Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
UPC "Drop-outs" of late, going insane
-
21-12-2012 2:15am#1
Comments
-
-
-
IP address URL="http://www.ip-adress.com/host/"]?[/URL: 87.248.210.253 Copy [Whois] [Reverse IP] IP country code: GB IP address country:
United Kingdom IP address state: London, City of IP address city: London IP address latitude: 51.5142 IP address longitude: -0.0931 ISP of this IP URL="http://www.ip-adress.com/isp"]?[/URL: Limelight Networks 0 -
-
IP address URL="http://www.ip-adress.com/host/"]?[/URL: 190.207.141.121 Copy [Whois] [Reverse IP] IP country code: VE IP address country:
Venezuela IP address state: Vargas IP address city: Maiquetía IP address latitude: 10.6000 IP address longitude: -66.9500 ISP of this IP URL="http://www.ip-adress.com/isp"]?[/URL: CANTV Servicios 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Just in the door and back to this.
There is some torrent activity, also relic P2P updates now and again. Thing is, it happens even when there hasnt been any kind of P2P in 24+hrs. So its unlikely to be related.And yes ip flood detection would still be operating on the outer gateway unless you disabled the firewall.
This seems counter-intuitive to me. The whole idea of bridging is move the load, and the control to your router, which has its own firewall.[DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 67.42.47.227, port 16221, Monday, December 24,2012 16:54:53 [UPnP set event: del_nat_rule] from source 192.168.2.6, Monday, December 24,2012 16:54:33
Just a few minutes ago.
Will try and get it renewed, they change very rarely.0 -
Back into normal mode to have a look around, though I may as well log fw version and stats in the thread:
Model: Cisco EPC3925 Vendor: Cisco Hardware Revision: 1.0 Serial Number: MAC Address: Bootloader Revision: 2.3.0_R1 Current Software Revision: epc3925-ESIP-12-v302r125561-120727c_upc Firmware Name: epc3925-ESIP-12-v302r125561-120727c_upc.bin Firmware Build Time: Jul 27 21:06:28 2012 Cable Modem Status: Operational Wireless Network: Disable Cable Modem State DOCSIS Downstream Scanning: Completed DOCSIS Ranging: Completed DOCSIS DHCP: Completed DOCSIS TFTP: Completed DOCSIS Data Reg Complete: Completed DOCSIS Privacy: Enabled Downstream Channels Power Level: Signal to Noise Ratio: Channel 1: 3.5 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 2: 3.5 dBmV 41.0 dB Channel 3: 3.5 dBmV 41.2 dB Channel 4: 3.2 dBmV 39.1 dB Channel 5: 2.4 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 6: 2.6 dBmV 40.4 dB Channel 7: 2.3 dBmV 40.0 dB Channel 8: 2.0 dBmV 39.8 dB Upstream Channels Power Level: Channel 1: 48.7 dBmV Channel 2: 0.0 dBmV Channel 3: 0.0 dBmV Channel 4: 0.0 dBmV
Changing mode caused a reboot too, which returned me to normal speeds. For now...
I got the router last week:
Default settings when I switched back from bridge.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Reared its ugly head again tonight. Logs are "clean" again.
New FW available for the WNDR3800:WNDR3800 V1.0.0.44 firmware release: Note: Before you upgrade, NETGEAR recommends that you write down your Internet settings and also your wireless settings if you changed them. After the upgrade you can use NETGEAR Genie to detect and set up your Internet connection, or you can manually enter the settings. Bug fix: 1. Fix the issue that when android devices in sleep mode might cause router connection issue. 2. Fix the issue that router don't support Up to 300Mbps wireless mode for Korea region. 3. Fix the issue that router can't support 3TB USB disk well in DLNA function and ReadySHARE FTP protocol. Known issues & bugs 1. Time Machine function limitation: --Time Machine function limitation: Only support "GUID Partition Table" and "Master Boot Record" in partition table format. We don't support "Apple Partition Map" this format. Workaround: When you choose the partition scheme of your USB disk, please don't select "Apple Partition Map" this format. --For Non-journal system, support Time Machine backup size up to 750 GB. --For Journal system+ MBR partition table, support Time Machine backup size up to 750 GB. --For Journal system+ GUID partition table, support Time Machine backup size up to 500 GB. -- We suggest customer to use the new USB disk to do Time Machine backup. If customer uses the USB disk which already include the old Time Machine backup file, WNDR3800 might need spend time to scan/valid the old backup file is ok to be used or not and customer need to wait for couple minutes or even a hours. 2. Traffic meter - Traffic volume control is not accurate due to sampling rate. It may exceed the limit. Workaround: Set a proper number in "Mbytes before the monthly limit is reached" in the traffic control.
Nothing relevant but just in case things were to change I'm logging it here.
For good measure:
0 -
[admin login] from source 192.168.2.6, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:22:41 [admin login] from source 192.168.2.3, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:20:17 [admin login failure] from source 192.168.2.3, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:20:12 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 82.74.247.58, port 50527, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:19:09 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 71.56.79.91, port 49163, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:18:18 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 66.230.85.160, port 49229, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:14:12 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 82.74.247.58, port 49456, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:14:11 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 212.93.100.62, port 45803, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:11:28 [admin login] from source 192.168.2.3, Thursday, January 03,2013 18:07:19 [Time synchronized with NTP server] Thursday, January 03,2013 18:07:03 [Initialized, firmware version: V1.0.0.44] Thursday, January 03,2013 18:06:35
0 -
-
That's a "real Cisco" 3900 series router running IOS, nothing like what we havehttp://www.dslreports.com/forum/r26477232-Cisco-3925-web-traffic-slows-to-a-crawl~start=20
Thats related. His case seems to be a NAT issue. Dont think there's much I can do about that with locked down FW though.
0 -
-
Full blown enterprise level Cisco routers are different animals altogether, and run a completely different operating system (IOS) to both the consumer level Cisco (ex Linksys) stuff, and the consumer level cable (ex Scientific Atlanta) stuff.I was assuming that UPC/CISCO just reskinned the normal FW for the EPC/DPC? Would they actually rewrite everything?
A Cisco 3925 is not the same as a Cisco EPC3925 ... this is a Cisco 3925
http://www.router-switch.com/cisco3925-k9-p-291.html
As you can see, just a bit bigger, and a tad more expensive.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
[admin login] from source 192.168.2.3, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:27:53 [LAN access from remote] [UPnP set event: add_nat_rule] from source 192.168.2.6, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:22:01 [LAN access from remote] [UPnP set event: add_nat_rule] from source 192.168.2.3, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:21:46 [Internet connected] IP address: 46.7.xx.xx, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:21:04 [Internet connected] IP address: 192.168.100.10, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:19:48 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 108.162.203.29, port 80, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:16:38 [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 108.162.203.29, port 80, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:07:58 [LAN access from remote] [DHCP IP: 192.168.2.18] to MAC address 00:26:08:1a:63:80, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:03:18 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 69.244.75.173, port 57853, Tuesday, January 08,2013 22:02:18 [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 69.244.75.173, port 56987, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:57:30 [DHCP IP: 192.168.2.7] to MAC address d0:66:7b:65:ea:4e, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:56:20 [LAN access from remote] [DHCP IP: 192.168.2.4] to MAC address 6c:62:6d:7f:bb:55, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:55:44 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 75.72.40.225, port 59783, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:52:00 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 74.160.162.81, port 58380, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:49:06 [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [DHCP IP: 192.168.2.2] to MAC address 00:90:a9:23:3c:77, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:48:04 [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 75.72.40.225, port 57664, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:44:04 [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 74.160.162.81, port 57941, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:40:50 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 71.174.186.109, port 50989, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:40:36 [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 80.233.23.106, port 31022, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:37:03 [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 24.92.144.206, port 39111, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:29:04 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 199.185.132.4, port 63121, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:28:42 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 199.185.133.5, port 65317, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:28:32 [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 24.92.144.206, port 39111, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:22:32 [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 80.233.23.106, port 28710, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:20:52 [UPnP set event: del_nat_rule] from source 192.168.2.6, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:20:07 [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 24.69.58.217, port 60726, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:14:47 [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: ACK Scan] from source: 87.69.142.248, port 1962, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:13:52 [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [DoS Attack: RST Scan] from source: 24.69.58.217, port 62657, Tuesday, January 08,2013 21:12:57 [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote] [LAN access from remote]
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Downstream Channels Power Level: Signal to Noise Ratio: Channel 1: 3.2 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 2: 3.5 dBmV 40.5 dB Channel 3: 3.2 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 4: 2.8 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 5: 1.9 dBmV 40.9 dB Channel 6: 2.0 dBmV 41.4 dB Channel 7: 2.0 dBmV 41.4 dB Channel 8: 2.0 dBmV 40.2 dB Upstream Channels Power Level: Channel 1: 45.9 dBmV Channel 2: 0.0 dBmV Channel 3: 0.0 dBmV Channel 4: 0.0 dBmV
Kaspersky RD 10 does a similar job
0 -
Don't get me wrong. Do that, too. Give 'em both a lash!Downstream Channels Power Level: Signal to Noise Ratio: Channel 1: 3.2 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 2: 3.5 dBmV 40.5 dB Channel 3: 3.2 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 4: 2.8 dBmV 39.9 dB Channel 5: 1.9 dBmV 40.9 dB Channel 6: 2.0 dBmV 41.4 dB Channel 7: 2.0 dBmV 41.4 dB Channel 8: 2.0 dBmV 40.2 dB Upstream Channels Power Level: Channel 1: 45.9 dBmV Channel 2: 0.0 dBmV Channel 3: 0.0 dBmV Channel 4: 0.0 dBmV
Kaspersky RD 10 does a similar job
Also, your stats are fine (which I know you know :P), better than mine, even, and I'm not facing issues anything like yours. I guess that's not the problem.
EDIT: Fyi, here's my stats. They're not terrible (better than before I did some re-cabling downstairs in late 2012) but clearly yours are better.Downstream Channels Power Level: Signal to Noise Ratio: Channel 1: -5.9 dBmV 39.5 dB Channel 2: -5.7 dBmV 39.6 dB Channel 3: -5.3 dBmV 39.8 dB Channel 4: -5.9 dBmV 39.0 dB Channel 5: -6.9 dBmV 38.7 dB Channel 6: -5.6 dBmV 39.5 dB Channel 7: -5.5 dBmV 39.6 dB Channel 8: -6.6 dBmV 38.6 dB Upstream Channels Power Level: Channel 1: 49.2 dBmV Channel 2: 0.0 dBmV Channel 3: 0.0 dBmV Channel 4: 0.0 dBmV
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Saw somebody using the EPC on its own and having identical symptoms. Not sure which thread.
If its bridging related we wont get any help from UPC
Coincidentally I'm reading that very thread right now! I saw your post on page 3 asking for an explanation as to why they won't support it.
I can understand them not supporting it as far as whatever router you're bridging it with but the EPC should always be supported. In-fact, by enabling the bridging option since late last year, it definitely should be supported. But the thing is, we all know that UPC's tech support aren't very knowledgeable (didn't someone say that UPC told them the the SNR figures pertained to WiFi?) and when they say that they won't support bridge mode, it could mean any number of things and they might not have one clue where to draw the line and where not to.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement