Cable Forum
Page 5 of 8 1234 5 678
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Virgin Media Internet Service (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Superhub : Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2? (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33704864)

adduxi 14-08-2017 17:28
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ileikcaek (Post 35912339)
I'm just wondering when my area will actually see any upgrades after seemingly languishing for years. there's no 300Mb yet, upload is still on 2x QAM16, the CMTS is a RiverDelta hunk of junk with the current single thread download speed issues that I and other people in the area have had to deal with since last year. Tbb places this area as bottom of the chart for VM performance now, when it used to be one of the best.
Same here, with the exception of only 12 DS, so don't feel left out ;)
TBB placed Lisburn as one of the worst VM areas as well. Good to know this area is not alone in the "top poor performance stakes" ..... <sigh>

ileikcaek 14-08-2017 18:13
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Thanks for the info, Ignition. I hope it holds true.

We are still on 12 channels here due to the limits of the old CMTS.

Jon22 15-08-2017 00:36
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Thanks for the reply Ignitionnet. Don't suppose you would be able to find out when this area (Telford, specifically Telf14) are likely to go 64QAM on the upstream? No worries if not :)

Ignitionnet 15-08-2017 11:34
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon22 (Post 35912560)
Thanks for the reply Ignitionnet. Don't suppose you would be able to find out when this area (Telford, specifically Telf14) are likely to go 64QAM on the upstream? No worries if not :)
Sorry Jon, have to refer you to my earlier post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35912433)
With regards to bonding 4 upstreams not a clue what the hold up is. There are plenty of areas that are perfectly capable but just haven't had the configuration rolled out and it's holding things up.
All part of the same programme to get 4 x 64QAM upstreams bonded.

If it's an issue with the network itself needing rebuilding you'll get a card through your door at some point to inform you of upcoming maintenance work.

Travelstar 16-08-2017 16:33
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Over the past few weeks my 4 upstream channels went back to 3 however my downstream always remained fixed at 8.

Last night everything appeared to change. I now am back to 4 upstream channels and now 20 channels, which is a little surprising as I always thought the plan was to go to 24. Any ideas on why the odd number?

Ignitionnet 16-08-2017 16:46
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Yes. 24 is the maximum capability of the platform, not a minimum. No reason to spend the money on deploying 24 straight away if 16 or 20 will suffice for now.

JordanTheToaster 16-08-2017 16:52
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
What exactly is the upstream channel situation in Bath? Will 4 channels ever be here?

Travelstar 16-08-2017 16:58
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35912874)
Yes. 24 is the maximum capability of the platform, not a minimum. No reason to spend the money on deploying 24 straight away if 16 or 20 will suffice for now.
Thanks for the quick reply. I admit I always thought they would go straight to 24. That said, seeing the increase to 20 is a welcome sight, although with the Puma 6 modems I'm worried about the likely increase in latency this will bring.

vm_tech 16-08-2017 17:35
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelstar (Post 35912876)
Thanks for the quick reply. I admit I always thought they would go straight to 24. That said, seeing the increase to 20 is a welcome sight, although with the Puma 6 modems I'm worried about the likely increase in latency this will bring.
For additional downstream frequencies, a license has to be purchased from
The CMTS provider. So makes no sense financially to run at full capacity unless necessary.

Sephiroth 16-08-2017 21:08
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vm_tech (Post 35912881)
For additional downstream frequencies, a license has to be purchased from
The CMTS provider. So makes no sense financially to run at full capacity unless necessary.
That's an important pointer to the remedies in VM's capacity management toolkit.

Ignitionnet 16-08-2017 21:34
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vm_tech (Post 35912881)
For additional downstream frequencies, a license has to be purchased from
The CMTS provider. So makes no sense financially to run at full capacity unless necessary.
Exactly. VM pay for every downstream channel they turn up. With that in mind running with the fewest feasible downstreams is a good call.

The node my property is connected to, for example, only has about a hundred premises on it right now as the build is incomplete, so runs on 16 channels. I will play my part in triggering an upgrade by subscribing to the business 'Voom' 350/20 service, waiting on the next business service to come along.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35912908)
That's an important pointer to the remedies in VM's capacity management toolkit.
Same for every other provider realistically.

When 24 downstream channels are inadequate for an area they will either have to split the node, which they may do via a remote PHY solution, or deliver DOCSIS 3.1 to offload heavy users from the 3.0 platform.

Kushan 17-08-2017 13:48
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Isn't the idea of DOCSIS3.1 that instead of (say) 24 "large" channels, you have lots and lots of smaller channels to make better use of the available spectrum?

I wonder how that affects licensing.

Ignitionnet 17-08-2017 13:56
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35912991)
Isn't the idea of DOCSIS3.1 that instead of (say) 24 "large" channels, you have lots and lots of smaller channels to make better use of the available spectrum?

I wonder how that affects licensing.
On the Cisco kit at least you pay by 3.1 spectrum in use and maximum modulation:

Code:
Router# show controller integrated-cable 3/0/0 rf-port 158 verbose
Chan State Admin Mod-Type Start Width PLC Profile-ID dcid power
output
Frequency
158 UP UP OFDM 627000000 96000000 663000000 30 159 32
NORMAL
Resource status: OK
License: granted <17:02:35 EDT May 18 2016>
OFDM channel license spectrum width: 92200000
OFDM modulation license (spectrum width): 2K (6000000)

Kushan 17-08-2017 14:02
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
That makes a lot more sense!

Ignitionnet 17-08-2017 14:08
Re: Upstream channel bonding: Any plans to bond more than 2?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35912994)
That makes a lot more sense!
Indeedy.

It's all done this way as we're not that far away from not needing physical CMTS at all, all done in software, so need the ability to charge MSOs without having physical line cards for them to pay for.

Nice explanation of this at http://www.gainspeed.com/our-solutio...-architecture/


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:03.
Page 5 of 8 1234 5 678
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.