Ping Peter Crosland or 2WIRE users

On Mon, 09 May 2011 12:16:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>WCZ wrote:
>>
>> "Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sun, 08 May 2011 19:10:30 +0100, Andy Burns
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rate: 2272 kbs 770 kbs
>>>> Max Rate: 3333 kbs 1052 kbs
>>>> Noise Margin: 8.4 dB 5.5 dB
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know "Max Rate" is not useful.
>>> --
>>
>> I get close to the Max Rate on my 2700HGV. I thought (possibly
>> incorrectly) that it was the maximum rate attainable with a 5dB margin.
>> I'd think you'd closer to that on the line stats above if the router was
>> resynced with a 6dB margin.
>>
>> On my router if the SNR is > 5dB, Max Rate > Connected Rate. If SNR <
>> 5dB, Connected Rate > Max Rate. If SNR = 5dB, Connected Rate = Max
>> Rate. I have no idea why 5dB seems to be the magic number.
>>
>I think that's right actually. For a while when I was with Claranet they
>published in addition to the BRAS, a 'maximum sustainable rate' and a
>'fault threshold rate' these being arbitrary lines on some chart
>corresponding to the most that you could ever reasonably get out, and
>the least that BT would deem acceptable, given the attenuation.

Max Stable Rate (MSR) and Fault Threshold Rate (FTR) are values
calculated by the DLM during the training/stabilisation period for
MaxDSL. MSR is the maximum sync rate you got then (rounded down) and
FTR is 70% of that IIRC. BT will not consider a speed fault unless
your speed is less than the FTR. If they lower it because a fault is
present then the fault magically goes away.

>They subsequently found they caused too many support calls, and removed
>them.

A good ISP will tell you. However the "Max Rate" displayed by a
router is nothing to do with MSR/FTR.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Peter Crosland wrote:

> If I recall correctly you are a Plusnet customer.

I am.

> If so you should have the
> broadband link settings set to VPI Zero, VCI 38, ATM encapsulation set to
> Routed VC Mux and Connection type set to PPoA. It will not work correctly if
> you don't use the proper settings.

Oh it works properly like that, but I wanted to use it in what I think
they call "half bridge" mode ... I have a /28 subnet and would like all
usable addresses fed to a WRT54G running openWRT.

I also tried to configure PPoE (which I believe will work instead of the
usual PPoA) but then it went back to complaining about invalid PPP
username (due to BT lockdown) at that point I decided it was fighting
me, not helping me and unplugged it ... shame ... the hardware seems decent.

"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> If I recall correctly you are a Plusnet customer.
>
> I am.
>
>> If so you should have the
>> broadband link settings set to VPI Zero, VCI 38, ATM encapsulation set to
>> Routed VC Mux and Connection type set to PPoA. It will not work correctly
>> if
>> you don't use the proper settings.
>
> Oh it works properly like that, but I wanted to use it in what I think
> they call "half bridge" mode ... I have a /28 subnet and would like all
> usable addresses fed to a WRT54G running openWRT.
>
> I also tried to configure PPoE (which I believe will work instead of the
> usual PPoA) but then it went back to complaining about invalid PPP
> username (due to BT lockdown) at that point I decided it was fighting
> me, not helping me and unplugged it ... shame ... the hardware seems
> decent.

The hardware works very well when correctly configured but it is not
reasonable to expect it to be as highly configurable as Cisco kit. Having
said that the prime reason for using a 2700 is for the ADSL performance.
Personally I have never had any problem using it just for that purpose and
have successfully run all sorts of other kit behind it. That might be the
way to achieve what you are trying to do.

Peter Crosland

Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.broadband Job Justification Hearings, Peter
Crosland chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> the prime reason for using a 2700 is for the ADSL performance. Personally
> I have never had any problem using it just for that purpose and have
> successfully run all sorts of other kit behind it.

That sounds like what Andy was trying to do.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
19:54:39 up 2 days, 23:54, 6 users, load average: 0.01, 0.11, 0.16
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King

Peter Crosland wrote:

> The hardware works very well when correctly configured but it is not
> reasonable to expect it to be as highly configurable as Cisco kit. Having
> said that the prime reason for using a 2700 is for the ADSL performance.

That was indeed why I tried it, I'd seen them recommended for long
lines, though I admit I can't remember whether most people were
recommending them for extra speed, or extra stability, anyway I didn't
get any extra speed ... and with the prospect of plusnet trialling IPv6
soon the Cisco sounds more interesting again ...

> Personally I have never had any problem using it just for that purpose and
> have successfully run all sorts of other kit behind it. That might be the
> way to achieve what you are trying to do.

I'm sure I could get it to forward the individual public IP addresses to
private IP addresses on the openWRT box and then forward them again from
there, but sounds messy for no gain.

"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:rOCdnYrk_uynoFXQnZ2dnUVZ8t-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> The hardware works very well when correctly configured but it is not
>> reasonable to expect it to be as highly configurable as Cisco kit. Having
>> said that the prime reason for using a 2700 is for the ADSL performance.
>
> That was indeed why I tried it, I'd seen them recommended for long
> lines, though I admit I can't remember whether most people were
> recommending them for extra speed, or extra stability, anyway I didn't
> get any extra speed ... and with the prospect of plusnet trialling IPv6
> soon the Cisco sounds more interesting again ...
>
>> Personally I have never had any problem using it just for that purpose
>> and
>> have successfully run all sorts of other kit behind it. That might be the
>> way to achieve what you are trying to do.
>
> I'm sure I could get it to forward the individual public IP addresses to
> private IP addresses on the openWRT box and then forward them again from
> there, but sounds messy for no gain.

Certainly not worth doing if you don't get any improvement in the ADSL
performance as far as speed or stability. For a large majority of users the
only obvious drawback with the 2700 is the lack of N wireless. That is
easily overcome , as I and many others have found, by putting an N access
point behind the 2700. I must admit I have never done a comparison of Cisco
ADSL kit with the 2700 as it is well outside what all but a handful of
domestic users would need to use even if they could afford it.

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:

> I must admit I have never done a comparison of Cisco
> ADSL kit with the 2700 as it is well outside what all but a handful of
> domestic users would need to use even if they could afford it.

It's amazing what you can prevent going into a skip, only disadvantage
is it's ADSL1, on my line it gets only gets 2272x640 as opposed to
2272x770 that the 2wire and various others (Siemens/Efficient, Westell)
get, best I've tried this year (Homehub2, Zyxel) got 3551x816 which they
managed for about a week, then dropped back down.

"Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Max Stable Rate (MSR) and Fault Threshold Rate (FTR) are values
> calculated by the DLM during the training/stabilisation period for
> MaxDSL. MSR is the maximum sync rate you got then (rounded down) and
> FTR is 70% of that IIRC. BT will not consider a speed fault unless
> your speed is less than the FTR. If they lower it because a fault is
> present then the fault magically goes away.

Used to be 70%. Not sure when it changed, but it's been 80% for a while now.