goCoax MoCA 2.5 adapter

[Waltski]

Looks like Coax WF-803M MoCA 2.5 adapters are back in stock!

 

[gocoax]

Any update? The week is almost over.

It is ready now. You can order from our website www.gocoax.com. Or from Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07XYDG7WN/?tag=snbforums-20

 

[rs1987]

I recently received my gocoax adapters. Very pleasantly surprised by the performance. I thought it would be bad given that unfortunately my coax cabling in the walls is all RG59.

Using iperf3, between my resource constrained Linksys WRT1200AC that is known to max out around 940mbps on ethernet and my i7-4790s based server, I in fact get a solid ~935Mbps of throughput.

I wish I had a more capable device to act as the client for testing purposes, but unfortunately all my other devices are either big towers that I don't want to move upstairs or laptops with no ethernet port.

root@linksys:~# iperf3 -c 192.168.2.3
Connecting to host 192.168.2.3, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.2.10 port 33332 connected to 192.168.2.3 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   109 MBytes   918 Mbits/sec    0    990 KBytes
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0    990 KBytes
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0    990 KBytes
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.06 MBytes
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.06 MBytes
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.06 MBytes
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   111 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec    0   1.17 MBytes
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.17 MBytes
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.17 MBytes
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   112 MBytes   938 Mbits/sec    0   1.28 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes   937 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes   935 Mbits/sec                  receiver

 

[rs1987]

So question for @gocoax. The MoCA link rates page on my adapters shows the following:

If I'm reading this correctly, it's telling me that the PHY speed is ~3.5Gbps. How is this even possible? I thought the max speed of MoCA 2.5 is 2.5Gbps?

I mean, it's somewhat academic since it's maxing out the gigabit ethernet connection already, so this is just curiosity on my part.

 

[gocoax]

So question for @gocoax. The MoCA link rates page on my adapters shows the following:

View attachment 21874
If I'm reading this correctly, it's telling me that the PHY speed is ~3.5Gbps. How is this even possible? I thought the max speed of MoCA 2.5 is 2.5Gbps?

I mean, it's somewhat academic since it's maxing out the gigabit ethernet connection already, so this is just curiosity on my part.

Yes, here is the MoCA PHY rate. It is about 3.5Gbps. we can get about 2.5Gbps real traffic throughput.
The 2.5Gbps is for whole MoCA network, for example, if you have 3 nodes, A, B and C. By adding the throughput, A to B, A to C, B to C, B to A, C to A, C to B. you can get about 2.5Gbps.

 

[gocoax]

I recently received my gocoax adapters. Very pleasantly surprised by the performance. I thought it would be bad given that unfortunately my coax cabling in the walls is all RG59.

Using iperf3, between my resource constrained Linksys WRT1200AC that is known to max out around 940mbps on ethernet and my i7-4790s based server, I in fact get a solid ~935Mbps of throughput.

I wish I had a more capable device to act as the client for testing purposes, but unfortunately all my other devices are either big towers that I don't want to move upstairs or laptops with no ethernet port.

root@linksys:~# iperf3 -c 192.168.2.3
Connecting to host 192.168.2.3, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.2.10 port 33332 connected to 192.168.2.3 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   109 MBytes   918 Mbits/sec    0    990 KBytes
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0    990 KBytes
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0    990 KBytes
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.06 MBytes
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.06 MBytes
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.06 MBytes
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   111 MBytes   930 Mbits/sec    0   1.17 MBytes
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.17 MBytes
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   112 MBytes   941 Mbits/sec    0   1.17 MBytes
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   112 MBytes   938 Mbits/sec    0   1.28 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes   937 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes   935 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Very good, you get a nice speed.

 

[Booboo22]

Using iperf3, between my resource constrained Linksys WRT1200AC that is known to max out around 940mbps on ethernet and my i7-4790s based server, I in fact get a solid ~935Mbps of throughput.
I wish I had a more capable device to act as the client for testing purposes, but unfortunately all my other devices are either big towers that I don't want to move upstairs or laptops with no ethernet port.

You're not going to get better than that for point to point, as the Ethernet NIC is GigE. But since MoCA is shared medium, you can get a better aggregate throughput for multiple devices.

 

[gocoax]

You're not going to get better than that for point to point, as the Ethernet NIC is GigE. But since MoCA is shared medium, you can get a better aggregate throughput for multiple devices.

With point to point. MoCA 2.5 can give you full 1Gbps bidirectional traffic. For MoCA2.0 bounded, you only can get 1Gbps bidirectional traffic.
You also can get benefit from MoCA 2.5

 

[rs1987]

Very good, you get a nice speed.

Indeed. I was expecting much worse performance. The cable in my house is old and unmarked, but has a diameter of 6.15mm measured with my digital vernier caliper, which would make it RG59. That said, it's full copper core and some of the cables without terminators on them appear to be shielded too, as I can see the shielding. So perhaps the cable diameter is misleading (although RG6 is supposed to be 6.9mm) and I've got something other than RG59.

I disconnected all the other cables from my MoCA network so the point to point link is isolated and only carriers the MoCA signal. Anyway, I'm well pleased. My house is pretty large and I'm using the MoCA link as a backhaul for my Ubiquiti Unifi APs.

 

[gocoax]

Indeed. I was expecting much worse performance. The cable in my house is old and unmarked, but has a diameter of 6.15mm measured with my digital vernier caliper, which would make it RG59. That said, it's full copper core and some of the cables without terminators on them appear to be shielded too, as I can see the shielding. So perhaps the cable diameter is misleading (although RG6 is supposed to be 6.9mm) and I've got something other than RG59.

I disconnected all the other cables from my MoCA network so the point to point link is isolated and only carriers the MoCA signal. Anyway, I'm well pleased. My house is pretty large and I'm using the MoCA link as a backhaul for my Ubiquiti Unifi APs.

Nice. Can your Unifi AP support Wi-Fi Mesh. If so, you will get a fast, stable seamless roaming Wi-Fi network.

 

[rs1987]

You're not going to get better than that for point to point, as the Ethernet NIC is GigE. But since MoCA is shared medium, you can get a better aggregate throughput for multiple devices.

Yeah, agreed. I was just curious to see how close to the theoretical maximum of 1Gbps I could get as this Linksys WRTAC1200 has been benchmarked and its ethernet interface maxes out at @ ~940mbps. It's possible it may be able to get a little more than 940Mbps.

So all in all, these adapters are an excellent investment. It was simply impossible for me to run cat6 everywhere and this solution has avoided me having to use the wifi as a backhaul in a mesh network.

 

[rs1987]

Nice. Can your Unifi AP support Wi-Fi Mesh. If so, you will get a fast, stable seamless roaming Wi-Fi network.

Yes, it does. It's the Unifi nano-HD

I actually just took delivery of them today, so I'm still learning the features. The meshing as far as I understand it from the manual is only for APs that use a wireless uplink. Since both of mine are connected to the MoCA network, they won't need to use the mesh features I think.

These APs have a fast roaming feature which is supposed to make handoff much quicker if most of your 5Ghz devices are recent models, which mine are. I'm still perusing the documentation. The software has many options that can be tweaked, so it'll take me a while to get to grips with it.

Anyway, let's not pollute this MoCA thread with a discussion of wireless APs

 

[rmann2020]

I recently received my adapters and now have them up and running. I have noticed that my connection is dropping randomly. I have tried to isolate the issue but am getting inconsistent results.

I'm not clear on a number of setting options in the MoCA adapters and need help to ensure I have them optimized (in case this could potentially be the issue). I have attached screenshots below with my current settings which are identical on both adapters. I also followed the instructions provided with the adapters (step 3 to connect cables, step 4 to log into management web, and step 6 to encrypt). Again, I did successfully get the adapters to work via short run - same room testing and then again over long run to desired locations. For whatever reason though, the connection is not stable.

The one setting I did change was LOF based on advise received from @Datalink in another forum.

 

[jrmtz85]

What does preferred NC do? I have that on mine, but I did not activate.

 

[Booboo22]

According to your first image, that specific adapter is getting and dropping lots of bad Ethernet frames. Does the other adapter also show bad Rx frames?

 

[Booboo22]

Also, why is network security enabled on the D-Ext but your MoCA setup shows the "In Scan List" on the D-High?

 

[Booboo22]

What does preferred NC do? I have that on mine, but I did not activate.

In MoCA one device is the "Network Coordinator" since the architecture is CDMA/CD; it's responsible to sending the beacon. Beacons (bits of network information) are used for devices to join the network. Typically you should not enable Preferred NC and allow the adapters to auto-negotiate who is the current Network Coordinator.

 

[rmann2020]

Also, why is network security enabled on the D-Ext but your MoCA setup shows the "In Scan List" on the D-High?

I only enabled D-Ext as that is how I understood the QuickStart Guide #6 step 3 (Step3: Go to the page 'Security settings', enable D-Ext band security setting and select a proper password. Save configuration and reboot the device.)

I also tried enabling all initially and found that D-Ext was the only option needed at the time. I have now disabled (unchecked) all 3 security options (all disabled on both adapters).
I also unchecked the Preferred NC on both adapters now and rebooted.

Unfortunately, I still don't have connection between the adapters. The MoCA light is not on either (previously was either solid blue when not working or blue/green when was working)

Happy to make whatever changes are needed/suggested to get the adapters working properly and optimized. Thanks in advance for any help and guidance provided.

 

[Datalink]

I think that the main problem here is that there is an existing MoCA 1.0/1.1 network running on D-Low between PVRs.

I've asked rmann2020 to ensure that the Device Status frequencies for the Beacon Channel, Primary Channel and Secondary Channel actually change when the operating band, D-ext, D-Low, and D-High is changed in the MoCA settings tab.

Thats to ensure that selecting D-High in the MoCA settings actually ends up with a set of frequencies that are appropriate for D-High operation.


@gocoax, on the Coax Setup tab there is an LOF setting that can be changed.

Adapter Name Master
Network Search Enabled: checked
LOF: 1275
Tx Power: 10
Beacon Power Level: 10
Preferred NC: checked

What does LOF mean? Lowest Frequency? If so, what should that be set for when you're running D-High, the lowest frequency of the first band that is used, as in 1300 Mhz - 50 Mhz = 1250 Mhz to accommodate the lower bandwidth of the first channel (1250 to 1350 Mhz)???

As noted above the Network Coordinator should be unchecked to allow auto negotiation. @gocoax, is that correct or does the gocoax implementation expect to have one Network Coordinator on the MoCA network?

 

[Waltski]

Last Operational Frequency - the RF frequency to which the MoCA interface was tuned when last operational, in MHz.