[c-nsp] SNR Values: wic1-shdsl v2

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Who makes the DSLAM?

Ted

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Alistair Cockeram
>Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:25 AM
>To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: [c-nsp] SNR Values: wic1-shdsl v2
>
>
>I've got two wic1-shdsl v2 wic cards in a 1721 chassis running:
>
>Cisco IOS Software, C1700 Software (C1700-SY7-M), Version 12.3(4)XG3,
>RELEASE S)
>Synched to technology version 12.3(5.7)T
>
>when I do show controllers dsl 0 or 1
>
>both cards report SNR values of:
>
>SNR Sampling:  31.8680 dB (dsl 0)
>
>SNR Sampling:  31.6790 dB (dsl 1)
>
>These figures appear to be incorrect as the DSLAM is reporting:
>
>(dsl 0) SNR dowm 16dB  up 9dB
>
>(dsl 1) SNR down 17dB  up 9dB
>
>These are two different sdsl circuits to the same building.
>
>The attenuation figures for both circuits are shown correctly. A quick
>google reveals nothing and I'm wondering if this is a bug or if I'm miss
>reading the results. There is more than +/-4dB difference between the
>dslam and the cards so I don't believe this is related to:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/770/fn26014.shtml (which is for a
>different IOS version anyway).
>
>Testing a wic1-adsl card in another 1721 on a different adsl
>circuit reveals
>the correct readings reported for SNR from the router and the dslam.
>
>Any ideas? Obviously it is fairly useful to have correct figures when
>checking SNR in the field.
>
>--
>Alistair Cockeram, Hebden Bridge UK
>"Everyone around me dies, Mr. Morden, except those who most deserve it."
>
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>--
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date:
>9/30/2005
>