Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17

Author Topic: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed  (Read 27528 times)

skyeci

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1148
    • skyECI line stats
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #135 on: January 17, 2018, 10:38:05 AM »

2 years come april 8th
Logged
Sky Fibre Pro - billion 8800nl V1 (bridge mode) + Opnsense(i5 Qotom) with IPV6 , AC-88U WAP- ECI cab,

click for my ECI line stats


click for  line stats by Pi3/Huawei 

S.Stephenson

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #136 on: January 17, 2018, 11:12:39 AM »

Just try to get everyone to sign up to FTTC so they build a Huawei cabinet, probably be quicker that way.
Logged

smallal

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #137 on: January 17, 2018, 11:17:18 AM »

If the trials fail then perhaps they should prioritise the roll-out of G.Fast to areas served by ECI cabinets.
At least then some customers may get the speeds they're actually paying for!
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5436
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #138 on: January 17, 2018, 01:36:12 PM »

As brutal as it sounds, noone pays for a guaranteed speed.

The case of BT not using available technology is a probable no go as well, as BT can just say they tried but their supplier failed hence it been out of their control.

It sucks, and I hope BT have learned their lesson in using non prime chipsets in future, I dont think they will ever stop the double supplier in the field policy tho.  But it could be worse, we could all still be stuck on ADSL, I believe the cheaper ECI cabinets is what made some areas considered commercially viable for FTTC in the first place.
Logged
Sky Fiber Pro - Billion 8800NL bridge & PFSense BOX running PFSense 2.4 - ECI Cab - LINE STATISTICS CLICK HERE

Ktor

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #139 on: January 17, 2018, 02:38:34 PM »

As brutal as it sounds, noone pays for a guaranteed speed.

Apart from a bit from Virgin in some areas openreach have no competition and don't give a rat's arse. That is what is brutal.

(and they screwed up my cabinet 2 years ago on 22nd March).
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 02:41:26 PM by Ktor »
Logged

broadstairs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3100
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #140 on: January 17, 2018, 03:12:29 PM »

Well we are getting VM here but there is no sign of BT reacting to the competition, they still dont give a rats backside!

Stuart
Logged
ISP:TalkTalk Connection:FTTC Cab:ECI Router:Netgear D6220

j0hn

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1878
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #141 on: January 17, 2018, 03:55:24 PM »

Quote
It sucks, and I hope BT have learned their lesson in using non prime chipsets in future
At the time of OpenReach picking vendors, ECI were seen as 1 of the front leaders in VDSL2.
Perhaps they should have went with the more expensive ECI V41 DSLAMs, but no idea how OpenReach were supposed to see in to the future and predict these issues.

To me the blame lies entirely with ECI.
You can bet your right bollock that OpenReach are pushing ECI as hard as they can to get this sorted.
Logged
BT FTTC 55/10 ECI now Huawei cab
Zyxel VMG1312-B10A bridge mode with 1508 MTU + Asus RT-AC68U running Asuswrt-Merlin

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31601
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #142 on: January 17, 2018, 04:36:17 PM »

At the time of OpenReach picking vendors, ECI were seen as 1 of the front leaders in VDSL2.
Perhaps they should have went with the more expensive ECI V41 DSLAMs, but no idea how OpenReach were supposed to see in to the future and predict these issues.

To me the blame lies entirely with ECI.
You can bet your right bollock that OpenReach are pushing ECI as hard as they can to get this sorted.

At the time ECI cabs were considered superior :/   The line cards had more capacity and historically ECI had made some serious technological advances when it came to VDSL.  Ironically vectoring!   I know when I found out my new cab was an ECI several people said they were considered better than the Huaweis.  ECI were known and respected by other Telco's outside of the UK.

It could have perhaps been a different story if Openreach had gone with the V41's - who knows?   
I believe Deutsche Telekom may have now replaced all their M41's with V41's.  Deutsche Telekom did exactly the same thing as Openreach in about 2010 and bought 2 different cab types mostly ECI - cant recall who their other manufacturer was but dont think it was Huawei.   
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5436
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #143 on: January 17, 2018, 05:35:31 PM »

At the time of OpenReach picking vendors, ECI were seen as 1 of the front leaders in VDSL2.
Perhaps they should have went with the more expensive ECI V41 DSLAMs, but no idea how OpenReach were supposed to see in to the future and predict these issues.

To me the blame lies entirely with ECI.
You can bet your right bollock that OpenReach are pushing ECI as hard as they can to get this sorted.

possibly, but broadcom were the "safe bet" due to their longevity in the market and their reliability on other DSL technologies such as adsl.

The V41 should have been a no brainer as well, as by the point of the ECI rollout vectoring was a proven significant benefit. However I expect at that time of the rollout short term decisions were been made, it was a rollout of "lowest possible cost" rather than forward planning.

Looking at kitz post they were seen as a leader just because of capacity? I consider things like stability, compatibility, and features as technology superior rather than capacity, capacity is just something that allows a higher scaled rollout at lower cost.  They even struggling to enable g.inp which is a decade old technology.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 05:38:12 PM by Chrysalis »
Logged
Sky Fiber Pro - Billion 8800NL bridge & PFSense BOX running PFSense 2.4 - ECI Cab - LINE STATISTICS CLICK HERE

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31601
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #144 on: January 17, 2018, 05:59:35 PM »

Looking at kitz post they were seen as a leader just because of capacity? I consider things like stability, compatibility, and features as technology superior rather than capacity, capacity is just something that allows a higher scaled rollout at lower cost.  They even struggling to enable g.inp which is a decade old technology.

Read the whole sentence where did I say it was just because of capacity?
Quote
The line cards had more capacity and historically ECI had made some serious technological advances when it came to VDSL /snip/ ECI were known and respected by other Telco's outside of the UK.

ECI was the first DSLAM manufacturer to bring out system based vectoring.  Historically they were respected by many other Telcos around the Globe for their ADSL equipment.   Germany and France had been using them for years.

Quote
They even struggling to enable g.inp which is a decade old technology.

I dunno whats gone wrong with g.inp, whilst it may have been around for years..  originally it was PHYR invented by Broadcom.   

We've seen Lantiq modems struggle with g.inp with the Huaweis.   
There's the ASUS modems which dont work well with Huawei cabs, so much so that G.INP is switched off on Huawei cabs for anyone using those ASUS modems.

When Openreach did implement G.INP on the ECI's it worked fine for most of us here because we use BCM chipsets modems.   Those using [hacked] ECI modems were reporting excellent results.   The standard ECI/lantiq modems seemed to be ok, but no way of monitoring stats to be certain.
The ECI g.inp problems were with the non Lantiq and BCM chipset based modems eg   Draytek, ASUS & even a Fritzbox.

Seems more like some sort of compatibility issue with certain modem chipsets. :( 

Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31601
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #145 on: January 17, 2018, 06:10:43 PM »

I think you may have also missed where I said.

Quote
It could have perhaps been a different story if Openreach had gone with the V41's - who knows?

DK also had problems with g.INP on all of their DSLAMS (both manufacturers) and as I said above "I believe Deutsche Telekom may have now replaced all their M41's with V41's,"  or at least during 2016 they were doing so.  Now they have both vectoring and g.inp.

Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

atkinsong

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #146 on: January 17, 2018, 06:35:14 PM »

possibly, but broadcom were the "safe bet" due to their longevity in the market and their reliability on other DSL technologies such as adsl.

Going back to ADSL days, one of the most respected modems was the venerable Netgear DG834v3, which was eventually adopted by Sky as the first of their "all black" modem/routers. This was based on the Texas Instruments AR7 chipset. TI was then taken over by Infineon, who in turn passed their modem chipset business to Lantiq, who developed the AR7 into the current AR9. When Netgear released the DG834v4 it was Broadcom based and proved to be nowhere near as good as its forerunner.

The ECI g.inp problems were with the non Lantiq and BCM chipset based modems eg   Draytek, ASUS & even a Fritzbox.

The Draytek 2760 series, 2860 series and 2862 series are all Lantiq based, are fully OR MCT conformant and fully support G.inp both ways and vectoring. During the initial rollout on ECI my 2760 was rock solid.
Logged
ISP:BT 80/20; Cab:ECI; Router:Draytek Vigor 2760

skyeci

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1148
    • skyECI line stats
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #147 on: January 17, 2018, 06:47:07 PM »

supposedly if g.inp was/is broken ayeaye on mdws has managed to keep his g.inp from when it was first seen on ECI so it can't be all that bad. still seems odd Openreach left it enabled on some cabs etc after it was suspended.
Logged
Sky Fibre Pro - billion 8800nl V1 (bridge mode) + Opnsense(i5 Qotom) with IPV6 , AC-88U WAP- ECI cab,

click for my ECI line stats


click for  line stats by Pi3/Huawei 

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31601
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #148 on: January 17, 2018, 06:56:49 PM »

It's always puzzled me why the ECI's have upstream g.inp disabled.   The hardwork ie processing power for upstream is done at the modem end.  I can't see any reason why a VDSL DSLAM doing the hardwork for downstream g.inp isn't capable of letting the modems do the upstream.

...  and there we have a problem.. because some modems just cant do upstream g.inp.   


The Huawei cabs have to have separate rules in place.   
- Downstream for most modems
- Upstream only if the modem is capable.
- OFF for certain ASUS modems.

 

The original purpose of G.INP was to enable better streaming of movies etc.  The 'speed boost' by being able to correct errors on the fly and reducing RS overheads was just a byproduct.  It was a downstream thing, thus done by the DSLAMs/MSANs.   The modems being able to do so too for upstream was seen as a perk and why its still not deemed essential. 

So we know ECI g.inp worked fine for certain lantiqs and it worked fine with the BCMs....  then we had reported problems whereby some modems were struggling to either get sync.. or were struggling to maintain sync and kept dropping out.   

Now what if the problem is the M41's aren't capable of being able to cope with certain rulesets depending on which modem is in use. THAT would make more sense to me when it comes to disabling upstream g.inp.
Perhaps (just perhaps) the issue may not actually be with g.inp itself but trying to identify modems on the other end and what to do with them depending on the modems capability for g.inp.

Just something to mull over. 
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31601
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #149 on: January 17, 2018, 06:59:06 PM »

During the initial rollout on ECI my 2760 was rock solid.

Sorry I cant recall the model numbers now, but there were 2 of them.  Draytek admitted defeat on those 2 models and offered a discount of 100 to owners of those models so they could purchase one of their newer models which would work with g.inp. 

I was being lazy when I said Draytek, because it didnt apply to all models,  I just couldnt recall the numbers. 
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17
 

anything