Print

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

[broadstairs]

The CEO Office are also useless. You'll get passed around and around.

Yes I know as I've done it before but as I said earlier I like to cause a bit of aggravation 

Stuart

[niemand]

I think the PPP issue has been horribly misdiagnosed.

g.inp shouldnt break the protocol, the modem is a bridge passing unmodified packets across

Both Huawei and ECI 'modems' are routers in bridge mode. Plenty of room for SNAFUs.

[kitz]

Quick reply that I dont have time to look further in to.

The ITU specs for g.inp specifically mentions 'initialisation failures' if g.inp is forced with non-compliant kit. 
I would liked to have tried to look further to see if I could find anything more about the type of initialisation failure and if it could occur as something wrongly configured too.

But story of my life these days, not finding time to do much other than admin :/   

[NewtronStar]

The ITU specs for g.inp specifically mentions 'initialisation failures' if g.inp is forced with non-compliant kit. 

would that be the end-users modems ?

[kitz]

yep

[WWWombat]

I think the PPP issue has been horribly misdiagnosed.

g.inp shouldnt break the protocol, the modem is a bridge passing unmodified packets across, I still think these PPP issues are because of high amounts of loss of sync causing ghosted PPP sessions and end users having to wait for those sessions to timeout.

Whatever the cause, it patently isn't simple, else we'd have seen it happen with the Huawei activation.

Some of the symptoms sound, to me, a little like he software in the CPU is losing control of the hardware, suggesting exceptions and timeouts are happening. Lots of fun to investigate.

Other symptoms are, frankly bizarre. High FEC rates for a precise 1 hour period? Doesn't sound real, and seems more likely to be a reporting issue. Memory references going wrong?

Interworking with other vendor's equipment has, at times, been the bane of my life.

[Chrysalis]

openreach should be coming on here and asking for volunteers who understand how things work, and if required ship them hardware out that they need to test as causes of the problem.

Not doing silent covert tests with CPs on unaware users of whom they dont know what modem they using (Clearly a flawed strategy).

I have contacted the BT retail testing team offering to test g.inp, since they still inviting me to various trials years after I left the isp.

[kitz]

Re the error bursts, since g.inp and then interleaving has been removed.. Im seeing CRC bursts at the same time.

[broadstairs]

I have not seen this at all in the days since my G.INP was removed although I am interleaved right now and have a much lower sync speed at present, but no not seen any CRC bursts at that time.

Stuart

[NewtronStar]

Just looking back into your history you have lost 3Mbps

[broadstairs]

Not sure how you work that out. My sync went from 71842kbps to 62019kbps which is a loss of 9823kbps by my maths, actually a little lower now as I did a re-sync to install new f/w on my ZyXEL VMG8924.

Stuart

[NewtronStar]

I am looking at your interleaving sync before G.INP was activated and after it was removed the current state your in to-day. 

[broadstairs]

OK I see, not sure why that is relevant to the original complaint though.....

Stuart

[broadstairs]

Well I left it a few days before raising the complaint with Dido Harding's office and have now had two email replies and one phone call this afternoon.

The young lady who called is not a technical person but a complaints manager. I explained to her hopefully in layman's terms what I was complaining about over this G.INP roll out/back and she has promised to feed back through the relevant people my concerns however she did not really indicate that I would hear anything more on this or any feedback on what if any pressure TT is or will be exerting on BT/BTOR about this. She did say that my complaint was the first they in that office had received on this topic.  I did explain that the fiasco on this with ECI cabinets has left a doubt in my (and I would guess loads of others) mind that if ECI cannot properly support G.INP what real chance is there that these same cabinets will properly support vectoring or G.FAST either, in which case the 'postcode lottery' created by BTOR will only get far worse.

I should also point out that I am still interleaved after 8 days with no sign yet of DLM removing it, I did have one re-sync 6 days ago to put new f/w on the 8924 but that should not have delayed DLM as my line was disconnected for about an hour while I did other things at the same time.

Stuart

[PhilipD]

Hi

I've not switched back to non-interleaved either.  It's probably some hysteresis thing in effect to stop things constantly switching back and forth, so now we are sat on interleaved, our line conditions are not good enough to overcome the hysteresis and switch back.

Regards

Phil