Forum Discussion

wilson0x4d's avatar
wilson0x4d
New Contributor
11 years ago

Disconnects, resets, latency spikes?

I've noticed for (at least) a few weeks now that packet latency occasionally spikes (against, say, cox DNS servers or linux.org). I also experience intermittent disconnects.

Believing this may have been caused by my router or by my cable modem I upgraded to an SBG6850 last Sunday, retiring an old Linksys WRT router and a DOCSIS2. While I now get slightly higher up/down rates (average of 18 down 22 up instead of 18 down 5 up.)

Unfortunately, I am still experiencing latency spikes, and I am still occasionally disconnected from the internet.

I am a self-employed software engineer as such I work from home 90% of the time, so I routinely have RDP sessions open against AWS, to remote offices, machiines local to my network and VMs. Thus, when the internet here "hiccups" I notice, every day, I was really hoping to have solved this problem by upgrading to a modem rated for the service level I am paying for (I am a Premier Internet subscriber.) The last straw for me was today when the internet disconnected in the middle of a code push up to github, talk about horrible timing :( right?

I don't feel that upgrading to Ultimate is going to solve my problem, so, what can I do to resolve this issue?

As an aside, these "hiccups" also interrupt my tv and movie streaming, video game performance, bitcoin mining, etc which is why I pay for Premier service, I don't want to see "buffering 0%" every time I watch a movie :(

If it's a matter of throwing more money at Cox just tell me where to go so I can be done with it. Otherwise, let me know what info I can give you to help resolve the issue. I really want a consistently stable experience, as it stands I have not experienced a single problem-free day in what feels like 5 weeks or more.

ConnectionLoss
latency
premier

12 Replies

Sort By
Replies have been turned off for this discussion
  • Health_Edge's avatar
    Health_Edge
    Valued Contributor III
    11 years ago

    Lets start with your modem's signal levels. Also, do you have any tracert showing the latency while it's occuring?

  • ChrisL's avatar
    ChrisL
    Former Moderator
    11 years ago
    I'm not seeing any clues from this end looking at the modem either.  Perhaps some trace routes to hosts you're having trouble with when it happens would give us more to work with.
  • wilson0x4d's avatar
    wilson0x4d
    New Contributor
    11 years ago

    A couple discoveries:

    1) My frequent disconnects appear to be specific to the SBG6580's wireless. Using InSSIDer I was able to locate a clean wireless range, but this made NO difference on wireless stability to/from this device. I even put my laptop right next to the device (literally 3 feet away) and still only had a signal strength of -50 to -45 (this is ** for wireless) and it's even worse from nearby rooms. As a result, I have re-installed my aging Cisco wireless router.. I now no longer have wireless dropping issues. Since Cox is in charge of firmware updates I am unable to install and try newer firmware to see if the problem is resolved.

    2) The Web UI of the SBG6580 is horribly slow, and it's not just the web ui but is in fact the entire device. For example, if I use the diagnostic ping and tracert utilities from the device I get horrible results, whereas the same ping and tracert tests from a wired or wireless device yield much better results. Apparently the performance of the device was negatively impacted with the 3.5.x series of firmware updates, this can be found in a number of posts not only from Cox but other cable networks.

    3) All else aside, I found a post that noted that 192.168.100.1 was an 'internal' IP for the modem, the ping and tracert results look the same from wired and wireless devices. I then ran a ping against this IP side-by-side with a ping against the WAN IP reported by the modem (presumably. this is the IP of the appliance on the other end of the cable connection?) Notice how response times spike throughout the test in both pings, as my ping to local degrades so does my ping to remote, and with seeming equality.)

    I *believe* these should be closer to 10-20ms (if not less, considering this doesn't actually leave the device and a direct, switched IP shouldn't take 10ms to travel between a wired NIC and a router). I *suspect* this is also linked to the generally poor performance of the device, which I've gathered is related to the firmware Cox is pushing out based on a few posts made by others that noted the poor performance after an update went out last year. To test this theory I started a ping test, logged into the device and then refreshed the device's login page, every time I did this my ping results would jump 300-1300ms until the device login page was finished refreshing.

    Perhaps Cox should add this to their rigorous test plan when evaluating device firmware? 

    I don't mean to finger-point at Cox nor the firmware they're pushing, but it's an area I can't personally explore by swapping firmware versions, and since this seems like an easily reproduceable problem *shrug* seems like a legit suggestion. Based on my limited searching this morning the performance degradation of the device was introduced sometime after the 3.2.x firmware version (3.3.1 or later?).

    I suspect this poor device/switching performance not only affects wired connections and WAN performance, but also affects wireless performance and that wireless usage of the device may actually be contributing to the poor performance and instability of the device.

    Here is the wired tracert and ping results to 192.168.100.1 and to my immediate WAN gateway, again note if you place the ping results side by side each ping line item/result value nearly corresponds with one another, and the ping latency is present to both IPs is nearly identical.

    ======== 

    C:\Users\Shaun>tracert 192.168.100.1

    Tracing route to 192.168.100.1 over a maximum of 30 hops

    1 50 ms 25 ms 308 ms 192.168.100.1

    Trace complete.

    ========

    Tracing route to ip68-4-153-128.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.153.128]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 158 ms 130 ms 427 ms ip68-4-153-128.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.153.128]

    Trace complete.

    ========

    Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=962ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1222ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1298ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=533ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1482ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=565ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=414ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1016ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=597ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=489ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=309ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=249ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=967ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=219ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=897ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=391ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=235ms TTL=64

    ========

    Pinging 68.4.153.128 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=1152ms TTL=6
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=1269ms TTL=6
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=1284ms TTL=6
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=547ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=1496ms TTL=6
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=562ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=415ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=361ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=289ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=1028ms TTL=6
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=490ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=967ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=212ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=898ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=64
    Reply from 68.4.153.128: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=64

    ========

    Thoughts? As a final note, if I disable nearly all network usage (leaving only my bitcoin miners running, which are low-demand as is) and then re-initiate ping to 192.168.100.1, it looks more like this:

    C:\Users\Shaun>ping -t 192.168.100.1

    Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=442ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64

    Hopefully there is a better firmware that doesn't suffer from this kind of performance degradation based on modem activity. if not, I think Cox needs to remove it from their list of supported devices so consumers like me don't make a dumb mistake and spend $120 + their own time trying to figure out what is wrong with it.

  • wilson0x4d's avatar
    wilson0x4d
    New Contributor
    11 years ago

    For reference:

    Information
    Standard Specification Compliant DOCSIS 3.0
    Hardware Version 3
    Software Version SBG6580-3.5.8.4-GA-00-505-NOSH

    Downstream Bonded Channels
    Channel Lock Status Modulation Channel ID Frequency Power SNR Correctables Uncorrectables
    1 Locked QAM256 25 813000000 Hz -7.7 dBmV 38.2 dB 358612 0
    2 Locked QAM256 26 819000000 Hz -7.4 dBmV 38.2 dB 446195 0
    3 Locked QAM256 27 825000000 Hz -7.1 dBmV 37.9 dB 628934 136870
    4 Locked QAM256 28 831000000 Hz -6.6 dBmV 38.3 dB 434914 86330
    5 Locked QAM256 33 861000000 Hz -7.7 dBmV 37.8 dB 507392 0
    6 Locked QAM256 34 867000000 Hz -7.6 dBmV 37.7 dB 579697 0
    7 Locked QAM256 35 873000000 Hz -7.3 dBmV 37.3 dB 650524 0
    8 Locked QAM256 36 879000000 Hz -7.3 dBmV 37.5 dB 842274 0

    Upstream Bonded Channels
    Channel Lock Status US Channel Type Channel ID Symbol Rate Frequency Power
    1 Locked ATDMA 1 5120 Ksym/sec 23810000 Hz 42.7 dBmV
    2 Locked ATDMA 2 5120 Ksym/sec 30210000 Hz 42.7 dBmV
    3 Locked TDMA and ATDMA 3 2560 Ksym/sec 35580000 Hz 42.7 dBmV
    4 Not Locked Unknown 0 0 Ksym/sec 0 Hz 0.0 dBmV

  • wilson0x4d's avatar
    wilson0x4d
    New Contributor
    11 years ago

    Realizing my mistake earlier pinging the modem gateway IP, here are comparative pings against 192.168.100.1 and DNS IP 68.105.28.11 (something 'inside' the cox network). Again if you view these side-by-side each ping result line correlates to one another (with ~100ms of variance between tests). This was done with most wireless/wired devices inactive, except for bitcoin miners which refresh their work every 5 seconds or so:

    ======== ping to 192.168.100.1

    Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=606ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=415ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=606ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=242ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64

    ======== ping to 68.105.28.11

    Pinging 68.105.28.11 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=404ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=212ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=418ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=506ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=554ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=829ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=563ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=1030ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60

    ======== tracert to 68.105.28.11

    Tracing route to cdns1.cox.net [68.105.28.11]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 * * * Request timed out.
    2 * * * Request timed out.
    3 * * * Request timed out.
    4 * * * Request timed out.
    5 672 ms 41 ms 11 ms cdns1.cox.net [68.105.28.11]

    ===========

    I think it's interesting the ping results from the 192.168.100.1 address are typically worse than that from cox dns (an external IP.)

  • Health_Edge's avatar
    Health_Edge
    Valued Contributor III
    11 years ago

    What a wonderfully educated post.  Very refreshing 

    This seems very similar to the issue I had when testing the Netgear CG3000-D. It was later resolved with a firmware update but the first 2 weeks were horrible. Hopefully one of the moderators can check your firmware and see if there is a update they can push.

    The odd thing is your data supports a issue with the gateway, but you said you had the same issue with your previous set up?  Could there be some environment condition causing the issue to occur on both pieces of equipment? EMI? Overheating? Etc? Or do you think they are two separate problems? Do you have any data from the problem on the original hardware?

    Overall though, I think you would be much better off using a modem and separate router. I don't like my ISP controlling the firmware of my router for so many reasons, from performance to privacy concerns. Also, in general, the hardware found in gateways is usually the manufactures basement bargains.

  • wilson0x4d's avatar
    wilson0x4d
    New Contributor
    11 years ago

    Unfortunately I don't have any results from the prior modem, but if there isn't a firmware update that resolves the issue I'm seeing then the new modem is getting shipped back to Amazon as defective and I'm downgrading back to my DOCSIS2 device, since wireless or not there's little/nothing I seem to be able to do to fix the latency issue I'm experiencing and whatever problem I was having before was actually less prevalent than what I'm experiencing now. Previously I would only experiencing one or two hiccups any given day, but now I can't play any twitch games without having latency kick my butt every few seconds and working over RDP (my job) is a painful experience as I constantly feel the latency.

    As for the disconnects, I believe these were entirely wireless related as I haven't seen a T3 error from the device except twice. With the old wireless router I had saturation of the air, something like 30 other WAPs on channels 1, 6 and 11 making it nearly impossible to get a clean signal. Since the new router has 5ghz support I was able to find a clear channel in the upper range (channels 130-160 or so) but even with a seemingly clean channel the wireless of this device is completely unusable. I think before I completely give up I'll try disabling the wireless to see if that somehow alleviates the latency issue with the device (assuming Cox can't do anything from their end.)

    I read a post suggesting bad/dirty power (such as too many devices on a power strip) contributing to modem under-performance, also found a post noting how excessive heat can affect a wireless signal. This was a few days ago, as result I moved the power adapter from the power strip to another power box at the other end of the wall, and I also moved the modem to a wall mount so the cool air on the wall would help dissipate heat (I have a ceiling fan.) But honestly neither of these changes seemed to help which is why I was back at it this morning.

  • wilson0x4d's avatar
    wilson0x4d
    New Contributor
    11 years ago

    I'm waiting on dinner to cook, so I decided to switch the wireless off on the SBG6580, here is what a ping against 192.168.100.1 looks like after doing this:

    C:\Users\Shaun>ping -t 192.168.100.1

    Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1214ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=736ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=605ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

    There are still occasional spikes, but the average latency is now closer to what I would expect. However, I still find ~100ms ping times a little high (degrades twitch gaming), and the 500ms+ pings unacceptable. Again, running this side by side with an external IP shows that these higher pings correlate with poor performance of internet-bound packets as well. (not shown)

    If this isn't a firmware issue then the SBG6580is a horrible network appliance that nobody should be buying, and Cox most certainly should not be promoting.

  • wilson0x4d's avatar
    wilson0x4d
    New Contributor
    11 years ago

    And here is what latency looks like after clearing all logs and rebooting the modem from the modem web ui (wireless is still disabled):

    ======== ping to 192.168.100.1

    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

    ======== ping to 68.105.28.11 (cox dns1)

    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=60
    Reply from 68.105.28.11: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60

    =======

    Somewhat saddens me that a reboot would clear out that odd "every few seconds" hiccup in ping latency I've been seeing all day. I'll leave this ping running for a while and see how long before it comes back.

  • Health_Edge's avatar
    Health_Edge
    Valued Contributor III
    11 years ago

    Yea, its a shame. But to be fair, it's not like Cox contracted out to one vendor, its just gateways in general are bad. Unfortunately, there is still a portion of the market who just want something to plug in and get them online wireless, and don't really care about features or even stuff like latency. The only decent gateway I have started to hear good things about is the CG4500BD but I haven't personally used it.

    Have you thought about maybe just getting a new DOCSIS 3.0 modem and hooking the Linksys back up? That way you can have the speed increase of the gateway (which has a D3 modem as part of it) but still keep your original router.

    Also, just for kicks, I have to show you this. I think you would appreciate. They are doing a revamp of the original WRT54G, the WRT1900AC. Made a big splash at CES this year, but I still love my RT-N66U more.