cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Hub 3 / Compal CH7465-LG (TG2492LG) and CGNV4 Latency Cause

Datalink
Up to speed

Good Day Ladies and Gentlemen,

Greetings from the other side of the pond, so to speak.  Over the last few weeks I've been perusing various user forums across North America and Europe for issues related to Intel Puma 6 modem latency.  Of those forums, your Hub 3 stands out as yet another Puma 6 based modem where users see continuous latency no matter what site is used or what online game is played. Considering all of the problems that are on the go, the following information should be of interest to all Hub 3, Compal CH7465-LG and Hitron CGNV4 modem users.  There is much more to post regarding this, so this is a start, to alert VM users as to the real cause of the latency and hopefully engage the VM engineering staff, via the forum staff, with Arris.  I am surprised to see that there has been no mention on this board of users from other ISPs who are suffering the exact same issues with their modems, so, this may come as a surprise to some, and possibly old news to others.

So, the short story ........

The Hub 3 / Compal CH7465-LG (TG2492LG) & Hiton CGNV4 modems are Intel Puma 6 / 6 Media Gateway (MG) based modems.  These modems exhibit high latency to the modem and high latency thru the modem.  The latency affects all IPV4 and IPV6 protocols, so it will be seen on every internet application and game.  The basic cause is the processing of the data packets thru a CPU software based process instead of thru the hardware processor / accelerator.  It appears that a higher priority task runs periodically, causing the packet processing to halt, and then resume.  This is observed as latency in applications and in ping tests to the modem and beyond.  For the last several weeks, Hitron, along with Intel and Rogers Communications in Canada have been addressing the latency issue within the Hitron CGNxxx series modems.  To date, only the IPV4 ICMP latency has been resolved.  Although this is only one protocol, it does show that a Puma 6MG modem is capable of using the hardware processor / accelerator with good results.  Currently Rogers is waiting for further firmware updates from Hitron which should include an expanded list of resolved protocol latency issues.  For Arris modems, "Netdog" an Arris engineer indicated last week that Arris was onboard to address the issue for the Arris SB6190 modem.  That should be considered as good news for any Arris modem (read Hub 3) user as Arris should be able to port those changes over to other Puma 6/6MG modems fairly quickly.  This is not a trivial exercise and will probably take several weeks to accomplish.  Note that there is no guarantee at this point that it is possible to shift all packet processing to the hardware processor / accelerator without suffering from any packet loss side effects.  Time will tell if all of the technical issues can be resolved with the current hardware included in the Puma 6/6MG chipset.  Last night, Netdog loaded beta firmware on selected test modems on the Comcast Communications network.  As this was only done last night, it's too soon to tell what this version resolves and if it was successful or not.  Netdog has contacts with staff at Comcast, Rogers, Charter and Cox Communications to fan out beta versions and modifications for testing.  I'd say its time to add Virgin Media and/or Liberty Global to that group as well.

Recent activity:

Approx three weeks ago a DSLReports user, xymox1 started a thread where he reported high latency to an Arris SB6190 and illustrated that with numerous MultiPing plots.  This is the same latency that I and other users with Rogers communications have been dealing with for months so it came as no surprise.  As well as reporting via that thread, xymox1 took it upon himself to email several staff members at Arris, Intel, Cablelabs and others.  The result of that campaign was Netdog's announcement, last week, that Arris was fully engaged at resolving the issue.  That has led to last nights release of beta firmware, although as I indicated its too early to determine what the beta firmware resolves, if anything.


The original thread that xymox1 started is here:

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31079834-ALL-SB6190-is-a-terrible-modem-Intel-Puma-6-MaxLinear-mis...


Yesterday, DSLReports issued a news story covering the thread:

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Arris-SB6190-Modem-Puma-6-Chipset-Have-Some-Major-Issues-138...


Today, Arris responded:

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Arris-Tells-us-Its-Working-With-Intel-on-SB6190-Puma6-Problems-1...


That response was also picked by Multichannel.com

http://www.multichannel.com/news/distribution/intel-arris-working-firmware-fix-sb6190-modem/409379

This is more news likely to appear in the next few days as additional tech and news staff pick up on this issue.


Hub 3 observations:

Like many others using a Puma 6/6MG modem, Hub 3 users are experiencing latency when they ping the modem, or ping a target outside of the home, game online or use low latency applications.  The common misconception is that this is Buffer Bloat. It's not. Its most likely a case of the packet processing stopping while the CPU processes a higher priority task.  The packet processing is done via the CPU no matter what mode the modem is operating in, modem mode or router mode and no matter what IPV4 or IPV6 protocol is used.  Normally, the latency is just that, latency.  The exception are UDP packets. In this case there is latency and packet loss.  The result of that is delayed and failed DNS lookups, and poor game performance for games that use UDP for player/server comms or player/player comms.


Can this be fixed?

So far, it appears that the answer is yes.  Rogers Communications issued beta firmware to a small group of test modems in October.  This version shifted the IPV4 ICMP processing from the CPU to the hardware processor / accelerator, resulting in greatly improved performance in ping latency.  At the present time we are waiting for the next version firmware which should shift other protocols over to the hardware processor / accelerator.  That can be seen in the following post:

http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Getting_connected/message-id/369...

The details and results of last nights beta release to the Comcast group have yet to be seen.

At this point there is enough reading to keep most staff and users busy.  My intention is to post some of the history leading up to this point and instructions on how to detect the latency and packet loss.  This is not thru the use of a BQM.  I had hoped to post this all at once but events are moving much faster than I had thought they would.  For now this should suffice to get the ball rolling.

Below is a link to a post with a couple of HrPing plots from my 32 channel modem to the connected CMTS.  This shows the latency that is observed and reflects what others have posted in this forum using Pingplotter and HrPing.

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31106550-

HrPing is one of the freebie applications that can be used to monitor the latency to and thru the modem. 

Pingplots with Pingplotter which show the latency from my modem to the CMTS can be found in the first two to three rows of my online image library at Rogers Communications, located below.  They are essentially what the BQM would look like if you were able to zoom into the plot to the point where you could see the individual ping spikes.  Those ping spikes are common to Puma 6 and Puma 6MG modems.

http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/media/gallerypage/user-id/829158

 

 

 [MOD EDIT: Subject heading changed to assist community]

4,478 REPLIES 4,478


@Xymox wrote:

@wotusaw wrote:

All I hear are excuses. It has to be tested , it has to be this, it has to be that. We have to dance round the apple tree at midnight under a full moon before it can be passed,cleared, made safe and environmentally friendly.

Replace the ********* HUB 3 with something that makes 'the customers' happy. Simples.

Don't give me the 'we have no money excuse either'. The guy who owns Virgin owns half the planet!!Robot Mad

Yes, I'm rambling. However this has gone on for a very, very, very long time.


Exactly.... This is all about profit. Shane is taking the side one might if he were a PR firm hired to try and combat this issue in social media. Those people exist, just so everybody knows.. Intel pays a really good firm a lot of money who specializes in emergency PR messes just like this one.

So Shane, what do you think should happen here ? Recall ? Swap out to a Broadcom based solution ? Or should everyone wait for a firmware update to come ?

( moderator note: I will publish anything moderated over at DSLReports if you dont supply me a note saying why you moderated the post )


Personally as a stopgap i would allow a small number of well known 3rd party devices on the network, specifically the retail versions of the models currently in use prior to the hub3, these devices are known to work on the network without causing issues, for people who are affected and are willing to purchase their own modem i would offer a small discount on their broadband bill as a way of saying thank you, i would personally abandon the hub3 and look in to a hub4 over waiting on a fix that may or may not ever arrive from intel, at this point i have more than a few reasons to dislike the hub3 and this seems like a simple way for VM to choose to drop the device without intel getting too upset, although they still will, yes this will incur a net cost, but its the best way to fix this i think personally


@shanematthews wrote:

@Xymox wrote:

@wotusaw wrote:

All I hear are excuses. It has to be tested , it has to be this, it has to be that. We have to dance round the apple tree at midnight under a full moon before it can be passed,cleared, made safe and environmentally friendly.

Replace the ********* HUB 3 with something that makes 'the customers' happy. Simples.

Don't give me the 'we have no money excuse either'. The guy who owns Virgin owns half the planet!!Robot Mad

Yes, I'm rambling. However this has gone on for a very, very, very long time.


Exactly.... This is all about profit. Shane is taking the side one might if he were a PR firm hired to try and combat this issue in social media. Those people exist, just so everybody knows.. Intel pays a really good firm a lot of money who specializes in emergency PR messes just like this one.

So Shane, what do you think should happen here ? Recall ? Swap out to a Broadcom based solution ? Or should everyone wait for a firmware update to come ?

( moderator note: I will publish anything moderated over at DSLReports if you dont supply me a note saying why you moderated the post )


Personally as a stopgap i would allow a small number of well known 3rd party devices on the network, specifically the retail versions of the models currently in use prior to the hub3, these devices are known to work on the network without causing issues, for people who are affected and are willing to purchase their own modem i would offer a small discount on their broadband bill as a way of saying thank you, i would personally abandon the hub3 and look in to a hub4 over waiting on a fix that may or may not ever arrive from intel, at this point i have more than a few reasons to dislike the hub3 and this seems like a simple way for VM to choose to drop the device without intel getting too upset, although they still will, yes this will incur a net cost, but its the best way to fix this i think personally


Reasonable. The thing is, do you think VM would allow 3rd party devices ? Thats a big step.

The MSOs worldwide are moving as fast as they can toward more money, for them right now that seems like home security, home automation and justy tons of things.. Broadcom does not offer these kinda of solutions because all of these are not open standards. So for MSOs the future is Intel ONLY.. This must NOT happen. We MUST have open standards.. Cuz 1 exploit can compromize every system in every city everywhere in the world. A single vendor using closed standards is a HORRIBLE idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36eiALtS40I


@Xymox wrote:

@shanematthews wrote:

@Xymox wrote:

@wotusaw wrote:

All I hear are excuses. It has to be tested , it has to be this, it has to be that. We have to dance round the apple tree at midnight under a full moon before it can be passed,cleared, made safe and environmentally friendly.

Replace the ********* HUB 3 with something that makes 'the customers' happy. Simples.

Don't give me the 'we have no money excuse either'. The guy who owns Virgin owns half the planet!!Robot Mad

Yes, I'm rambling. However this has gone on for a very, very, very long time.


Exactly.... This is all about profit. Shane is taking the side one might if he were a PR firm hired to try and combat this issue in social media. Those people exist, just so everybody knows.. Intel pays a really good firm a lot of money who specializes in emergency PR messes just like this one.

So Shane, what do you think should happen here ? Recall ? Swap out to a Broadcom based solution ? Or should everyone wait for a firmware update to come ?

( moderator note: I will publish anything moderated over at DSLReports if you dont supply me a note saying why you moderated the post )


Personally as a stopgap i would allow a small number of well known 3rd party devices on the network, specifically the retail versions of the models currently in use prior to the hub3, these devices are known to work on the network without causing issues, for people who are affected and are willing to purchase their own modem i would offer a small discount on their broadband bill as a way of saying thank you, i would personally abandon the hub3 and look in to a hub4 over waiting on a fix that may or may not ever arrive from intel, at this point i have more than a few reasons to dislike the hub3 and this seems like a simple way for VM to choose to drop the device without intel getting too upset, although they still will, yes this will incur a net cost, but its the best way to fix this i think personally


Reasonable. The thing is, do you think VM would allow 3rd party devices ? Thats a big step.

The MSOs worldwide are moving as fast as they can toward more money, for them right now that seems like home security, home automation and justy tons of things.. Broadcom does not offer these kinda of solutions because all of these are not open standards. So for MSOs the future is Intel ONLY.. This must NOT happen. We MUST have open standards.. Cuz 1 exploit can compromize every system in every city everywhere in the world. A single vendor using closed standards is a HORRIBLE idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36eiALtS40I


Sadly i don't think they will, even if it were limited to stock models of things the hubs were based on, even if its the RIGHT thing to do considering the situation, i mean, its probably been "suggested" internally at some point but was likely dismissed before it was brought to the attention of someone who actually had the power to make it happen, can't rock the precious boat, a lot of companies claim customers aren't just numbers, but they are, this isn't limited to just VM though

Ive sent a email to a top level at Liberty Global ( Virgin Mobile owner ) and informed them of the issue, given them links to news stories and PoC code and asked what they plan on doing about the Intel Puma with the security issue and also asked if they plan to keep pushing Intel products when they have a now proven track record of not being a worthy product VS a Broadcom device.

itinfocus
On our wavelength


Man.. I would love to test that.. Easy to setup a test. Run ping plotter TCP on the Puma on the modem/gateway owner side. Then hook up wifi and run various tests to see what effects that has on the owner latency.. My guess is its pretty shocking.. If anyone tries this test remember you CANT USE ICMP PING based tests. You have to use a TCP or UDP based test. On the public side just running a speedtest should do it.


 

Whilst this is true for most ISP and Modem combinations in the US now it does not apply to Virgin Media Hub 3.0s

We have yet to get ANY firmware update so ICMP is still broken on the Hub 3.0 and can be used for testing.

Also, we appreciate Xymox's attempt to intervene with Virgin security but do not expect any response. As a customer I have tried to raise this with network security and they do not respond. Ever!

My local BT exchange has been upgraded for BT Infinity, if this Hub 3 issue is not fixed by the next price rise then I can see me jumping ship to be honest. 

Anonymous
Not applicable
Well i just had VM ring again, IT department are still looking in to the issue and no update as of yet of what they are doing.

Just moved to a VM Business line (as it was cheaper than I was paying, and even though the Hitron has the same Puma chipset, my BQM is showing an slight improvement in latency:

 My Broadband Ping - VM300


@BlackDwarf wrote:

Just moved to a VM Business line (as it was cheaper than I was paying, and even though the Hitron has the same Puma chipset, my BQM is showing an slight improvement in latency:

That's not your Hitron. The Hitron will have a different IP to your previous Hub 3, so you can't have both on the same BQM. Also it looks wrong for a Hitron with the current firmware (assuming the April firmware is widely disseminated). You'll need to setup a new BQM for the Hitron.

I would imagine your old BQM is now monitoring someone else's Hub 3.

 My Broadband Ping - VM300


 

It was a swap on existing residential line. I'm definitely getting the same IP set up on my previous BQM. CGNV4 is running 4.5.10.142-SIP-UPC.