the fast path stats are gone, but 20k FEC in 6 hours suggests CRC probably was at least a moderate amount prior to the switch.

I think a deliberate resync to bring it back to 6db would have not stopped DLM, 1mbit or so reduction in sync speed probably would have made little difference.

on the banded profiles there is 74mbit but then the next one down is a whopping 20mbit at 54mbit. As I was thinking if the DLM hopping bothers you and you want a perm fast path then you could request of isp to get you put on a lower band (I think this maybe can be done, fixed bands) to reduce the errors but dropping to 54mbit sync speed is a big hit. Might be worth checking if you not on the stable DLM profile.

My own line is still losing snr, the margin is now 5.9-6.0 so attainable moving below the sync, my error rate isnt icnreasing tho, today I have about half the errors I had yesterday and yesterday the attainable was about 1.5mbit higher.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 19-Sep-13 17:36:02)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

My own line is still losing snr, the margin is now 5.9-6.0 so attainable moving below the sync, my error rate isnt icnreasing tho, today I have about half the errors I had yesterday and yesterday the attainable was about 1.5mbit higher.

Fingers crossed for you

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Well we got no idea how much extra bandwidth demand there was but the update is under a gig.

It increased load by 120Gbps-ish on the public peering on LINX. LONAP saw maximum traffic over 60% higher than previous maximum.

It's a very peculiar graph for congestion, no ramp up to speak of. In any event I fully expect congestion to become more of a feature on transit and peering points as access networks catch up with them more.

Plusnet's experience - 30% of their entire bandwidth was consumed by Apple updates.

Edited by deleted (Thu 19-Sep-13 18:37:13)

Post deleted by MrSaffron

Cough, language

Oops, sorry boss.

Will avoid mentioning the company named after fruit that puts the letter 'i' in front of everything in future

Edited by deleted (Thu 19-Sep-13 18:42:02)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Will avoid mentioning the company named after fruit that puts the letter 'i' in front of everything in future

LOL.

I suspect as it was after work hours in the UK that lots of UK iOS owners were sitting hitting the update button from 5:50pm onwards.

yeah a lot of traffic, I am pretty sure it was peering/transit side the issue.

so you expect peering capacity to not be upgraded in line with access networks?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Cough, language

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Oops, sorry boss.

Will avoid mentioning the company named after fruit that puts the letter 'i' in front of everything in future

He should be banned for a week! lol he must be lucky day!

Edited by adslmax (Thu 19-Sep-13 19:32:35)

To an extent no, I do not expect transit and peering to keep pace with access speeds.

They haven't elsewhere where access networks have gone ultra fast so unsure why we'd be different unless we really take our time over getting to seriously high data rates.

Saying that we probably will do exactly that. FTTP availability was scaled back, FTTPoD has various flaws in it and take up has been abysmal in the few areas where it's been released in no small part due to those flaws, and Openreach are doing their utmost to protect leased line revenues by offering farcically low upstream speeds.

The flaws refer to stupid things like refusing to install FTTPoD to a second address in the same physical building, great for those small businesses who are realistically going to be most of the market for this thing and rejecting installs to what they think are MDUs because the (contractor) surveyors see two cars outside a house.

Charging the full price rather than the considerably lower 'transitional' price for 330/30 on FTTPoD won't be helping matters, and that it costs CPs 45.60GBP/month just to get 330/30 to the exchange.

So I'll slightly modify my remark. If Openreach stop being tools about upstream on FTTP and sort out the FTTPoD offering so that it's actually a genuinely usable product rather than lip service to cover up for their not wanting to spend on FTTP to save a few hundred million on CapEx edge may struggle to keep pace with access.

I know FTTPoD is being looked at again due to both disinterest from ISPs, 3 year contracts are scary things and the rental price is a rip off, and their customers. We'll see if this changes anything.

Personally I would far rather Openreach increase the installation cost and offer their full FTTP portfolio, though with an FTTP portfolio that actually properly reflects that GPON is 2.4Gb down and 1.2Gb up, not the 2.4Gb down and 240Mb up you'd think it were given their offerings.

The idea that they are selling enough FTTP to have contention issues on the upstream is laughable, and even more so on FTTPoD. Purely a cynical commercial move which looks even more pathetic when you note that even in the more capitalist and indeed as far as telecomms goes monopolist USA the far bigger telco Verizon deliver higher upstreams on their PON network both to home and business users - because they know that a company that needs dedicated, SLA'd bandwidth isn't going to dump it for best effort FTTP via PON and accept it's how the market is now.

YMMV.

Edited by deleted (Thu 19-Sep-13 21:22:20)