Print

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

[raislander]

Hi guys, I hope you can give me a hand to figure out why my line is not getting G.INP back.

I started with BT 52M, a couple of weeks ago. After using HH6 for the first 3 days, I decided to remove the router and set the RT-AC68U+HG612 combo I had before. The main reason for that is that the 1st day HH6 synched at 55M, the day after rebooted and dropped to 49M and by the 3rd day the speed has already dropped to 45MM. So I was not relying on that router anymore.

Since then I've been able to keep the line stable, and after finding that my PLCs were causing a lot of troubles, I was able almost to remove as much noise of the line as possible. Still I see drops of SNRM during the day from 5.8-5.9dB to 5.1, caused by noise I suppose. I also have changed the cable connecting the faceplate and the modem for one shielded cabling.

After a bit of tweaking, the line synched at 54MM stable, with attainable 60M (max. I can get is 62M). However G.INP is not coming back. I'm interleaved and I've got 8secs delay and somehow it's not changing during the last 7-8 days.

Any suggestions about what can I do? Let me know if you'd need other stats.

Seems like the DLM is not kicking back in to fix the issue.

Regards.

[burakkucat]

It is important to remember that G.998.4 (a.k.a. G.Inp) is a method of impulsive noise protection and is not a "speed enhancer" or a "latency reducer".

If a circuit does not suffer from impulsive noise errors, then G.998.4 will not be applied. In other words your circuit is working well, in terms of the criteria by which the DLM will decide whether or not to apply G.998.4 thereto. 

[gt94sss2]

Further to the above, G.INP can also take a month or two to activate even if DLM thinks it's warranted.


I'm not saying the HH6 is perfect - it needs at least a couple of additional firmware versions to fix bugs - but I wouldn't rule it out totally.. as it's got a very good chipset and it seems your problem want caused by it but by your power line adapters.

[Ronski]

Just an observation, but it clearly looks like your are on a 55/10 profile with BT, so your never going to get much more than what you've got now speedwise. Given that your line is interleaved I would have thought given time G.INP will return.

BC Surely G.INP does reduce latency if the line is interleaved as the op's is? And surely it does increase the speed (up to a maximum of the product profile) compared to an interleaved line? Only if the line is on fast path will it not make any difference to speed or latency.

[NewtronStar]

You started off with BT 52M service 2 weeks ago this would cause a line reset and remove G.INP so for G.INP to be enabled you need to wait another 5 weeks due to way it's now set by the DLM and have only seen one user where it came back after 2 days with a DLM recalc but that looks like a one off.

[raislander]

Thanks for the feedback guys. In fact I'm not chasing anymore speed on the line, I'm currently reaching the top the package I've got can delivered, 52M Down, 9.5M up.

My issue is the latency, as before I had 7-8ms tops while now I'm at 17-18ms due to the interleaving. I play games online so ping it's key for me sometimes, still 17ms it's not bad but I'd like to have my line as it was before.

I'll give a bit more time to settle down, otherwise I will try to plug again the HH6 within a couple of weeks.

[NewtronStar]

I'll give a bit more time to settle down, otherwise I will try to plug again the HH6 within a couple of weeks.

I hope you mean in 5 weeks time G.INP can lower your latency by 10 milliseconds plugging in & out other modem/routers will have no effect other than forcing a banded line if you do this to many times and remember the rule powered off modem for 30 minutes before installing another modem/router

Patience is require for G.INP to come back

[burakkucat]

BC Surely G.INP does reduce latency if the line is interleaved as the op's is? And surely it does increase the speed (up to a maximum of the product profile) compared to an interleaved line? Only if the line is on fast path will it not make any difference to speed or latency.

A speed increase and a reduction in latency are happy byproducts of an application of G.998.4 to the circuit. The sole purpose of G.998.4 is to provide improved impulsive noise protection. 

[Dray]

G.INP massively increases my sync speed by 15-20Mbps

[burakkucat]

G.INP massively increases my sync speed by 15-20Mbps

 

[Weaver]

What Burakkucat said. 

It's a matter of choice of terminology.

As for interleave depth, in my view, interleave is your friend unless you have very special latency requirements. I chose to lock interleave 'on', set on the higher BTW 21CN ADSL2 profile setting, and if I could control the actual interleave depth then I would pick the highest setting, because I want to minimise the error rate. Latency isn't something I care about too much. Latency graphs are all over the place for me - I suspect it's because of queuing and queue management.

I suppose I should care about latency and jitter if I want VoIP to have much of a chance of working. And rigorous and joined-up QoS isn't something I've been blessed with, lacking in various places, unfortunately.

[raislander]

I hope you mean in 5 weeks time G.INP can lower your latency by 10 milliseconds plugging in & out other modem/routers will have no effect other than forcing a banded line if you do this to many times and remember the rule powered off modem for 30 minutes before installing another modem/router

Patience is require for G.INP to come back

Yeah, I was not planning for it to take 2 days, lol. I will monitor the connection for a couple of weeks see how it evolves. For now, itīs performing ok, unique issue is the 10+ ms Iīm getting when I know that the line can perform better. Anyway, thanks for the help and the tips.

Didnīt know the rule about the 30mins for router exchange? Whatīs the reason for that?

[NewtronStar]

The DLM checks your modem to see if it is still synced with the DSLAM every 15 minutes if you turned off/on the modem in under 15 minutes the DLM would class this to be an unforced resync and deem it as a possible fault but as you & I don't know the start time and end of those 15 minutes we use 30 minutes for headroom and it will be seen as a forced resync by the user powering of the modem and the DLM sees no fault.

[raislander]

It makes perfect sense,  . Thanks for the tip, I was doing it all wrong in regards to that.

[raislander]

Well I can happily say, this early morning the DLM took action and G.INP came back. Interleave has been removed and now on fastpath U/D.

My line is syncing at 55/10 profile (as it should) and ping is 9ms now. I've tested it for a couple of hours, and I can see now that ping is ok but there is some jitter in the line (this I think it's caused by BT and the oversubscription in their IP backbone).

At least the local access is working 100% ok now, and now the issues should only be on BT's side. I will check this evening, I'm expecting some drop in throughput as the congestion BT network is having lately is quite noticeable.

Thanks for all the tips and the help guys.