![]() |
Re: Packet Loss issue.
Quote:
And just think - There must be thousands of people out there using them ATM! As I said earlier in the post, I'm happy to post anyone an attenuator if they needed one. I have quite a few of the Technetix FPA's sat around doing nothing. Tom |
Re: Packet Loss issue.
Quote:
|
Re: Packet Loss issue.
Quote:
Yea I would imagine there will be a hell of a lot of them out there. This was the advice quite a few years ago I guess for each less one they have out there it’s 1 less potential tech visit. The strategy could be totally different now, I haven’t worked around CPE for a fair few years, and I no longer work for VM. ---------- Post added at 10:55 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Packet Loss issue.
Sorry all, I didn't have notifications of replies for this thread.
My power levels seem to be back in check now, The 10dB FPA is still in place. They were nearing -7dBmV the other week with it. It's interesting to read that these FPA's shouldn't really be used now and that thought did occur to me, I'm quite inquisitive and I've seen things relating to the higher frequencies in future. It does seem like I have a situation where sometimes a 10dB FPA is good, but other times this is too much. Channel Frequency (Hz) Power (dBmV) SNR (dB) Modulation Channel ID 1 402750000 -1.5 38 256 qam 30 2 202750000 1.5 40 256 qam 9 3 210750000 1.4 38 256 qam 10 4 218750000 1.2 40 256 qam 11 5 226750000 1.2 40 256 qam 12 6 234750000 1 40 256 qam 13 7 242750000 0.9 38 256 qam 14 8 250750000 0.7 40 256 qam 15 9 258750000 0.5 40 256 qam 16 10 266750000 0.2 40 256 qam 17 11 274750000 0 38 256 qam 18 12 282750000 0.2 40 256 qam 19 13 290750000 0.2 38 256 qam 20 14 298750000 0.4 38 256 qam 21 15 306750000 0.2 40 256 qam 22 16 314750000 0.2 38 256 qam 23 17 322750000 0 40 256 qam 24 18 330750000 0 40 256 qam 25 19 370750000 -0.7 38 256 qam 26 20 378750000 -0.7 38 256 qam 27 21 386750000 -1 40 256 qam 28 22 394750000 -1.2 40 256 qam 29 23 410750000 -1.7 38 256 qam 31 24 418750000 -2.2 38 256 qam 32 Upstream still has a flapping channel but the T3's have settled now. Channel Frequency (Hz) Power (dBmV) Symbol Rate (ksps) Modulation Channel ID 1 39400026 39.5 5120 64 qam 10 2 25800000 39.5 5120 32 qam 12 3 32600007 39.5 5120 64 qam 11 4 46199981 39.5 5120 64 qam 9 Channel Frequency (Hz) Power (dBmV) Symbol Rate (ksps) Modulation Channel ID 1 39400026 39.5 5120 64 qam 10 2 25800000 39.5 5120 64 qam 12 3 32600007 39.5 5120 64 qam 11 4 46199981 39.5 5120 64 qam 9 Still seeing some light packet loss (up to 1%) on my tbb graph but I'm unable to see where this is occurring. I've ran some checks including the pingplotter app and to various IP's. sometimes I see some packet loss on the first hop after my router (10.x.x.x ip being the cmts?) and sometimes on the second hop (brig-core-2b-xe-1122-0.network.virginmedia.net). https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2021/01/1.png |
Re: Packet Loss issue.
Quote:
|
Re: Packet Loss issue.
I was pinging pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com which is where their firebrick thing is but I was seeing a similar thing pinging cloudflare 1.1.1.1 when that thread was going and one of the links was down.
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2021/01/2.png Probably not helpful at all and also not too bad right now, not that up to a single % is gonna be a huge problem. My main question was about the power levels dropping so low in this case but they're back in check now. My concern was that I was going to end up with packet loss getting worse like that issue in the first post back in june. |
Re: Packet Loss issue.
the power levels and stats you posted earlier are mint
|
Re: Packet Loss issue.
I don't see any packet loss when pinging 80.249.99.164 and 1.1.1.1 from the CMTS
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum