General Discussion
  >> Fibre Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | [9] | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User mlmclaren
(experienced) Tue 31-Mar-15 09:53:19
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: TiMeTraVeLeR] [link to this post]
 
me and your connections nearly identical

Mine was 10ms to 27ms then back to 10ms & 61mb to 55mb and then back to 66mb

Plusnet Unlimited 21CN 4200/800 @ 4.2Km > TP-Link TD-W8968v3 - BQM IPv4
Plusnet Fibre Extra 66000/20000 @ 450m > HG612 (Unlocked) > Linksys LRT224 - BQM IPv4
Standard User TiMeTraVeLeR
(member) Tue 31-Mar-15 09:57:56
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: mlmclaren] [link to this post]
 
I have seen an increase in speed since G.inp might have been the time of day being an influence but its quite a hefty one of 7mb actual download speeds, as those figures are actual dl bandwidth not sync.
Standard User mlmclaren
(experienced) Tue 31-Mar-15 09:59:47
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: TiMeTraVeLeR] [link to this post]
 
It has benefited customers with more impacted lines,

I've seen some reporting 10mb increases.. mine was only 4-5mb but was enough to push my connection a little further than before..

Plusnet Unlimited 21CN 4200/800 @ 4.2Km > TP-Link TD-W8968v3 - BQM IPv4
Plusnet Fibre Extra 66000/20000 @ 450m > HG612 (Unlocked) > Linksys LRT224 - BQM IPv4


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User TiMeTraVeLeR
(member) Tue 31-Mar-15 10:17:32
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: mlmclaren] [link to this post]
 
Fingers crossed it will be a reliable system for us.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Mar-15 10:43:04
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: TiMeTraVeLeR] [link to this post]
 
Waiting on full reply, but indications so far are those with an ECI cab have not had G.INP rolled out to them yet.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Tue 31-Mar-15 11:41:36
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
thats correct although there is a trial ongoing, its planned for rollout Q1 of 2015, (financial year).

Plusnet Fibre Unlimited BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User deleted
(deleted) Tue 31-Mar-15 11:56:21
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: deleted] [link to this post]
 
Yes, You have G.INP active.

This means that re-transmission is configured on bearer 0 - the main data channel. It also has very small amounts of FEC and interleaving enabled, but these impact your line at much lower levels than the old-style FEC and interleaving.

My previous calculations are that FEC (alongside G.INP) uses about 5% of bandwidth (rather than 20%+), and latency is increased by 0.2ms

I haven't fully figured out what bearer 1 is used for (I used to think it was for re-transmission of packets, when needed, but I'm less sure now); however, it is very low volume (about 0.1Mbps), and has very high FEC protection on every line. Some lines also apply interleaving to this portion - yours does, as does mine.

In fact, your G.INP settings entirely match mine - a line running at 80/20 (attainable 101/33) with 50 ES's per day before activation, now running at 80/20 (attainable 107/35) with 0 ES's per day afterwards.

The one way that your line looks different is that your retransmit counters are higher.

On the face of it, G.INP isn't affecting your line, and doesn't look to be giving you upstream problems. certainly you aren't seeing any errors upstream - so all packets should be getting through fine.

BUT...

I see that your modem is predicting a max attainable speed upstream of 48Mbps. That is huge.

For comparison, my line (with 8.4dB attenuation downstream) is 107/35. Yours, with 10.6dB attenuation, is 92/48.

One reason could be your upstream power level. Mine reads -8.2dBm, while yours reads 7.8dBm. Being close to the cabinet, upstream power should be reduced to prevent our lines from interfering with those lines further away - a process known as upstream power backoff. However, it doesn't look like your line is doing this ... I wonder why?

The high power level would give you inflated SNR levels, so would make the modem think that a high upstream speed was possible.

Perhaps this, ultimately, is leading to upstream problems that aren't visible through the stats.
Standard User deleted
(deleted) Tue 31-Mar-15 11:57:36
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: RobertoS] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by RobertoS:
- it was genuine heavy interleaving. I know what caused it smile. Somewhere a couple of weeks back I think I have a stats post showing it.


Do tell ... I must have entirely missed it back then!
Standard User deleted
(deleted) Tue 31-Mar-15 21:03:23
Print Post

Re: G.INP or Interleaving?


[re: deleted] [link to this post]
 
Cheers WWWombat, have requested a line profile reset via the BTCare webform. Hoping that sorts it and reduces ping times.

PING bbc.co.uk (212.58.246.103): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.493 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=30.831 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=29.495 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=25.279 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=21.972 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=26.370 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=31.573 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=22.269 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.246.103: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=21.983 ms
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | [9] | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to