WBC connection problems

[Sebby]

Not sure if this will fit here but i've noticed some problems trying to authenticate to IDNet using a netgear DG834GT in bridge mode and it's been failing. I suspected the netgear at first but got exactly the same thing when trying with a Zyxel in bridge mode too. Packet captures my side show going through LCP negotiation, receiving the CHAP challenege and then sending the response 10 times, each at 2 second intervals until it terminates the sessions after receiving no response from the [IDNet?] server.

I'll pass the pcaps on to support if its any use to someone?

Stu

That's strange, because the DG834GT uses the same chipset as the DG834Gv4, which is one of the recommended routers for ADSL2+.

[sebt]

Not sure if this will fit here but i've noticed some problems trying to authenticate to IDNet using a netgear DG834GT in bridge mode and it's been failing. I suspected the netgear at first but got exactly the same thing when trying with a Zyxel in bridge mode too. Packet captures my side show going through LCP negotiation, receiving the CHAP challenege and then sending the response 10 times, each at 2 second intervals until it terminates the sessions after receiving no response from the [IDNet?] server.

I'll pass the pcaps on to support if its any use to someone?

Stu

Yes, stu, that's exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, what I'm seeing when I use wireshark and capture a connection packet exchange initiated by an XP PPPoE dial (ie. bridge mode / PPPoE passthrough), when attempting connecting to IDnet through the Draytek. It's as though "our end" is waiting for a packet that "their end" is never sending. And although I can't monitor it, I'm sure the Draytek's own PPPoA dial is having the same issue; it waits and waits for the "correct" response, then just drops the connection.

In fact, yours a really useful piece of input, since when the router is in bridge mode XP is handling the connection authentication, not the Netgear/Draytek. This suggests that XP may also be enforcing a more "correct" interpretation of the packet exchange, resulting in the dropped call.

Coincidentally, Seg (Draytek UK) asked me to do exactly what you've already done (PPPoE over netgear in bridge mode). I didn't get round to attempting it here yet due to my network being live, but since you have I was wondering if you could email your pcaps over to my contact there? If you could pm me I'll give you his email address. This would be really useful for nailing where the problem lies and possibly for allowing Draytek to implement a workaround as well.

...
As Plusnet is now owned by BT we suspect that they're not using the same connection circuits that we have to use. We have forwarded sebt's findings to BT and await their response.

Cheers
Simon

Thanks Simon! Glad to know things are happening. Most of my discussions have been with Brian, and I've been forwarding my own packet traces to my support contact at Seg, so hopefully attacking all the angles will expedite an answer soon.

Kind regards,
Seb

[joll200x]

packet captures have been sanitised and sent on to the email you sent me.

I've also run them by IDnet support and was a little miffed with the response I got. Was given the impression PPPoE was supported but the settings wouldn't be given out. There aren't any settings which are that different in terms of PPPoE/PPPoA - it's just the encapsulation which is different. Does anyone have PPPoE working with IDnet on other hardware?

[oglesbyj]

Just got Draytek 2820 working. Used this firmware http://www.draytek.com/user/SupportDownloadsDetail.php?action=Load&MID=12&ID=247#PdInfo  then pick 232201 also says 'recomended for uk'

(in case the link does not work go to www.draytek.com not .co.uk then support -> downloads then 'Vigor2820 series   3.3.1.2' then important choose "Vigor2820 V3.3.1.2 AnnexA 232201.zip" note NOT the 211801 one I had before - this appears to have nothing to do with the version of the firmware both are 3.3.1.2.

Another thing - I did not press the reboot button once it's finished in case it stops again. Once I've sent my emails I'll have a try !


So unless idnet changed something at exactly the same time then this is the resolution to the issue. Few - now I can have 19Mbps DL with fast upload and VPN working ! This router is really great just make sure you use this firmware with it for idnet.

Happy so off to the pub.

Jon

p.s. this has been available from about 19th May so perhaps someone can tell idnet support ? I called but was told no firmware exists to fix the issue - though I have to say strange that the draytek.co.uk site appears to link to a non uk firmware as it's pointing to the 211801 rather than the working 232201 ! You have to use the .com site not the .co.uk site.

p.p.s this is my first post on idnetters!

[Sebby]

Thanks for the info about the Draytek. Do you know the manufacturer of your MSAN at the exchange? The Draytek stats should reveal that.

[oglesbyj]

Not sure where to see that. Will have a hunt through the menus and if I find it I'll let you know.

Update - after a reboot it stopped working again - so I just updated the firmware again with the same one I mention above but again did not reboot. Not ideal but far better than getting my line put back to adsl1 or buying something else that lacks vpn in.

Jon

[Simon]

    Jon, and thanks for the input. 

[oglesbyj]

> adsl status
  --------------------------- ATU-R Info (hw: annex A, f/w: annex A) -----------
   Running Mode            : ADSL2+(G.992.5)       State                : SHOWTIME
   DS Actual Rate          : 19716000 bps   US Actual Rate       :   888000 bps
   DS Attainable Rate      : 20360000 bps   US Attainable Rate   :   888000 bps
   DS Path Mode            :  Interleave    US Path Mode         :  Interleave
   DS Interleave Depth     :       96       US Interleave Depth  :        8
   NE Current Attenuation  :       22 dB    Cur SNR Margin       :        6  dB
   DS actual PSD           :    19. 5 dB    US actual PSD        :    12. 4   dB
   ADSL Firmware Version   : 232201_A
  -------------------------------- ATU-C Info ---------------------------------
   Far Current Attenuation :        8 dB    Far SNR Margin       :       15  dB
   CO ITU Version[0]       : 00004946       CO ITU Version[1]    : 0000544e
   DSLAM CHIPSET VENDOR    : < IFTN >
>

That's it on the last line right ?

Jon

[Lance]

That certainly is Jon! Welcome to the forum!!!

Elsewhere on the forum in a few places is the table which tells you whicb company that code relates to but from my phone it's not easy to find!

[Sebby]

That's an Infineon MSAN, which is the one that is having trouble with a fair few routers, so it's more of an achievement that the Draytek could connect to it!

[sebt]

packet captures have been sanitised and sent on to the email you sent me.

I've also run them by IDnet support and was a little miffed with the response I got. Was given the impression PPPoE was supported but the settings wouldn't be given out. There aren't any settings which are that different in terms of PPPoE/PPPoA - it's just the encapsulation which is different. Does anyone have PPPoE working with IDnet on other hardware?

Thanks for sending the packets over Stu. I've had PPPoE working from the Netgear, but only when the Netgear is initiating the dial/authenticating. PPPoE initiated from XP over either the Netgear or Draytek fails with identical packet trace (10 response packets etc.). So I concur with you, I don't think PPPoE itself is the issue. At the moment, my opinion is that its the LCP/PPP authentication dialogue between client and server that is different between the Netgear firmware and the Draytek / WinXP initiated dial.

...
p.p.s this is my first post on idnetters!

And a useful one at that! Thanks for your post and efforts mate, interesting to see the firmware "can" work even if it fails after a reboot. I wonder if the firmware files from draytek.com and draytek.co.uk are any different? Hopefully I will hear from Draytek soon with some updates, especially since Stu above has sent some of his pcaps over to Draytek as well. They should now be armed with the info they need to be able to compare a successful and failing LCP communication, and hopefully make a firmware mod to work around any issue.

Presumably if they can get so far with the 2820, updates will follow for Draytek's other ADSL2+ compatible products (2800, 100/120 etc). Here's hoping. Like you, I can't live without the Draytek's VPN and other facilities so at the moment I have a lashup where a netgear is acting as a modem connecting to the 2820's WAN2 port. It works, but it's not pretty

Seb

[D-Dan]

I consider this a problem inasmuch as it's 2 steps down on bRAS:

Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background information.
    Your DSL connection rate: 6652 kbps(DOWN-STREAM),  957 kbps(UP-STREAM)
    IP profile for your line is - 5500 kbps
    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 5003 kbps

and about 1.2 mbs slower on throughput. SNR at 6 so it isn't going to get any better.

I'm watching the guy who reverted to ADSLMax very closely, right now.

Steve

[Sebby]

It seems like ADSL2+ needs a really good, quiet line to work well, otherwise it's just too affected by its use of more frequencies.

[D-Dan]

Well -I'm really not impressed that the "Upgrade" seems more like a "Downgrade". BT have a lot to answer for. What's worse, is that their infrastructure will be required for implementing the Digital Britain recommendations, when they can't manage what they have now.

Privatisation - don't you just love it?

Steve

[zappaDPJ]

I'm watching the guy who reverted to ADSLMax very closely, right now.

Steve

Same here.

[Sebby]

Well -I'm really not impressed that the "Upgrade" seems more like a "Downgrade". BT have a lot to answer for. What's worse, is that their infrastructure will be required for implementing the Digital Britain recommendations, when they can't manage what they have now.

Privatisation - don't you just love it?

Steve

The biggest problem with ADSL2+ is that is uses more frequencies, so if you have a bad or even average line, things can potentially be worse.

[jameshurrell]

I have been on WBC for a few weeks now, no real issues, but have just got around to doing a speedtest. I believe my profile is low for my sync.. but not sure. The speedtester is busy, but one I did yesterday indicates that I have a profile of 12000 for a sync of 15963... does this sound right?

I rebooted the router this morning because I had to move it, and prior to the move it had been synced at around 14600 - is 12000 normal for that sync?

[D-Dan]

I've made my mind up and I'm going back to Max.

Steve

[Sebby]

I have been on WBC for a few weeks now, no real issues, but have just got around to doing a speedtest. I believe my profile is low for my sync.. but not sure. The speedtester is busy, but one I did yesterday indicates that I have a profile of 12000 for a sync of 15963... does this sound right?

I rebooted the router this morning because I had to move it, and prior to the move it had been synced at around 14600 - is 12000 normal for that sync?

No, it should be 14,000k, which suggestions there has been some instability, and the profile is disrupted as a result. If your sync remains steady for a few days, the profile will change by itself.

[Simon_idnet]

Thanks for sending the packets over Stu. I've had PPPoE working from the Netgear, but only when the Netgear is initiating the dial/authenticating. PPPoE initiated from XP over either the Netgear or Draytek fails with identical packet trace (10 response packets etc.). So I concur with you, I don't think PPPoE itself is the issue. At the moment, my opinion is that its the LCP/PPP authentication dialogue between client and server that is different between the Netgear firmware and the Draytek / WinXP initiated dial.

And a useful one at that! Thanks for your post and efforts mate, interesting to see the firmware "can" work even if it fails after a reboot. I wonder if the firmware files from draytek.com and draytek.co.uk are any different? Hopefully I will hear from Draytek soon with some updates, especially since Stu above has sent some of his pcaps over to Draytek as well. They should now be armed with the info they need to be able to compare a successful and failing LCP communication, and hopefully make a firmware mod to work around any issue.

Presumably if they can get so far with the 2820, updates will follow for Draytek's other ADSL2+ compatible products (2800, 100/120 etc). Here's hoping. Like you, I can't live without the Draytek's VPN and other facilities so at the moment I have a lashup where a netgear is acting as a modem connecting to the 2820's WAN2 port. It works, but it's not pretty

Seb

Hi Seb.

I understand that your Draytek is now online which is good to hear.
We have been working hard on this problem. It appears that Drayteks are rather agressive in their time-outs for authentication.
So, we've been working at re-routing the path that the BT RADIUS traffic takes in order to make it as short as possible. We've
even moved the RADIUS server to different hardware to try to get it as close (logically) as possible to the BT router. It seems
that one or more of these steps is starting to help the situation.

Thanks go to Alex at Draytek for their assistance.

Simon

[Rik]

Nice to hear solutions are beginning to be found, Simon. Now about my connection this afternoon... 

[Simon_idnet]

Nice to hear solutions are beginning to be found, Simon. Now about my connection this afternoon... 

The Milton Keynes BRAS has been very flaky this afternoon. BT say it is affecting around 600 customers. They say they thought they had fixed it but then saw it drop again...

That BRAS is one of the major nodes in the country serving areas such as MK, Oxford and as far out as us here in Hitchin.
S

[Rik]

It's nice to be in good company, Simon. My PPP sessions are going up and down like a fiddler's elbow.

[sebt]

Hi Seb.

I understand that your Draytek is now online which is good to hear.
We have been working hard on this problem. It appears that Drayteks are rather agressive in their time-outs for authentication.
So, we've been working at re-routing the path that the BT RADIUS traffic takes in order to make it as short as possible. We've
even moved the RADIUS server to different hardware to try to get it as close (logically) as possible to the BT router. It seems
that one or more of these steps is starting to help the situation.

Thanks go to Alex at Draytek for their assistance.

Simon

Hi Simon,

Yes, this is great news indeed! I can confirm that having restarted the Draytek a few times in the last day or two it's connecting effortlessly and instantly each time.

I noticed also that my downstream sync speed from the Draytek is much better than it ever was from the Netgear. The (v3) DG834 would top out at 13840 down and ~1000 up, whereas the Draytek has already synced at 16283 (after just 1 reboot). In the past, although never able to authenticate, I saw downstream syncs of 18000 after several reboots; since the profile has been stable/stuck at 13840/11000 for some time on the netgear, it's encouraging to see the speeds climbing already on the Vigor (with a little nudge from Brian in the BT direction!!). This does raise the interesting question of why it syncs at higher speeds than the Netgear. I can only assume that the Draytek modem chipset is more sensitive in its reception and transmission of signal. It's quite possible that the later DG834 models have improved in this area though.

So we know that the Vigor 2820 series works with WBC and with IDnet, a result I've been hanging out for since May. If you can feed back all the various changes you're aware of with Alex, perhaps he can escalate a small change to the Vigor firmware codebase on the ADSL2 side just to relax the authentication timeout a little. All together, this should make WBC a Draytek-friendly zone. Are you aware that the changes made have also fixed the issues for Vigor 1xx modems and 2800 routers connecting?

Thanks to all concerned for their efforts. I'm very grateful that it's working, not just for me, but for the colleagues with IDnet on Draytek VPNs eager to migrate up to WBC and other IDnetters who like their feature-rich Drayteks.

Special thanks to Brian for his efforts and for bearing with me on some long phone calls!

Seb

[Rik]

Collaboration really can produce results, Seb. Kudos to everyone involved.