Virgin Media Community

[Guybrush85]

Hi all,

So I have received my hub 5 today, plugged it in, got setup and flipped straight into modem mode. 

I'm on a gig 1 connection and via port 4 on the hub into an Asus AX86 doing the speedtest directly on the router, I'm getting 1148 and 54 upload on the 2.5Gbit port - all sounds good so far.

After things settled a little I went check out hub stats and the upstream doesn't look right. 

Status page - What is ranged? 😕

Acquired Downstream Channel(Hz)	330000000	Locked
Ranged Upstream Channel(Hz)	53700000	Ranged
Provisioning State	Online	Operational

Downstream all 3.0 channels looks fine and in spec, although there's no visibility of the DOCSIS 3.1 channel anywhere.

Upstream - why am I at QAM32?

1	53700000	40.3	5120	QAM 32	10
2	46200000	39.8	5120	QAM 32	11
3	39400000	39.3	5120	QAM 32	12
4	32600000	39.3	5120	QAM 32	13

Lastly the network logs:

29-11-2021 17:24:21	error	DHCP RENEW WARNING - Field invalid in response v4 option;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:08:50	notice	CM-STATUS message sent. Event Type Code: 5; Chan ID: 159; DSID: N/A; MAC Addr: N/A; OFDM/OFDMA Profile ID: N/A.;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:08:30	notice	REGISTRATION COMPLETE - Waiting for Operational status
29-11-2021 17:08:25	warning	RNG-RSP CCAP Commanded Power in Excess of 6 dB Below the Value Corresponding to the Top of the DRW;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:08:25	warning	Dynamic Range Window violation
29-11-2021 17:08:25	warning	Dynamic Range Window violation
29-11-2021 17:08:25	warning	RNG-RSP CCAP Commanded Power in Excess of 6 dB Below the Value Corresponding to the Top of the DRW;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:08:24	warning	REG-RSP-MP Mismatch Between Calculated Value for P1.6hi Compared to CCAP Provided Value;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:08:19	notice	DS profile assignment change. DS Chan ID: 32; Previous Profile: ; New Profile: 1 2 3.;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:51	critical	DHCP FAILED - Discover sent, no offer received;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:41	critical	DHCP FAILED - Discover sent, no offer received;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:36	critical	DHCP FAILED - Critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:35	critical	DHCP FAILED - Discover sent, no offer received;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:28	critical	DHCP FAILED - Critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:27	critical	DHCP FAILED - Discover sent, no offer received;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:25	critical	DHCP FAILED - Critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:24	critical	DHCP FAILED - Discover sent, no offer received;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:24	critical	DHCP FAILED - Critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:16	critical	DHCP FAILED - Critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:15	critical	DHCP FAILED - Discover sent, no offer received;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:15	notice	TLV-11 - unrecognized OID;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:12	warning	DHCP WARNING - Non-critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:11	critical	DHCP FAILED - Critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:07:10	notice	Honoring MDD; IP provisioning mode = IPv4
29-11-2021 17:07:06	critical	SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing;;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 17:06:56	critical	SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing;;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 16:41:34	critical	SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing;;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
29-11-2021 16:41:32	critical	REG-RSP - invalid format or not recognized;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;

[Adduxi]

As the Hub 5 is "invite only" there are very few users so far with the knowledge you are seeking  😉

[Guybrush85]

Sharing the live graph:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/quality/share/thumb/57b3a331088707b1fab72beea46e...

[Guybrush85]

---

@Adduxi wrote:

As the Hub 5 is "invite only" there are very few users so far with the knowledge you are seeking  😉

---

Yes well it was a little different for me. I was following the hub 5 thread and someone posted a live link to request one, so I did. I didn't expect it to arrive when I noticed the link was taken down a couple of days later, but 2 weeks later it arrived! 

[jem101]

The upstream channels will drop to 32 QAM if the line is a bit too noisy to maintain a stable connection at 64 QAM. This is normal behaviour and as you are getting the rated upstream speed, VM will argue that there's nothing to worry about.

Now it might, and I'll stress might, cause you some latency issues but your BQM above didn't look too shoddy.

[Guybrush85]

---

@jem101 wrote:

The upstream channels will drop to 32 QAM if the line is a bit too noisy to maintain a stable connection at 64 QAM. This is normal behaviour and as you are getting the rated upstream speed, VM will argue that there's nothing to worry about.

Now it might, and I'll stress might, cause you some latency issues but your BQM above didn't look too shoddy.

---

Thanks for this. The odd thing is that it was locked at 64 beforehand. I have a 6db multiband attenuator on it right now, just to rule it out, I have a 3db (which will probably get my downstream power levels a bit too high) and a 6db forward path attenuator, which will mean the upstream power level will show lower.

I will test both once it's not netflix happy hour in the house just to rule it out.

[Andrew-G]

As stated, we have little to no experience of the Hub 5, but the network log you posted is troubling - whilst the syntax of messages is different to other hubs, there's sufficient commonality to see that the connection has been erratic, with power and ranging problems, and a few instances of channel loss.  The fact that the hub has filled up so quickly with DHCP messages that I think don't indicate much still says there's something going on that shouldn't be.  Whilst not universally so, there is a common theme that upstream problems are associated with those types of log errors, and erratic connections.

Quite how you'll get VM to pay attention I don't know.  If you ring it in, some untrained script reader will tell you that there's nothing wrong.  BQM looks as though there may be an underlying utilisation issue that VM are using Hub 4's and (one must assume) Hub 5's to help resolve, but that doesn't explain the error messages.  You weren't playing around with the hub's connections at the times that the network log was indicating non-DHCP errors, were you?

[-tony-]

i assume you have taken route 1 and re booted - in most cases it does little to nothing but in the odd case its worth while

[Guybrush85]

Yeah, tried all the usual stuff. Some of the messages was during it's first boot up, so hard to say for certain if they will return - will need to watch that.

I remembered that when the link was available I'd sent it to a friend who's in the same area as me. He's had his installed a few days, got him to screenshot me the stats and it's showing the same thing with ranged upstream and QAM 32.

Will see how the next 24 hours goes on the BQM and if I see any weird an wonderful latency issues due to this 'ranged' upstream, I will look at getting the Hub 4 back up and running (assuming this is simple enough).

[Andrew-G]

Unless you had the BQM running beforehand and seen that the Hub 4 offered a clean BQM, no log error messages, and consistent upstream modulation, then I'm not convinced that the Hub 4 would be any better, as there's no obvious reason to expect the Hub 5 will be worse at managing the noise issues that can occur on a DOCSIS connection.  I'd certainly expect more glitches in the Hub 5 user interface and router firmware as the device is newer, but those aren't really involved in the cable modem activity which is mostly what a BQM monitors, and the cable modem is essentially mathematics processing most of which I'd expect to be done in hardware.

If you look at the BQM trace from 1am this morning to 5:50am, that's as good as you'll ever see on DOCSIS, and suggest there's nothing wrong with the hub, but the nastiness that's very obvious elsewhere looks like line conditions are deteriorating when the local network is busy.