MoCA 2.0 Actiontech ECB6000

[sfx2000]

mbps = megabits/sec

little m vs. big M - millibytes/sec

 

[pec]

I have 4 actiontec moca 1.1s. Are these new ecb6000 and 6200 compatible? I.e. If I installed two of these they would be faster but the others would still work slower but all on same network?

My best guess is that the MoCA 2.0 devices will join your existing MoCA 1.1 network and operate in MoCA 1.1 mode, even when communicating between the two MoCA 2.0 devices. You should probably contact Actiontec to verify this, however.

The MoCA 2.0 spec supports having two independent networks in the D-Band (1.125-1.675 GHz). One of the networks would be a MoCA 1.0/1.1 network operating from 1.125-1.225 GHz, and a second MoCA 2.0 network (unbonded or bonded) in a 100/225 MHz segment in the 1.35-1.675 GHz band. Seems like you would have to be able to configure the MoCA 2.0 devices to form the second network, but there are no configuration options for either of the Actiontec MoCA 2.0 devices of which I am aware.

-pc

 

[azazel1024]

My best guess is that the MoCA 2.0 devices will join your existing MoCA 1.1 network and operate in MoCA 1.1 mode, even when communicating between the two MoCA 2.0 devices. You should probably contact Actiontec to verify this, however.

The MoCA 2.0 spec supports having two independent networks in the D-Band (1.125-1.675 GHz). One of the networks would be a MoCA 1.0/1.1 network operating from 1.125-1.225 GHz, and a second MoCA 2.0 network (unbonded or bonded) in a 100/225 MHz segment in the 1.35-1.675 GHz band. Seems like you would have to be able to configure the MoCA 2.0 devices to form the second network, but there are no configuration options for either of the Actiontec MoCA 2.0 devices of which I am aware.

-pc

Your last is the biggest issue. Most (but not all) MoCA bridges do not have user management pages and are purely "auto" devices. So they'll scan the channels listening for other MoCA devices and then connect on the channel that they find devices operating on. So basically you'd need to use only devices where you can manually set the channel they are operating on if you want to operate two separate MoCA networks on the same physical cable.

:-(

 

[azazel1024]

Oh and yes, they'll fall back to MoCA 1.1 (or 1.0) if they see any MoCA 1.1 or 1.1 devices operating on the network.

 

[Pinotphile]

According to this page, "MoCA 2.0 capable nodes communicate in MoCA 2.0 mode when talking to MoCA 2.0 devices even when legacy devices are present in the network".

http://www.mocalliance.org/MoCA2/specifications.htm

 

[pec]

According to this page, "MoCA 2.0 capable nodes communicate in MoCA 2.0 mode when talking to MoCA 2.0 devices even when legacy devices are present in the network".

http://www.mocalliance.org/MoCA2/specifications.htm

Indeed it does. This is good news.

The MoCA 2.0 device is apparently able to get the MoCA 1.0/1.1 devices to move to a 50 MHz segment in the D-Low band, establish a MoCA 2.0 network, and then participate in both MoCA 1.0/1.1 and MoCA 2.0 networks simultaneously.

 

[stansoltz]

Indeed it does. This is good news.

The MoCA 2.0 device is apparently able to get the MoCA 1.0/1.1 devices to move to a 50 MHz segment in the D-Low band, establish a MoCA 2.0 network, and then participate in both MoCA 1.0/1.1 and MoCA 2.0 networks simultaneously.

So in layman's terms, is this correct?
moca 1.1 <=> moca 1.1 slower
moca 1.1 <=> moca 2.0 slower
moca 2.0 <=> moca 2.0 faster

 

[Pinotphile]

So in layman's terms, is this correct?
moca 1.1 <=> moca 1.1 slower
moca 1.1 <=> moca 2.0 slower
moca 2.0 <=> moca 2.0 faster

Here's another way to put it:

moca 1.1 <=> moca 1.1 = moca 1.1 speeds
moca 1.1 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 1.1 speeds
moca 2.0 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 2.0 speeds

And if both types of devices are on an internal coax network, then it would be important to have one of the MoCA 2.0 adapters be the one that is connected to the router that provides access to the Internet. Using one of the MoCA 1.1 adapters for the connection to the router would mean that any internal network traffic going to or coming from the Internet would be limited to MoCA 1.1 speeds since it would have to go through that adapter.

 

[stansoltz]

Here's another way to put it:

moca 1.1 <=> moca 1.1 = moca 1.1 speeds
moca 1.1 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 1.1 speeds
moca 2.0 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 2.0 speeds

And if both types of devices are on an internal coax network, then it would be important to have one of the MoCA 2.0 adapters be the one that is connected to the router that provides access to the Internet. Using one of the MoCA 1.1 adapters for the connection to the router would mean that any internal network traffic going to or coming from the Internet would be limited to MoCA 1.1 speeds since it would have to go through that adapter.

Good point. Actually that's my dilemma now... I have a 150 Mbps down connection... but due to my Moca 1.1 setup I limiting my downloads to about ~80 Mbps inside the house. So maybe two Moca 2.0 adapters - one at the router and one at my main workhorse PC would be good.

 

[stansoltz]

Dear Actiontec Customer,

You are receiving this email because you recently submitted a question to the Actiontec Technical Support Team thru our Email Support Request Form page.

You said your Actiontec Product was:

ECB2500C - Ethernet to Coax MoCA Network Adapter

Your question was:
=========================

I currently have 4 ECB2500C which are Moca 1.1 I was thinking of adding either ECB6000 or ECB62000s which are Moca 2.0. Can you confirm the ECB6X00 will operate at Moca 2 speeds? The Moca Alliance states this... is it true? "Backward Interoperability Assured - MoCA 2.0 nodes interoperate with 1.1 nodes on the same network. MoCA 2.0 capable nodes communicate in MoCA 2.0 mode when talking to MoCA 2.0 devices even when legacy devices are present in the network." So is this true? moca 1.1 <=> moca 1.1 = moca 1.1 speeds moca 1.1 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 1.1 speeds moca 2.0 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 2.0 speeds

=========================
Actiontec Support Team’s response is:
=========================

Not if connected into a network with moca 1.1 or 1.0 devices. They will slow down to the speed of the slowest device on the network.

=========================

 

[Pinotphile]

Interesting. The MoCA Alliance certified the ECB6000 as MoCA 2.0 compliant, but maybe that isn't part of the certification criteria. I installed a pair of ECB6200's earlier this week. When I get a chance I'll get out one of my old MoCA 1.0 devices (Motorola NIM100) and put it on the network and see whether it affects performance between the ECB6200's.

 

[stansoltz]

Interesting. The MoCA Alliance certified the ECB6000 as MoCA 2.0 compliant, but maybe that isn't part of the certification criteria. I installed a pair of ECB6200's earlier this week. When I get a chance I'll get out one of my old MoCA 1.0 devices (Motorola NIM100) and put it on the network and see whether it affects performance between the ECB6200's.

Yes Please! I'd love to know before I make the jump. Happy with my Moca 1.1 but my workhorse PC could definitely benefit from Moca 2.0. Please let me know.

 

[abailey]

Interesting. I wonder if you hard set the frequency of the Moca 1.1 adapters and set an encryption password so the 2.0 devices could not connect to the 1.1, could you run them both? The problem then I guess is you have two MOCA networks not one. There is software for the ECB2500 available that will allow you to set those parameters. Here is a link to the guide: http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/ECB2500_Configuration_Guide_v1.1_NCS.pdf
Anyway not sure that really helps you.

 

[Pinotphile]

Interesting. The MoCA Alliance certified the ECB6000 as MoCA 2.0 compliant, but maybe that isn't part of the certification criteria. I installed a pair of ECB6200's earlier this week. When I get a chance I'll get out one of my old MoCA 1.0 devices (Motorola NIM100) and put it on the network and see whether it affects performance between the ECB6200's.

I couldn't get the NIM100 to work on my coax network with the ECB6200's, but I also have an Actiontec MI424WR (also MoCA 1.0), which I was able to get working. It didn't slow down the performance of the ECB6200's that I could tell. I ran a test on speedtest.net from the room with one of the ECB6200's and got download speeds of about 150Mbps with or without the MoCA 1.0 device on the network.

To really test the top end speed in both scenarios I'd of course need to run a test over my internal network instead of out to the Internet. However, I think this is sufficient to disprove the statement from the Actiontec rep that the MoCA 2.0 adapters "will slow down to the speed of the slowest device on the network", considering that MoCA 1.0 theoretically tops out at 100Mbps (with real world results below that) if I recall correctly.

I have cable Internet service so get lower speeds at night when more of my neighbors are using their service, so I'll try it again in the morning. I usually get download speeds ranging from 200-240Mbps during the day.

Edit: By the way, I connected my laptop to the MoCA 1.0 device (MI424WR) and got download speeds of 60-65Mbps.

 

[stevech]

... I think this is sufficient to disprove the statement from the Actiontec rep that the MoCA 2.0 adapters "will slow down to the speed of the slowest device on the network",

If the rep's claim were true, it'd say that MoCA 2.0 lacks rate-adaptive modulation modes. That can't be, per the standard. It'd be the same on 802.11.

Is the claim that a MoCA 1 signal on the same freq range (OFDM carriers) that MoCA 2 is trying to use would cause MoCA 2 to fall-back to MoCA 1 mode? This would be like saying 802.11b mode on some SSID's client would force all to drop to 11b.

 

[Pinotphile]

I couldn't get the NIM100 to work on my coax network with the ECB6200's, but I also have an Actiontec MI424WR (also MoCA 1.0), which I was able to get working. It didn't slow down the performance of the ECB6200's that I could tell. I ran a test on speedtest.net from the room with one of the ECB6200's and got download speeds of about 150Mbps with or without the MoCA 1.0 device on the network.

To really test the top end speed in both scenarios I'd of course need to run a test over my internal network instead of out to the Internet. However, I think this is sufficient to disprove the statement from the Actiontec rep that the MoCA 2.0 adapters "will slow down to the speed of the slowest device on the network", considering that MoCA 1.0 theoretically tops out at 100Mbps (with real world results below that) if I recall correctly.

I have cable Internet service so get lower speeds at night when more of my neighbors are using their service, so I'll try it again in the morning. I usually get download speeds ranging from 200-240Mbps during the day.

Edit: By the way, I connected my laptop to the MoCA 1.0 device (MI424WR) and got download speeds of 60-65Mbps.

I just ran a couple of more tests this morning. With the computer connected directly to the router, I got download speeds of 230-240Mbps. With the computer connected to one of the ECB6200's on the coax network (with the MoCA 1.0 device also on the network), I got the same range of download speeds, 230-240Mbps. So again, the Actiontec support person was simply wrong. The MoCA 2.0 adapters did not slow down to the speed of the slowest adapter on the MoCA network (nor should they according to the MoCA 2.0 standard). Here's a quote of the post with Actiontec's response for context:

Dear Actiontec Customer,

You are receiving this email because you recently submitted a question to the Actiontec Technical Support Team thru our Email Support Request Form page.

You said your Actiontec Product was:

ECB2500C - Ethernet to Coax MoCA Network Adapter

Your question was:
=========================

I currently have 4 ECB2500C which are Moca 1.1 I was thinking of adding either ECB6000 or ECB62000s which are Moca 2.0. Can you confirm the ECB6X00 will operate at Moca 2 speeds? The Moca Alliance states this... is it true? "Backward Interoperability Assured - MoCA 2.0 nodes interoperate with 1.1 nodes on the same network. MoCA 2.0 capable nodes communicate in MoCA 2.0 mode when talking to MoCA 2.0 devices even when legacy devices are present in the network." So is this true? moca 1.1 <=> moca 1.1 = moca 1.1 speeds moca 1.1 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 1.1 speeds moca 2.0 <=> moca 2.0 = moca 2.0 speeds

=========================
Actiontec Support Team’s response is:
=========================

Not if connected into a network with moca 1.1 or 1.0 devices. They will slow down to the speed of the slowest device on the network.

=========================

 

[Cornish]

The ECB6000 lacks a coax loop-through (tap, not splitter inside MoCA box)as I've seen in older MoCA. So one has to use a 3.5dB loss splitter if there is a TV/STB on the same coax jack?

FYI: full MSRP is USD$90 each.

You could use a diplexer instead of a splitter in that scenario, like the Holland STVC, which is only 1dB loss.

 

[bds3151]

I've now fixed the Win 7 computer slow transfer issue (11~12.5 MB/s). I downloaded the TCP Optimizer app and set the parameters to "optimal". Reboot the computer and now the speed is 35MB/s across the ECB 6000's to the Synology 212j, almost a three fold improvement. It appears optimizing the TCP parameters doesn't matter much on a LAN at 100mb/s but to obtain higher transfer rates, it matters a great deal.

 

[stevech]

indeed. The default TCP settings in MS windows will permit high speeds on terrestrial links.
But the defaults , esp. "Window Size", if changed to imprudent settings, can cause what you saw. This was a common issue many years ago but not so now.
Something or someone changed the TCP settings?

 

[bds3151]

Steve, I'm sure I changed the settings at some point trying to squeeze more speed out of the old configuration. The throughput limitation of around 12MB/s went unnoticed until I got the ECB6000's that replaced the moca 1.1 devices and raised the connection speed above 100mb/s. I have retested and am now seeing peaks over 40MB/s transfer rate.