Print

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

[RealAleMadrid]

@licqourice  OK You didn't actually specify that in your post so causing surprise to readers.

[licquorice]

I did, but is way back in message 6. I probably should have worded my original post better and specified it in the context of ADSL.

[burakkucat]

Without changing any of the configuration, the HG612 was briefly connected to the incoming pair, which carried the ADSL2+ based TalkTalk service (LLU), and it failed to achieve synchronism with the exchange based MSAN. The status of the GUI menu Basic >> DSL Modulation type tick boxes was that just the last of the six, "ALL", was selected.

Adding some further information to the above, as a result of me thinking whilst inspecting the insides of my eye-lids. From that very first experiment with the initial, newly unlocked, HG612 --

• The lack of synchronism that I noted was nothing more than me not allowing sufficient time for the MSAN and HG612 to work through all the xDSL options available.
• The Basic >> ATM Connection menu showed a null entry.
• The Basic >> PTM Connection menu showed the required information for a VDSL2 based service.

[RealAleMadrid]

@burakkucat  I think that evidence would support my statement that the HG612 will not support an ATM Wan connection without manual configuration.

@meritez Perhaps you are remembering BT/Plusnet modem/routers, some of which would switch between ADSL and VDSL2 automatically, the HG612 could not do this.

[burakkucat]

@burakkucat  I think that evidence would support my statement that the HG612 will not support an ATM Wan connection without manual configuration.

I agree. 

[meritez]

@RealAleMadrid,

I've never used a BT/Plusnet router.
Maybe I've never used a locked hg612.

[j0hn]

The HG612 definitely doesn't sync to ADSL when in default locked state.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Ah yes, I completely missed that it was locked.  Naturally as they were pre-configured for VDSL, they wont be able to handle ATM without being reconfigured.

[RealAleMadrid]

@meritez So how have you dreamt up your incorrect ideas in posts #15 and #17?

Locked or unlocked the HG612 will not switch between PTM and ATM mode without manual re-configuration.

[j0hn]

@meritez So how have you dreamt up your incorrect ideas in posts #15 and #17?

Locked or unlocked the HG612 will not switch between PTM and ATM mode without manual re-configuration.

With regards to post 17

Yes it was designed this way for a customer to be delivered an ADSL service that migrated to a FTTC service with no replacement of equipment on the migration day.

The HG612 was never provided on ADSL for anyone to upgrade to FTTC.

Both the Openreach FTTC modems were only ever provided by Openreach engineers during a managed VDSL2 install.
I don't think providers ever sent them out. (Edit: some did eventually, like AAISP, but only when self install launched later on and only for VDSL2 circuits).
When self install became a thing providers had to provide their own modem or hub.

They were only used on ADSL by anyone who purchased 1 and reconfigured it or downgraded from FTTC and reconfigured it.

[dee.jay]

Heh, when the chap from OR came recently to commission my second AAISP circuit he mused about my modems and wondered where my router was. It's upstairs mate... He couldn't fathom why I didn't just have some all-in-one box as the HG612's are so old.

I think my first original one was indeed done with a managed OR install way back in 2012.

[tonygibbs16]

Hi all,

I haven't used an HG612, but I have some thoughts. I started broadband with a Zyxel Prestige 630-C1 ADSL device that had DSL on one-side and USB on the other, and it did PPPoA.

Looking at the Cisco figure attached from https://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=363733&seqNum=2 and thinking about the OSI-Reference Model, I think that PPPoE and PPPoA are all layer 2 or layer 2.5 protocols and so more modem like than router like. Routing happens at OSI-RM layer 3 or IP layer in TCP/IP.

The Cisco figure shows how PPPoE could be on a PC, but nowadays we have more features all bundled in the CPE as a home router/gateway, which is doing all the modem & router functions in one box with Ethernet and WiFi on it too.

So much functionality has moved into a single box CPE now that it can get hard to separate functions out.

I got involved in some ETSI technical specifications in the past, and the committee agreed that it was much easier to make the end user devices talk AT & PPP on a serial line when they needed to do data communications (so the device behaved like a modem) than to try to invent a new protocol for bringing up the communications.  As PPP had so many supported implementations even in the late 1990s

Cheers,
    Tony

[Alex Atkin UK]

most services will connect using PPPoE or PPPoA, Sky ADSL is PPPoA only.

Yeah I remember that being discussed at the time when I switched to separate devices.  I think the theory was PPPoA is slightly more efficient as its tweaked specifically to ATM packet sizes?  Although I don't think I could ever measure a notable difference, likely as the benefit of using your own router greatly outweighed any efficiency difference.

At the time it was when bittorrent came out and consumer DSL routers just weren't up to handling so many concurrent connections.