# Moca 2.5



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

This isn't strictly Tivo related, but I thought I'd mention it. This company has been posting that they'll be offering MoCA 2.5 adapters shortly. The site is up but not yet taking orders.

https://www.gocoax.com/newsletter


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

https://www.gocoax.com/

This guy's been teasing the product for months over on SNB Forums:

Liuzhe​
edit: p.s. Can't say I love the vibes from the corporate street address, on Halliburton Road.


----------



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

I'm sure it's a small office for coordinating the inbound shipments from the port. Everyone else is in China.


----------



## El Maestro (Nov 19, 2013)

Would any tivo model be compatible with this? I thought moca networks work at the speed of the device with the lowest standard.


----------



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

Well, you'd need the Tivo to also have an adapter and even if it did, I think that transfers to/from Tivos are probably capped off before the reach the limits of a bonded MoCA 2.0 adapter. But we see a lot of people asking for advice about home networking setups that go beyond pure Tivo networking issues.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

El Maestro said:


> Would any tivo model be compatible with this? I thought moca networks work at the speed of the device with the lowest standard.


That is correct.

While all versions of MoCA (1.0, 1.1, 2.0 or bonded 2.0) are technically 'backward compatible,' mixing devices with different versions of MoCA results in network speeds and other capabilities that will be based on the oldest unit's specifications.


----------



## fcfc2 (Feb 19, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> That is correct.
> 
> While all versions of MoCA (1.0, 1.1, 2.0 or bonded 2.0) are technically 'backward compatible,' mixing devices with different versions of MoCA results in network speeds and other capabilities that will be based on the oldest unit's specifications.


Although, this was stated to be the case by a number of MoCA authorities when MoCA 2.0 devices arrived on the market, it has been demonstrated false by myself and a large number of folks who actually have tested it. The fact is that the MoCA speeds is dependent on the specific two devices which are connecting and 2 legs with say MoCA 2.0 adapters will pass MoCA 2.0 speeds even if there are MoCA 1.1 adapters on the same network. There is one exception which I have found to this rule, the older WCB3000N network extenders do, in fact, bring the entire MoCA network down to MoCA 1.1 speeds but every other MoCA 1.1 adapter does not have that effect.


----------



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

My Actiontec 1.1 adapters used to bring down the speed of the whole network too. At some point there was an SNB thread on this issue that showed mixed results. Though I took Diane's comment to refer to the speeds you'd get out of a Tivo that itself had an older version of MoCa, not how that device would affect other nodes


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

fyodor said:


> My Actiontec 1.1 adapters used to bring down the speed of the whole network too. At some point there was an SNB thread on this issue that showed mixed results. Though I took Diane's comment to refer to the speeds you'd get out of a Tivo that itself had an older version of MoCa, not how that device would affect other nodes


Exactly what I meant. I don't know about you, but the only things on the MOCA network in our house are 5 of our 7 TiVo units and an Actiontec bridge to connect to my Asus router. I could put a MOCA 2.5 bridge in place of the 1.1 model and I'll still only get 1.1 speeds.

Should have added "in the session" to make it clearer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This is useful if you want to network PCs at gig speed. Another interesting piece of tech that may be used by telcos to get broadband into MDUs is MoCA Access.


----------



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

They're up for sale. https://www.gocoax.com/product-page/wf803m


----------



## El Maestro (Nov 19, 2013)

fyodor said:


> They're up for sale. https://www.gocoax.com/product-page/wf803m


They're surprisingly cheap!


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

Diana Collins said:


> ....I could put a MOCA 2.5 bridge in place of the 1.1 model and I'll still only get 1.1 speeds.


I did this when Moca 2.0 Bonded adapters came out.

However, I disabled all the 1.1 and 2.0 Moca base connections in my TiVo Bolts and replaced each of my other older 1.1 adapters with Moca 2.0 bonded ...so now I am solely using Motorola Moca 2.0 bonded adapters for all Moca communication:

One 2.0 bonded adapter for the router and one each for my entertainment areas with TV/TiVo's Bolts/Minis along with my Apple TVs (using a 5 port GBps switch at each so multiple video devices get more dedicated wired style connections vs wireless).

At this point the speeds I am getting on the Moca 2.0 bonded network are about 800Mpbs in the house. Not sure I am inclined to do this all over again and replace all my Moca infrastructure with 2.5....unless additional use cases arise for it.

I get 400 mbps service from Comcast/xfinity but the robust Moca instructure allows me to Easily handle both video at the "wired" entertainment centers and allowing more of my my wireless network to be solely used by portable devices (laptops, tablets, phones) and wireless IOT devices for home security and automation etc

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

Yes, I am trying to justify buying 4 of these 2.5 moca adapters lol. I have 4 Moto bonded adapters as well. One at my router and 3 in different rooms all connected to 5 port gig switches. I only pay for 100 mbps symmetrical from Verizon FIOS. I used to be at a higher tier but once I checked my bandwidth usage, my house (family of 4) was maxing at 60 mbps , so I downgraded.

By the way, I checked the spec sheet, the Moca Soc is MaxLinear MxL3710. Looks like the MxL3710 is the only certified MOCA 2.5 product from mocalliance.org. I wonder if the "Vendor Only" Moca 2.5 Actiontecs are using the same SOC.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

By the way, I checked the spec sheet, the Moca Soc is MaxLinear MxL3710. Looks like the MxL3710 is the only certified MOCA 2.5 product from mocalliance.org. I wonder if the "Vendor Only" Moca 2.5 Actiontecs are using the same SOC.[/QUOTE]

Good question. Regardless once you get them and work them hard the first week or two and let us know what you get for actual performance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

Wow, 2.5 also has an enhanced mode like the 2.0 bonded mocas. The enhanced mode on the 2.5 is 3Gbps.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

plee82 said:


> Wow, 2.5 also has an enhanced mode like the 2.0 bonded mocas. The enhanced mode on the 2.5 is 3Gbps.


Diminished by the adapters only having a single GigE port.


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

krkaufman said:


> Diminished by the adapters only having a single GigE port.


Yup, but at least 2.5 is out finally. Hopefully this pushes Actiontec and Motorola to release their 2.5 adapters as well.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> Diminished by the adapters only having a single GigE port.


If you have a bunch of them, that could potentially be useful if you're downloading at 500mbps from your router to one machine, and another machine is moving files to/from a NAS, or something like that. So it really depends on your setup.

EDIT: Also having more headroom is always a good thing in case they don't perform at their full theoretical maximum speed.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

El Maestro said:


> Would any tivo model be compatible with this? I thought moca networks work at the speed of the device with the lowest standard.


I'm not sure this would really benefit a TiVo, or any device currently on the market really. The big benefit of this appears to be that it runs at speeds faster then even gigabit Ethernet. But if the device connected to the bridge is only capable of gigabit then it's never going to go faster then that anyway. I guess it might help if you're attempting to run multiple gigabit devices at full speed simultaneously, but that's gotta be pretty rare. With TiVo it's impossible. Your average cable stream is only 10-15mbps, meaning you'd have to be streaming about 80 shows simultaneously to hit the gigabit limit. Since you can only have 12 devices on your TiVo account that's not possible. Even if you were transferring at the same time I don't think you'd come anywhere near the gigabit limit, let alone the MoCa 2.5 limit.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

krkaufman said:


> Diminished by the adapters only having a single GigE port.


Somebody needs to make a MoCA 2.5 adapter with a USB C port and/or NVMe port.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not sure this would really benefit a TiVo, or any device currently on the market really.... I don't think you'd come anywhere near the gigabit limit, let alone the MoCa 2.5 limit.


This is probably the best and most important point. These just give you bandwidth and headroom to handle multiple device transfers and streams. Most, if not all current client devices (and 5-10 port Gigabit switches for home networking) on the market with Ethernet ports just handle 10/100/1000 Ethernet, and only recently devices like Apple TV 4K have been adding Gigabit Ethernet (1000 Mbps), just like TiVO Bolts....so they can't even use the full bandwidth provided on Moca 2.5 on their own. Sounds like client devices need to switch to 10 Gbps capability.


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

Of course, imo this is the whole point of the 2.5 gbps bandwidth. If you got multiple devices in your moca 2.5 backbone, you will be using the full bandwidth. Right now with Moca 2.0, you are limited by 1gbps bandwidth. If you got two devices, you are limited by 500 mbps each.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

krkaufman said:


> Diminished by the adapters only having a single GigE port.


Yes, that's why folks use simple 5-10 port Gigabit switches with Moca adapters. I agree that having a combo Moca 2.5 / 10 GBE port switch would be nice, but the single ports adapter allow for the best price and versatility of choice. Although for the average consumer, they may not know the real limiting factor is in the end device that may only do 1000 Mbps.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

plee82 said:


> Of course, imo this is the whole point of the 2.5 gbps bandwidth. If you got multiple devices in your moca 2.5 backbone, you will be using the full bandwidth. Right now with Moca 2.0, you are limited by 1gbps bandwidth. If you got two devices, you are limited by 500 mbps each.


Agreed. And if I hadn't already invested in all new Moca 2.0 Bonded adapters just a year ago, I would easily buy these first and try them out now. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see these finally coming out to market...although I don't think I will risk buying anything like this from an import office.

At the very least, hopefully they will list these adapters on Amazon soon and we could get some risk mitigation with return capability with Amazon.


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

d_anders said:


> Agreed. And if I hadn't already invested in all new Moca 2.0 Bonded adapters just a year ago, I would easily buy these first and try them out now. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see these finally coming out to market...although I don't think I will risk buying anything like this from an import office.
> 
> At the very least, hopefully they will list these adapters on Amazon soon and we could get some risk mitigation with return capability with Amazon.


True, but remember, even the motos 2.0 bonded are imports from China. These 2.5 adapters have a SOC that has been certified by the mocalliance. I do not expect it to be a failure.


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

First report coming in from snbforums, claims full gigabit (upstream/downstream), maxes out the line. Latency 3ms from to router.

Same on reddit. I guess this is the real deal, very exciting.


----------



## ndoren (Aug 21, 2013)

REAL DEAL! See attached. I have two Actiontec MoCa 2.0 and two new GoCoax MoCa 2.5. Here are the raw PHY numbers. WOW!!


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

ndoren said:


> REAL DEAL! See attached. I have two Actiontec MoCa 2.0 and two new GoCoax MoCa 2.5. Here are the raw PHY numbers. WOW!!
> View attachment 41121


Damn lol I think I might have to get a couple of them.


----------



## ndoren (Aug 21, 2013)

plee82 said:


> Damn lol I think I might have to get a couple of them.


I thought this was a scam. Nope! Why did I think so? The company popped up out of nowhere. Then the product came available. Almost no device specific data was made available, and a very pretty picture of a simple adapter was on their simple website. Cheap in price. Too cheap. Too good to be true? It's true. I ordered two via Paypal, expecting my money would be swindled...then SURPRISE!!! They showed up in a few days. Nice devices. They play well with my Actiontec 2.0 devices. Reboots? None yet. Time will tell.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

d_anders said:


> This is probably the best and most important point. These just give you bandwidth and headroom to handle multiple device transfers and streams. Most, if not all current client devices (and 5-10 port Gigabit switches for home networking) on the market with Ethernet ports just handle 10/100/1000 Ethernet, and only recently devices like Apple TV 4K have been adding Gigabit Ethernet (1000 Mbps), just like TiVO Bolts....so they can't even use the full bandwidth provided on Moca 2.5 on their own. Sounds like client devices need to switch to 10 Gbps capability.


You're totally missing the point. It's about capacity and maintaining 1gbps in less than ideal conditions. The capacity is the same reason that gigabit broadband makes sense. There is little use for a single machine to use gigabit, but several users at once won't slow each other down, and with a D3.1 modem or GPON fiber, if there is heavy congestion in the neighborhood, you still have usable speeds.

Overall, these things look awesome for situations where there is a lot of coax and no/little Ethernet. Imagine these handling all the wired traffic and a system like Plume or Eero doing wireless mesh, and a gigabit cable or fiber connection, you'd have tons of bandwidth throughout the house for everything.


----------



## nyjklein (Aug 8, 2002)

Can anyone verify whether these support MOCA encryption?

Jeff


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

ndoren said:


> I thought this was a scam. Nope! Why did I think so? The company popped up out of nowhere. Then the product came available. Almost no device specific data was made available, and a very pretty picture of a simple adapter was on their simple website. Cheap in price. Too cheap. Too good to be true? It's true. I ordered two via Paypal, expecting my money would be swindled...then SURPRISE!!! They showed up in a few days. Nice devices. They play well with my Actiontec 2.0 devices. Reboots? None yet. Time will tell.


These adapters are using a moca 2.5 soc that was built in 2018 (certified moca 2.5). I am sure they will be solid.


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

nyjklein said:


> Can anyone verify whether these support MOCA encryption?
> 
> Jeff


They do, and also have an MPS button, meaning you set up the encryption on one adapter and just sync up all your adapters by pressing the MPS button.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

plee82 said:


> These adapters are using a moca 2.5 soc that was built in 2018 (certified moca 2.5). I am sure they will be solid.


How can you be sure? Even if you assume the SOC is rock solid, there are plenty of potential points of failure or design flaws that are not internal to the SOC itself. Time and testing will tell.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Overall, these things look awesome for situations where there is a lot of coax and no/little Ethernet. Imagine these handling all the wired traffic and a system like Plume or Eero doing wireless mesh, and a gigabit cable or fiber connection, you'd have tons of bandwidth throughout the house for everything.


Got it. So why people think they want to mix these with older adapters is beyond me unless a Moca 2.5 right off the router will not slow the whole network based one device at a lower spec and can still maintain higher speeds with other Moca 2.5 devices.

Update. Looks like that's the case (good news) with some the reports coming in with Actiontec 2.0 adapters. Just important to place a Moca 2.5 adapter off the main router then...

Despite the great performance between the Moca 2.5 adapters, it May also be time to replace the 5 1GB port switches in my home entertainment centers to support 10GB Ethernet ports...just so my network can be as open and fast as possible to handle multiple concurring streams.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

Still do not get why Actiontec is not selling theirs to the general population.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

d_anders said:


> Got it. So why people think they want to mix these with older adapters is beyond me unless a Moca 2.5 right off the router will not slow the whole network based one device at a lower spec and can still maintain higher speeds with other Moca 2.5 devices.


In theory, with a mixed network, the faster adapters can still benefit from the faster speeds, but I'm not sure how well that works in reality. With bonded channels, it should better, as even if the TiVos are going full blast on 1.1 on one channel, the other channel should still be at 2.0 or 2.5 speeds for non-TiVo traffic.



> Despite the great performance between the Moca 2.5 adapters, it May also be time to replace the 5 1GB port switches in my home entertainment centers to support 10GB Ethernet ports...just so my network can be as open and fast as possible to handle multiple concurring streams.


Total waste of money at this point unless you've got a hardwired network with a NAS and a PC or multiple PCs on the same 10gbps segment without MoCA in-between. 99% of household users, even power users and geeks have no use for 10gbps Ethernet and won't for the next several years. Considering that video streaming takes a maximum of 25mbps, you don't even need 1gbps switches except for transfers to/from PCs or TiVos. I wouldn't buy 100mbps switches at this point, but I also wouldn't recommend someone upgrade if they already have them (most of my entertainment center is running off of a 100mbps switch).


----------



## ndoren (Aug 21, 2013)

d_anders said:


> Got it. So why people think they want to mix these with older adapters is beyond me unless a Moca 2.5 right off the router will not slow the whole network based one device at a lower spec and can still maintain higher speeds with other Moca 2.5 devices.
> 
> Update. Looks like that's the case (good news) with some the reports coming in with Actiontec 2.0 adapters. Just important to place a Moca 2.5 adapter off the main router then...
> 
> ...


My observation: A mixed network of Actiontec 2.0 and new GoCoax 2.5 adapters does not slow the entire network due to slower devices on the net. My PHY chart above seems to be consistent with this observation. The GoCoax will communicate with each adapter at that particular adapter's speeds. As mentioned above, one potential pitfall is putting a slower adapter off the main modem/router. While this may not affect intra-net speeds between fast adapters, it could potentially reduce internet download speeds for the whole network. So, the fastest adapter off the modem is a common sense approach.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

ndoren said:


> My observation: A mixed network of Actiontec 2.0 and new GoCoax 2.5 adapters does not slow the entire network due to slower devices on the net. My PHY chart above seems to be consistent with this observation. The GoCoax will communicate with each adapter at that particular adapter's speeds. As mentioned above, one potential pitfall is putting a slower adapter off the main modem/router. While this may not affect intra-net speeds between fast adapters, it could potentially reduce internet download speeds for the whole network. So, the fastest adapter off the modem is a common sense approach.


Any MoCA 1.1 adapters/devices to try (TiVo box, ECB2500C, WCB3000N)?


----------



## ndoren (Aug 21, 2013)

krkaufman said:


> Any MoCA 1.1 adapters/devices to try (TiVo box, ECB2500C, WCB3000N)?


Yep, replaced a GoCoax 2.5 with an original ActionTec ECB2500 1.x. Same applies. From any given adapter, it will communicate at the fastest rate available common to that and the another adapter. The overall network doesn't slow down because there are slower adapters on the net. A 2.5 adapter will communicate at 2.5 rate with another 2.5 adapter, or slow to 2.0 or 1.x rates, if necessary. A 2.0 adapter will communicate at a 2.0 rate with another 2.0 or 2.5 adapter, or slow to 1.x rates if necessary.

See the attached PHY rate chart.

Interesting note... I have 4 TiVo Minis (original) and a TiVo Bolt on the same network that created this PHY rate chart. They are not seen. Mysteriously, none of the TiVo devices are directly visible to any of the external adapters, even though they have internal MoCA. .


----------



## plee82 (Mar 13, 2019)

Got 4 moca 2.5 adapters. Not bad at all.

Forgot to mention I tested this using a 8 way splitter (from Holland).


----------



## fcfc2 (Feb 19, 2015)

Back when 2.0 devices were just coming to market, both the MoCA Alliance and folks at Actiontec claimed that the use of any older MoCA version on a mixed MoCA network would AUTOMATICALLY bring the entire MoCA network down to the lower MoCA standard. 
I had a collection of MoCA 1.1 adapters from pretty much every manufacturer and when I tested the speeds, I found that those claims about bringing down the entire MoCA network were false and posted such on a few forums and also notified the MoCA Alliance as well as Actiontec support, I got no response from the MoCA Alliance and a "you must be mistaken" from the folks at Actiontec. 
Some others also confirmed my results, but a week or so later, someone on the SNB forums made a post saying that the WCB3000N, a MoCA 1.1 network extender, actual did bring the entire MoCA network down to MoCA 1.1 speeds. Surprised, I dug one out, hooked it up, and discovered that the WCB3000N did, in fact, bring down the entire MoCA network down to 1.1 speeds. This is the only device I have ever found to do so. 
I recently saw another post from someone claiming that this downgrade also happened "intermittently" with the Actiontec 2500C adapters at the time. I am puzzled how this result might be "intermittent" and doubtful because I had made my original tests with both the Actiontec 2500c and the older Actiontec 2200 series adapters and neither brought the entire MoCA network down to 1.1 speeds and since this is still the case today...I suspect either a faulty test design or a faulty memory. 
At any rate, if I one of you fellas currently in testing mode happens to have one of those WCB3000N's handy, would you mind hooking it up and seeing if it also has the same downgrading effect as previously found?


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

fcfc2 said:


> At any rate, if I one of you fellas currently in testing mode happens to have one of those WCB3000N's handy, would you mind hooking it up and seeing if it also has the same downgrading effect as previously found?


My somewhat foggy memory tells me that someone posted claiming that a firmware upgrade for the WCB3000N resolved this issue.


----------



## fcfc2 (Feb 19, 2015)

snerd said:


> My somewhat foggy memory tells me that someone posted claiming that a firmware upgrade for the WCB3000N resolved this issue.


Your foggy memory may well be better than mine, but for the bulk of the WCB3000N's currently being sold, they are "new" / "old stock" which use custom TWC firmware which to my knowledge was never updated. Same thing for the retail Actiontec version. In the past, I tested versions of the WCB3000N from TWC, Brighthouse, Verizon and some retail, all dropped the speed to 1.1 levels with the available firmwares.
There are GPL source code versions of the various firmwares which are available for download and possible modification, but this is way over my head and to the best of my knowledge, no one with the ability to successfully modify any of the available codes has taken any interest. If you know of any such efforts, or have the skills, please share. WCB Series Devices
I have wondered about how the various MoCA implementations are accomplished, i.e., are there multiple MoCA chips with hard coded abilities or generic MoCA chips which can be programmed to perform different functions. What I am referring to things like the ability to act as a bridge or some single purpose function like the Tivo minis.


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

The iperf3 results from @plee82 are similar to what I experience from a cat 6 / 1 Gbps port connection, straight ethernet. Bonded MoCA 2.0 via MM1000's on my network produces rates above 800 Mbps on a *loaded* iperf3 connection.

Real world application is a bit less. Transferring recordings between two Bolt units on my network yield TiVo reported transfer rates of ~300Mbps, typical- probably as much to do with the internals of the Bolt than anything. FWIW, I'm leveraging my internal coax plant via MoCA, with the router in one location, and two wireless access points at the other locations- MoCA handles the backhaul between the router and the WAPs. The Bolts are connecting via ethernet to MM100's (gigabit port switched though the WAP) at two locations.

It's cool that these 2.5 adapters will max out the theoretical headroom on the gigabit port. I'm not all that certain that upgrading the three adapter locations will make a real world difference... but I'm interested.

One oddity with the MM1000 is that to get that 800+ Mbps throughput rate in testing, the link has to be saturated (multiple threads, large file size). It's counter-intuitive, but fewer process threads and smaller file sizes are significantly slower in net throughput. I'm curious if that also occurs with these 2.5 adapters.


----------



## dmk1974 (Mar 7, 2002)

I just ordered up a pair of these GoCoax 2.5 adapters. Hope to get them by Monday.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

dmk1974 said:


> I just ordered up a pair of these GoCoax 2.5 adapters. Hope to get them by Monday.


I just got three of them. I completely rely on these along with 1GB 5 port switches at each of our entertainment centers with TiVo devices, Apple TVs, game consoles, and APs with the modem and router.

And no longer will my wiring be the bottleneck with my internal 1GB port devices.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

d_anders said:


> I just got three of them. I completely rely on these along with 1GB 5 port switches at each of our entertainment centers with TiVo devices, Apple TVs, game consoles, and APs with the modem and router.
> 
> And yes, I completely turned off the internal Moca adapters in my TiVo devices. They are hard wired connected to the 5 port switches.
> 
> ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dmk1974 (Mar 7, 2002)

ndoren said:


> Yep, replaced a GoCoax 2.5 with an original ActionTec ECB2500 1.x. Same applies. From any given adapter, it will communicate at the fastest rate available common to that and the another adapter. The overall network doesn't slow down because there are slower adapters on the net. A 2.5 adapter will communicate at 2.5 rate with another 2.5 adapter, or slow to 2.0 or 1.x rates, if necessary. A 2.0 adapter will communicate at a 2.0 rate with another 2.0 or 2.5 adapter, or slow to 1.x rates if necessary.
> 
> See the attached PHY rate chart.
> 
> Interesting note... I have 4 TiVo Minis (original) and a TiVo Bolt on the same network that created this PHY rate chart. They are not seen. Mysteriously, none of the TiVo devices are directly visible to any of the external adapters, even though they have internal MoCA. .


I just got my pair of GoCoax adapters today. So far seems faster than my old 1.1 adapter to the Roamio.
How did you get to that PHY settings screen?


----------



## Waltski (Jun 1, 2019)

I kept waiting for MoCA 2.5 units to be released from Actiontec, but finally broke down and bought a pair of ECB6200s last month. I sorely wish I'd waited just a bit longer, but at least I have some time to see how the GoCoax units work long term (also, who knows - maybe Actiontec will finally allow their 2.5 offerings for retail sale).


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

dmk1974 said:


> I just got my pair of GoCoax adapters today. So far seems faster than my old 1.1 adapter to the Roamio.


Kind of surprised at the perceived speed improvement- isn't the ethernet port on the Roamio only Fast Ethernet (10/100), like the 1.1 adapter?


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

tapokata said:


> Kind of surprised at the perceived speed improvement- isn't the ethernet port on the Roamio only Fast Ethernet (10/100), like the 1.1 adapter?


Four tuner Roamio has only Fast Ethernet ports.

Six tuner Roamio has Gigabit Ethernet ports.


----------



## dmk1974 (Mar 7, 2002)

tapokata said:


> Kind of surprised at the perceived speed improvement- isn't the ethernet port on the Roamio only Fast Ethernet (10/100), like the 1.1 adapter?


I have a Mac Mini connected via MoCA 1.1 using a WCB3000N to the Roamio. With these GoCoax adapters now (disabling the MoCA on the Roamio) and when I run Speedtest.net from the Mac Mini, I get 179/12 now instead of 135/12 over my 150/10 Xfinity connection.

I'll continue testing further.

Edit: I have a 6-Tuner Roamio Plus


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

snerd said:


> Four tuner Roamio has only Fast Ethernet ports.
> 
> Six tuner Roamio has Gigabit Ethernet ports.


My bad! Thanks for the correction.


----------



## dmk1974 (Mar 7, 2002)

Alright, I found how to access the GoCoax settings. Here's my PHY rate table. Probably not too impressive because I know I have an old splitter or splitters up in my attic (I really don't feel like crawling around up there). But transfer rates are definitely faster than before.

Also, why in the settings does it say my Network MoCA Version is 1.1? Is the other GoCoax adapter running at that rate? I don't think it is. However, I do have a mix of 2.5, 2.0, and 1.1 devices on my network.


----------



## ndoren (Aug 21, 2013)

dmk1974 said:


> Alright, I found how to access the GoCoax settings. Here's my PHY rate table. Probably not too impressive because I know I have an old splitter or splitters up in my attic (I really don't feel like crawling around up there). But transfer rates are definitely faster than before.
> 
> Also, why in the settings does it say my Network MoCA Version is 1.1? Is the other GoCoax adapter running at that rate? I don't think it is. However, I do have a mix of 2.5, 2.0, and 1.1 devices on my network.


Well, this doesn't resolve your specific issue, but I use MoCA 2.x adapters where the original Minis are located. Then, I run ethernet from the MoCA adapter to the Mini and configure the Mini in ethernet mode. I don't even connect coax to the original Minis. Why? I've done this since the 2.0 MoCA standard specifically to bypass the 1.1 adapters on the old Minis, and to prevent them from downgrading the whole MoCA network speed.

Unrelated but interesting tip: If you want Minis where there is neither coax nor ethernet, I've found that gigabit Powerline adapters work perfectly well. That lets you put Minis virtually anywhere. Wireless routers configured in client mode also allow you to use Minis everywhere, as long as you are running a Premier or Roamio as your main component. Wireless clients used in Bolt networks must be set up in WDS mode, since wireless client mode abstracts MAC addresses, and this becomes an issue with Bolt networks. WDS mode is truly transparent, and doesn't abstract Mini MAC addresses, which is necessary for the Bolt. Gigabit powerline adapters are also truly transparent and compatible with Bolt-based TiVo networks.


----------



## siratfus (Oct 3, 2008)

This might be slightly off topic, but Asus came out with a Nas called the Nimbustor which has two 2.5 gbe RJ45 ports. Does this mean that people using moca would need these new Moca 2.5's to get any benefit out of these 2.5 ports?


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

siratfus said:


> This might be slightly off topic, but Asus came out with a Nas called the Nimbustor which has two 2.5 gbe RJ45 ports. Does this mean that people using moca would need these new Moca 2.5's to get any benefit out of these 2.5 ports?


The goCoax adaptors wouldn't help since they have GigE ports.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

siratfus said:


> This might be slightly off topic, but Asus came out with a Nas called the Nimbustor which has two 2.5 gbe RJ45 ports. Does this mean that people using moca would need these new Moca 2.5's to get any benefit out of these 2.5 ports?


Whats remarkable is that while the adapters call pull off faster than 1GB between them on coax, so you are right that the rest of your networking equipment needs to be as fast or fast faster than 1 GB as well.

These new adapters only have 1gbe ports, so only the traffic between them and can go faster but their Ethernet ports bring them down to 1GB by default.

Why they didn't put on 10GBe ports on these adapter is another matter Because people aren't thinking and the costs would be higher too

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

A fat pipe is helpful when carrying a lot of data concurrently to multiple locations, but the ultimate limit on throughput is typically the initial or final device in the chain It's becoming less rare to see GbE ports on equipment, but most end user devices have plenty of overhead available even on the more commonly found Fast Ethernet port. GbE port design on a Bolt is understandable, given that the Bolt may act as a server for multiple Mini's, dishing out 19 Mbps MPEG streams in each instance for up to six simultaneous streams, and pulling in 25Mbps 4k H.265 streams from the internet. That said, the difference in H.265 video performance on a 400 Mbps MoCA link compared to a bonded channel 800 Mbps MoCA link is imperceptible at the television, nor is there a perceptible difference running an MPEG stream from a Bolt to a 4K Mini at either speed.

My experience with Bonded channel MoCA performance, and is also shown by a few others testing consumer grade MoCA 2.5 gear, is that the maximum performance benefit occurs only when the connections are fully saturated. That is, an iperf3 test of bonded channel performance with no conditions will yield throughputs no better than can be found on a standard MoCA 2.0 connection. That's nice to know if the pipeline is full, but how much data is actually moving at the same time IRL?

For what it's worth, I have a three node bonded network- and connecting a MoCA 1.1 device on one node, and running bonded MoCA channel 2.0 adapters on the other nodes, doesn't slow the tested rate of transfer between the bonded 2.0 channel adapters. 

IMHO, for most users, Gigabit Ethernet on a bonded MoCA 2.0 backbone will be more than sufficient. Maybe one day we'll see consumer grade set top boxes and televisions with 10GbE ports. Maybe one day we'll all have personal helicopters to fly to work. I wouldn't stress over MoCA 2.5 gear. It's head scratching why the ethernet ports on those 2.5 adapters are GbE, but I also doubt that many of those adapters will be connected to a faster connection in the chain.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

goCoax MoCA 2.5 adapters are back in stock, per their website, now priced at $59.99.

https://www.gocoax.com/buy-now

(h/t stuman1974 on SNBForums)


----------



## Scrith (Apr 6, 2003)

I just picked up 5 of the gocoax MoCA 2.5 adapters and they are working great right out of the box. My speeds seem significantly improved (when copying from my computer to my NAS), but I haven't benchmarked the speeds yet (it had been awhile since I last benchmarked my old setup with TiVo adapters, so I'm not sure I'd have a good comparison).


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Scrith said:


> I haven't benchmarked the speeds yet (it had been awhile since I last benchmarked my old setup with TiVo adapters, so I'm not sure I'd have a good comparison).


Good to have a current measure even absent a before value against which to compare - if only to have a future before value documented.


----------



## Pbarkey (Jan 18, 2017)

I bought a GoCoax 2.5 adapter and tried to get it to work with my current setup. I have an Xfinity modem (Cisco XB3 DPC3941t) with MOCA enabled. I was using the Actiontec 2.0 adapter without any hiccup. Thinking that I could just switch out the adapters, I did. All the lights were lit up, as they should have been.

However, I did not have any Internet. Talking with CS at GoCoax, they told me that the modem's MOCA chip was incompatible.

I bought a second GoCoax adapter, set it up at the modem, and all is good now.

Just a heads up, you may have to buy two adapters to get things working.

Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


----------



## Saturn (Apr 10, 2001)

fcfc2 said:


> There are GPL source code versions of the various firmwares which are available for download and possible modification, but this is way over my head and to the best of my knowledge, no one with the ability to successfully modify any of the available codes has taken any interest. If you know of any such efforts, or have the skills, please share. WCB Series Devices
> I have wondered about how the various MoCA implementations are accomplished, i.e., are there multiple MoCA chips with hard coded abilities or generic MoCA chips which can be programmed to perform different functions. What I am referring to things like the ability to act as a bridge or some single purpose function like the Tivo minis.


I spent way too much time (several days) picking apart the various WCB3000N firmware. What I found was pretty disappointing actually - the primary control mechanism is a big binary called data_center, is closed-source and pre-compiled in the source that Actiontec provides: Replace data_center · Issue #7 · Saturn49/wecb The rest of the source code is basically just Linux, a web server, and a few web pages that call back to this binary to do the heavy lifting.

I did get telnet access to it to poke around and found a (disabled) set of configuration pages that looked like they came from Realtek - the SoC? manufacturer. Actiontec appears to have taken that, modified it slightly, and added some remote-config capability for cable providers.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Pbarkey said:


> I bought a GoCoax 2.5 adapter and tried to get it to work with my current setup. I have an Xfinity modem (Cisco XB3 DPC3941t) with MOCA enabled. I was using the Actiontec 2.0 adapter without any hiccup. Thinking that I could just switch out the adapters, I did. All the lights were lit up, as they should have been.
> 
> However, I did not have any Internet. Talking with CS at GoCoax, they told me that the modem's MOCA chip was incompatible.
> 
> ...


Well, that's interesting.

I have had both the Comcast DPC3941T (XB3) and the CGM4140COM (XB6), both made by Cisco/Technicolor. IIRC, they both had MoCA 2.0. That might be a factor, but MoCA 2.5 is supposed to be backward-compatible.

I wonder where the hiccup lies?


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> Well, that's interesting.
> 
> I have had both the Comcast DPC3941T (XB3) and the CGM4140COM (XB6), both made by Cisco/Technicolor. IIRC, they both had MoCA 2.0. That might be a factor, but MoCA 2.5 is supposed to be backward-compatible.
> 
> I wonder where the hiccup lies?


Agreed. Make me question whether the glitch in the the Xfinity gateway or the goCoax adapter.


----------



## Pbarkey (Jan 18, 2017)

Here's what GoCoax told me.

We did some research, found DPC3941T is using vixs xconnex 1000 MoCA chip. It is released in 2013, and we can’t find the chip vendor now. Our MoCA adapter is based on latest MoCA2.5 standard, maybe there is some compliance issue between the old chip and latest chip. The safe way is, you can replace all the MoCA devices to MoCA2.5, or you can keep using the current MoCA2.0 devices with much lower speed. Regards, goCoax

Sent from my Samsung Chromebook Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Pbarkey said:


> Here's what GoCoax told me.
> 
> We did some research, found DPC3941T is using vixs xconnex 1000 MoCA chip. It is released in 2013, and we can't find the chip vendor now. Our MoCA adapter is based on latest MoCA2.5 standard, maybe there is some compliance issue between the old chip and latest chip. The safe way is, you can replace all the MoCA devices to MoCA2.5, *or you can keep using the current MoCA2.0 devices with much lower speed*. Regards, goCoax


That reply makes perfect sense to me, but it does not explain why you got no internet connection at all using the XB3 as your MoCA bridge.



Pbarkey said:


> However, I did not have any Internet. Talking with CS at GoCoax, they told me that the modem's MOCA chip was incompatible.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> That reply makes perfect sense to me, but it does not explain why you got no internet connection at all using the XB3 as your MoCA bridge.


I'm assuming they meant an Internet (or even LAN) connection via the goCoax adapter when attempting to connect to the XB3 via MoCA, not that the XB3 couldn't initialize its WAN connection. (We'll see...)


----------



## Saturn (Apr 10, 2001)

On a side note, if anybody wants one or two WCB3000Ns with slightly modified firmware, PM me - they're not worth selling on e-bay since Amazon was selling them for $10 each.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Saturn said:


> On a side note, if anybody wants one or two WCB3000Ns with slightly modified firmware, PM me - they're not worth selling on e-bay since Amazon was selling them for $10 each.


Amazon's price is up to $25, I think.


----------



## kpeters59 (Jun 19, 2007)

Pbarkey said:


> All the lights were lit up, as they should have been.


I think you should try the new unit with only the GoCoax and the Xfinity box connected to the coax and see if 'all the lights light up'...

-KP


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

Pbarkey said:


> I bought a GoCoax 2.5 adapter and tried to get it to work with my current setup. I have an Xfinity modem (Cisco XB3 DPC3941t) with MOCA enabled. I was using the Actiontec 2.0 adapter without any hiccup. Thinking that I could just switch out the adapters, I did. All the lights were lit up, as they should have been.
> 
> However, I did not have any Internet. Talking with CS at GoCoax, they told me that the modem's MOCA chip was incompatible.
> 
> ...


From my experience, I have opted to not use any built in Moca devices in my cable modems or TiVo devices, and always use the same brand and version of MoCa adapters at each end point, then use gigabit switches on each of those end points as needed.

I'm now using Moca 2.5 adapters from GoCoax and I have not had to reboot at all unless a power outage occurred and they recovered nicely on their own.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

FYI... Looks like Verizon has upgraded their router and extender gear to MoCA 2.5...

FiOS Home Router (G3100)
FiOS Home Wi-Fi Extender (E3200)


----------



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

300 bucks for a ISP router?


----------



## bootz (May 8, 2012)

fyodor said:


> 300 bucks for a ISP router?


It is using Wi-Fi 6. The coverage is supposedly great, even for non Wi-Fi 6 devices. Anyone with a TiVo Bolt have experience comparing the MoCa vs Wi-Fi speeds? I'm thinking Wi-Fi may be faster.


----------



## Scrith (Apr 6, 2003)

I've got a few GoCoax 2.5 adapters and they are working great, but I hear there is a firmware update and I'd like to install it. I have downloaded the file from their website, but I cannot connect to the thing. I've read their website, which surprisingly doesn't go into much detail about how to update the firmware, and found a few things on the internet about upgrading the firmware, but I can't seem to make it work...I can't even see the adapter's home page when I use the various addresses I've found.

Here's what I know:
192.168.254.1 <-- this is the IP address to set yourself to in your adapter's DNS settings?
255.255.255.0 <-- use this subnet mask setting (I think I've got that part)
192.168.254.254 <-- this seems to be the address you should connect to manually in your web browser?

Some really basic questions that nobody seems to have covered:
1. Do I need to plug the adapter directly into my PC, or can I communicate with it through a switch (I'm on the receiving end of the switch, it is providing the connection to the switch)?
2. In my IPV4 settings for my adapter I see 3 settings in the "Use the following IP address:" section:
- IP Address <-- 192.168.254.1, right?
- Subnet mask <-- 255.255.255.0, right?
- Default Gateway <-- What should I set this to?

Once those are set up, should I try to connect to it (using a browser like Chrome) with 192.168.254.1 or 192.168.254.254?

Thanks for your help in advance!


----------



## kpeters59 (Jun 19, 2007)

Those IP Address' are probably fall-back address' that the adapters use if they're _not_ connected to a network.

They probably get an IP Address from your Router, like any other device, and you'd connect to them there.

-KP


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

IP address should be the address that you are assigning to the computer being used to load the software. Default Gateway should be the assigned address of the adapter, in your case, 192.168.254.254.

You can directly connect your computer to the adapter by ethernet cable, although in the case of my network using Motorola MM1000s, I created a unique network profile with the desired IP attributes. Switching to that profile resets the network adapter in my PC to the required IP address and configuration, and is then easily switched back to my default parameters.


----------



## David B Gregory (Feb 26, 2018)

Scrith said:


> I've got a few GoCoax 2.5 adapters and they are working great, but I hear there is a firmware update and I'd like to install it. I have downloaded the file from their website, but I cannot connect to the thing. I've read their website, which surprisingly doesn't go into much detail about how to update the firmware, and found a few things on the internet about upgrading the firmware, but I can't seem to make it work...I can't even see the adapter's home page when I use the various addresses I've found.
> 
> Here's what I know:
> 192.168.254.1 <-- this is the IP address to set yourself to in your adapter's DNS settings?
> ...


----------

