CM2000, 1000, etc firmware update needed for Spectrum IPv6

[dmonnier]

Hello,

For many months all user-owned CM series Netgear cable modems are unable to retrieve IPv6 leases.  They previously worked without issue.  There are numerous mentions on DSL Reports and also Reddit about the issue.  Spectrum cites an issue with most recent firmware validation and suggests that Netgear needs to make some action to get new firmware certified in order to get it deployed to customer-owned devices.  I'm asking that others reach out from the community to ask that these steps be taken and/or contact with Spectrum be made.  While IPv6 is not critical, it is available on the network and our decision to use a Netgear product is what is being cited as the reason for its unavailability.  These devices are not yet EOL and should be supported for full interoperability on the advertised networks.  

Any attention from Netgear would be appreciated. 

DOCSIS 3.1 Cable Modem (CM2050V) 

DOCSIS 3.1 Cable Modem (CM2000) 

DOCSIS® 3.1 Cable Modem (CM1150V) 

DOCSIS® 3.1 Cable Modem (CM1100) 

[Mujiga · Accepted solution]

@dmonnierSmall update here. Seems Spectrum  has re-enabled ipv6 on my CM1000v1. I had to reboot this morning, and I noticed my router pulling an ipv6 address.

[plemans]

Netgear sends spectrum updates but spectrum doesn't necessarily deploy them. 

You can compare your version to what version spectrum has approved and other ISP's have. 

What is the latest firmware version of my NETGEAR cable modem or modem router? | Answer | NETGEAR Su...

But one thing I've noticed is that it tends to be the router with IPv6 issues versus the modem. 

sounds like Spectrum just trying to pass the buck. 

[dmonnier]

Thank you for the reply.  

As I mentioned, multiple people on the Spectrum network report the issue specific to Netgear modems.  In my case my router and infrastructure are all Ubiquiti - UniFi and have full IPv6 working via various tunnel brokers and locally on my LAN.  Also of note is the listed firmware at the link you provided is not, in fact, the latest deployed to Spectrum devices.  The latest on my device is V1.01.08.  Suggesting that table is not maintained.  My contacts at Spectrum have cited the need for a certification process to be engaged in by Netgear.  This isn't a tech support request but a vendor issue between the ISP and vendor we've chosen for our device.   Customers are switching to Motorola and Hiltron to remediate the issue.  I wanted to try and get a response from Netgear before I do the same.  Again, appreciate the offer of help, but this isn't a router issue.  It's a network policy issue with Spectrum and they cite firmware as the reason.  I'm unaware of any CVE or other issue that would require them to adopt such a policy, but it's what my contacts there have explained.  I've looked on NANOG for a Netgear contact but sadly this forum appears to be the best communication channel and it appears to be managed mostly by non-Netgear staff like yourself.  While helpful,  it's not what's needed here.

[plemans]

Spectrum can always contact netgear if they're saying its a netgear issue. 

Again, netgear sends the files but spectrum actually has to certify it. 

You can potentially try this form as well. 

Cable MSO (netgear.com)

[FURRYe38]

NG develops and does some internal testing on there side. NG then sends these builds to ISP for there internal testing and certification. Its up to the ISP to test and certify that the FW is good for there network. Once this is done its up to the ISP to push it out to users modems. Some ISPs won't update user owned modems. That's there policy if they have that. 

If the ISP finds issues during there testing and certification, it would be up to the ISP to communicate this with NG or any other modem Mfr and work out the problems between them. I would not presume that ISP may or may not be incentivized. Hard to know what the ISPs and modem Mfrs have in place for working and developing FW for user owned modems. 

[dmonnier]

Appreciate the link.  Spectrum is not Netgear's customer.  We are.  They are not incentivized to contact them as they provide their own gear.  Sadly it's not as robust as the Netgear equipment.  

[FURRYe38]

I'll pass this on to NG for review. 

@DarrenM @KevinLiT 

[dmonnier]

Thank you!

Happy to put them in touch with the netops people I have contact with at Spectrum if it helps.

[FURRYe38]

HI there,

Can you help provide some more details regarding this? 

1) Does the CM have IPv6 address? (Check it from 192.168.100.1 web GUI)
2) Does the router have IPv6 address? (Check it from router's web GUI)
3) Capture CM event log from GUI(192.168.100.1->ADVENCED->Administration->Event Log)
4) Describe the issue in detail.

5) Where abouts in the DSLReports forum are you seeing this issue being posted about? Please post links to these regarding the CM model modems and Spectrum. 

[dmonnier]

Hello,  Thank you for the reply.

1.  Spectrum looks to only provision devices using IPv4 addresses.

2. My router has only IPv6 on the internal and lo interfaces. All RFC1918.  This is the issue seen by everyone.  

3.

Time	Priority	Description
Fri Feb 17 07:03:13 2023	(Warning (5))	DBC-REQ Mismatch Between Calculated Value for P1.6hi Compared to CCAP Provided Value;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 07:03:12 2023	(Critical (3))	SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:51:14 2023	(Error (4))	SW upgrade Failed before download - File not Present
Fri Feb 17 06:51:14 2023	(Notice (6))	SW Download INIT - Via NMS
Fri Feb 17 06:51:04 2023	(Warning (5))	Dynamic Range Window violation
Fri Feb 17 06:51:04 2023	(Warning (5))	RNG-RSP CCAP Commanded Power Exceeds Value Corresponding to the Top of the DRW;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:51:04 2023	(Warning (5))	Dynamic Range Window violation
Fri Feb 17 06:51:04 2023	(Warning (5))	RNG-RSP CCAP Commanded Power Exceeds Value Corresponding to the Top of the DRW;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:51:03 2023	(Warning (5))	REG-RSP-MP Mismatch Between Calculated Value for P1.6hi Compared to CCAP Provided Value;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:50:58 2023	(Notice (6))	DS profile assignment change. DS Chan ID: 32; Previous Profile: ; New Profile: 1 2.;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:50:53 2023	(Notice (6))	TLV-11 - unrecognized OID;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:50:53 2023	(Error (4))	Missing BP Configuration Setting TLV Type: 17.9;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:50:53 2023	(Error (4))	Missing BP Configuration Setting TLV Type: 17.8;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Fri Feb 17 06:50:53 2023	(Warning (5))	DHCP WARNING - Non-critical field invalid in response ;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:af:1f:1e:07:21;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;
Time Not Established	(Notice (6))	Honoring MDD; IP provisioning mode = IPv4
Time Not Established	(Critical (3))	SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing;;CM-MAC=38:94:ed:09:ed:88;CMTS-MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1;

4. Regardless of prefix request size Spectrum doesn't assign IPv6 prefixes to NG modems.

5.  https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r33423803-HSI-CFL-IPV6-Issue

https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/uzb2up/native_ipv6_no_longer_enabled_on_spectrum_network/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/vspgc7/trouble_with_ipv6_connection/

The decision from Spectrum looks to impact TP-Link, Arris, Netgear, and others.  It appears their process has been accepted by Motorola and obviously their own internal issued modems.   I have no doubt this is simply a policy issue on Spectrum's part but I wanted to make some effort to secure my investment in the NG gear before giving up.

[FURRYe38]

Thank for this information. I'll pass this back to NG. 

What is the brand and model of the wifi router your using. 

FYI, I see Errors, and Criticals and Warnings that the ISP would review and should resolve. That's on them. 

Can you lost a capture of the Cable Connections status page as well please. 

[Mujiga]

@FURRYe38    Just wanted to add that the CM1000v1, and I suspect the v2, is also affected as well. I too am on Spectrum and have had this issue since the beginning of June last year.

[dmonnier]

I've tried to post the power levels, etc, twice but the post never shows up here in the thread after a success message.  Unsure why.   The channels are all locked and levels good. You'll have to take my word for it.

I'm convinced this is a policy issue and not a technical issue.  Spectrum has opted to do this for all customer-owned equipment with a few exceptions like Motorola for some reason.  They cite some firmware validation as their reasoning though. Spectrum is a huge ISP with presumably many NG customers and I'm hoping NG can help to raise the issue and get it resolved.

Router is Ubiquiti UDP-Pro running UNIFI OS 1.12.38  Address request is a /56 using DHCPv6 and worked without issue until this policy change.  The router manages a v6 tunnel from HE as well as v6 on a few VLAN without issue.  I'm not a novice.  I've managed global-scale networks for more than thirty years and am active in NANOG and other NetOPS communities.  Again, I really don't think this is anything to do with my equipment.  The issue is impacting everyone with NG (and many other brand) modems on the Spectrum network.

[FURRYe38]

Please copy and past the Cable Connections page into a word doc then save off as a PDF file then attach to your next post using the Choose File button. 

We'll need to see the cable connections page. 

Thank you. 

---

@dmonnier wrote:

I've tried to post the power levels, etc, twice but the post never shows up here in the thread after a success message.  Unsure why.   The channels are all locked and levels good. You'll have to take my word for it.

I'm convinced this is a policy issue and not a technical issue.  Spectrum has opted to do this for all customer-owned equipment with a few exceptions like Motorola for some reason.  They cite some firmware validation as their reasoning though. Spectrum is a huge ISP with presumably many NG customers and I'm hoping NG can help to raise the issue and get it resolved.

Router is Ubiquiti UDP-Pro running UNIFI OS 1.12.38  Address request is a /56 using DHCPv6 and worked without issue until this policy change.  The router manages a v6 tunnel from HE as well as v6 on a few VLAN without issue.  I'm not a novice.  I've managed global-scale networks for more than thirty years and am active in NANOG and other NetOPS communities.  Again, I really don't think this is anything to do with my equipment.  The issue is impacting everyone with NG (and many other brand) modems on the Spectrum network.

---

[dmonnier]

Attached.

The RF network functions without error and delivers full capacity with IPv4.  

[dmonnier]

Thanks again for the attention.  Any word from the NG mothership by chance?

[FURRYe38]

Nothing.

[Mujiga · Accepted solution]

@dmonnierSmall update here. Seems Spectrum  has re-enabled ipv6 on my CM1000v1. I had to reboot this morning, and I noticed my router pulling an ipv6 address.

[dmonnier]

@Mujiga  confirmed here as well!