cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

G.992.5 request :)

choo
Grafter
Posts: 87
Registered: ‎01-11-2011

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Not abrupt at all  Smiley
The issue is the line seems to set to 992.3 ie ADSL2  not    992.5.  ADSL2+
Even with forced telnet's the line wont sync into 992.5. The line has to be forced either into 992.1 ( which it is now ) or try  to 992.5 which it wont have.
If left to its own devices it reverts to  992.3  which isn't correct ?
First though was something a miss with the filters/router rj11, local rein  ect ect ....preventing the upper tones for 992.5 hence the pics ect  Wink
Thats been ruled out, the 17070 is quiet which hints at the d-side-> cab ties are ok so following along the chain usually points to a port / e-side  issue?
BenTrimble
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 2,106
Registered: ‎06-02-2008

Re: G.992.5 request :)

@choo
The cut off between 992.3 and 992.5 is 1.1MHz, your bit-loading graph shows the frequencies above ~850MHz being unloaded with a fairly steady decline from ~450MHz. I don't think there's anything wrong here at all, your line's just a bit too long to take advantage of the higher frequencies.
SpencerUk
Grafter
Posts: 65
Registered: ‎10-06-2011

Re: G.992.5 request :)

@choo
I'm fairly sure G.992.5 is ADSL 2 Annex M which we don't offer to residential customers. Just business.
G.992.3 is ADSL2 (Annex A) which is correct for your line. From what I can see in BT's systems your line is set to a up to 24Mbps access sync rate and uncapped upstream which I think goes up to about a max of 1.2mb.
@_Adam_Walker_
I'm not the package expert but could you double check Annex M is business only. About 99% sure.
adamwalker
Plusnet Help Team
Plusnet Help Team
Posts: 16,871
Thanks: 882
Fixes: 221
Registered: ‎27-04-2007

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Quote
could you double check Annex M is business only. About 99% sure.

Yep, you're right Spencer, although I'd interpretted the request for G.992.5 as a change from ADSL1 on 21CN to ADSL2 on 21CN.
If this post resolved your issue please click the 'This fixed my problem' button
 Adam Walker
 Plusnet Help Team
BenTrimble
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 2,106
Registered: ‎06-02-2008

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Just for clarity,
992.1 = ADSL1
992.3 = ADSL2
992.5 = ADSL2+
ADSL1 uses a lower frequency range (up to 1.1MHz) and simple bit loading. ADSL2 uses the same frequency range as ADSL1 but more complex bit loading for a higher sync speed than ADSL1. ADSL2+ uses a higher frequency range than ADSL1/2 (up to 12MHz) and the same complex bit loading as ADSL2 for higher sync speeds than ADSL1/2.
We can provision customers on either ADSL1 or ADSL2+. Some DSLAMs will drop to ADSL2 if they cannot sync on the higher frequencies of ADSL2+.
Both ADSL2 and ADSL2+ support annex's A (up to 1.4Mbit upload) and M (up to 3.3Mbit upload).
The OP is questioning why he is syncing on ADSL2 and not ADSL2+, which I hopefully explained in my previous response, this is unrelated to which annex he is using.
choo
Grafter
Posts: 87
Registered: ‎01-11-2011

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Thanks Ben saves  going through ITU-T Descriptions;)
ITU-T G.992.5 Annex A is what the line should be provisioned for.
Quote from: _Adam_Walker_
although I'd interpretted the request for G.992.5 as a change from ADSL1 on 21CN to ADSL2 on 21CN.

ADSL2 is not ADSL2+  this is what bothers me.
It was a manual request  (order 1-12296661358) just want to double check it was for ADSL2+  G.992.5 (A) and not ADSL2 (G.992.3)

Other lines off the  same PCP pole box can sync in G992.5. Annex A  I'l try an get a tone graph from a neighbouring line.
I just wanted to check that the line is correctly provisioned, Nothing obvious this side of the NTE5 stands out on why the line shouldn't sync in G.992.5 on pair with neighnouring lines.
If its all correctly set for G992.5 Its not unknown that, the e-side port might need a reset after this type of re-provision.
ts a  heawei MSAN .......It would be easier if  BTw used a alcatel lucent 7302's  Wink
BenTrimble
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 2,106
Registered: ‎06-02-2008

Re: G.992.5 request :)

@choo
We can only provision on ADSL1 or ADSL2+ so don't worry about that, the '+' is often missed off the description, causing confusion! A bit loading graph of neighbouring lines will definitely be helpful to see how their performance compares and if there may be a fault causing poorer than expected speeds.
choo
Grafter
Posts: 87
Registered: ‎01-11-2011

Re: G.992.5 request :)

I'll see if I can ask the neighbours nicely ...
In the mean time is a fixed profile available* say 6db updown inp1 ? ( *or after the 10d cycle)
Saves requesting snr resets ect & PN  line profiling while testing.
Thx choo  Smiley
BenTrimble
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 2,106
Registered: ‎06-02-2008

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Now this I'm not 100% sure on, we used to be able to hard set profiles but I don't know if we still can, hopefully one of my colleagues with more recent experience will be able to tell us!
GrahamC
Grafter
Posts: 257
Registered: ‎19-07-2009

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Quote from: Ben
We can only provision on ADSL1 or ADSL2+ so don't worry about that, the '+' is often missed off the description, causing confusion!

The provisioning for 1 or 2+ on 21CN maybe correct but the bitloading data at reply#10 clearly shows the connection is negotiating ADSL2 (G.992.3).
Only the first 256 tones are shown covering the frequency range to 1.1 MHz. This is the first fallback position on an ADSL2+ provisioned line if G.992.5 cannot be negotiated, providing a capability of 12Mbps depending on line conditions. The next fallback is to G.992.1, giving a capability of 8Mbps, again dependant on line conditions.
choo
Grafter
Posts: 87
Registered: ‎01-11-2011

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Thanks Ben  look forward to hearing back.
Also Thanks GrahamC for taking a look.
Somethings a miss, being realistic , a fix profile is all the line needs  ,( rather than going through the SFI 1 through 3 for to end up with a port reset /card change for 0.5 / 1meg )
Thanks  again for all the help on this !
Choo Smiley
BenTrimble
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 2,106
Registered: ‎06-02-2008

Re: G.992.5 request :)

JoJo has kindly bodged your DLM so it won't be anywhere near as aggressive as usual, meaning it should stay on the current profile unless anything drastic happens. Unfortunately we can't hard set the profile like we used to, the facility to do this was taken away from us Sad I don't think that this will affect your line's use of the higher tones but will let you complete your testing without adversely affecting anything.
I have to agree with Adam's earlier comments though, I don't think your speeds will increase much from where they are and the use of 992.3 on your line is a symptom of the problem as opposed to the source which is likely to be the usual long line / low quality copper, etc.
choo
Grafter
Posts: 87
Registered: ‎01-11-2011

Re: G.992.5 request :)

Thats a surpirse  Sad
I though BTw had made it easier for end user ISP
So just to be clear on whats jojo's kindly done, is reset the DLM ?  
Thx again
BenTrimble
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 2,106
Registered: ‎06-02-2008

Re: G.992.5 request :)

JoJo's placed an order to change the thresholds at which DLM will change your target SNR margin so that they are unlikely to be hit. Tomorrow she will reset DLM so it then stays at the default 6dB + INP.
jojopillo
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 9,786
Registered: ‎16-06-2010

Re: G.992.5 request :)

@choo
I've reset that now. Should take effect shortly.
Jojo Smiley