:1" should be ok - but obviously it depends on the type of user at your particular exchange. Unfortunately those who elected for the higher speeds are probably most likely to be higher users :(
>> I should start monitoring latency a bit more
You know your BTw exchange is one of the very few which Ive seen suffer from latency problems due to contention (ignoring all the long grass stuff).
In all the times that Ive suffered contention despite from some very low speeds Ive never had a problem with latency nor did the other 30+ users on our exchange. Ditto with the 1Mb and 2Mb upgrades. Poor speeds but latency ok. About 12-18 months ago when about 60% plus exchanges were on red I was monitoring AG and although poor speeds were an obvious issue I never saw anyone complaining about latency.
I suspect that some dslams are capable of doing a basic type of QoS and BT do use it for stuff like latency. IIRC you were on one of the early enabled exchanges with possibly an older type dslam. The Juniper ERX's installed by BTw during the period circa 2003-2005 certainly is capable of doing a basic form of traffic prioritisation. Its were the gold/silver/bronze stuff came from in the first place.
I was told in 2004 that its the older CISCO dslams that have problems identifying traffic/account types and hence why BT replaced a load of CISCO dslams in 2004 with Junipers.
>> *By "links" I mean rented transit rather than "We own the fibre"
Still cheaper than centrals though :D
-
Yeah the DSLAM I used to be on was a first-gen Alcatel so QoS was probably a "feature" - ie didn't work properly :D
The SNR doesn't appear to be configurable with SRA active - not from the user side of things anyway. Mine stayed at 6.2dB regardless of what I set the target margin to using DMT.
Re latency - I've always been able to see latency increase relative to traffic load. I don't mean my traffic either. I could see the gateway latency vary on Be depending on time of day and I can see the same thing on UKO. We are talking about 5-20ms increase here so the average punter wouldn't notice as its obviously more of a "spikey" increase rather than sustained.
Re 33:1 - depends where the contention is applied really - if its at the DSLAM then it's unlikely to get any worse than it is now as its a legacy service. It may even improve due to churn - depends how closely UKO monitor the backhaul transit.
-
>> I could see the gateway latency vary on Be depending on time of day
Now you mention it - its something Ive seen on Chris's Be connection too... although I'll let him comment on that because I wasnt looking in depth.
>> if its at the DSLAM then it's unlikely to get any worse than it is now as its a legacy service.
Thats true
-
Heh ask Chris about the next couple of hops - I bet he's not stunningly impressed with what he sees ;) When you get no response on the hop after the gateway then its because the router is struggling - to say the least.
You have to wonder about networks which routinely expose non-routable addresses in tracerts - it indicates a serious lack of understanding.
-
There's been a second "software update" on the DSLAM and SRA now works again.
Can we say "rollback"? I think so :D