Home Network Community > All Threads > Dropped Packets - RE650
< All Threads

Dropped Packets - RE650

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.

Dropped Packets - RE650

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.
Dropped Packets - RE650
Dropped Packets - RE650
2020-10-28 05:35:35 - last edited 2020-10-28 05:43:45
Model: RE650  
Hardware Version: V1
Firmware Version: 1.0.7 Build 20190521 Rel. 52591

Good Morning, 

 

I've been experiencing intermittent connectivity issues.

 

My network setup:

Modem provides Internet to Router

ArcherC5400X v1.0 - 1.1.2 Build 20191223 rel.73956(4555)

RE650 v1.0 - 1.0.7 Build 20190521 Rel. 52591

Wired Desktop into the RE650 port

Wireless device (cellphone) connected to RE650

Desktop can ping RE650 with 0% loss. 

Desktop pings Router with ~25% loss. 

Desktop pings external site (google.com) ~25% loss. (Which makes sense if the route to the router is dropping packets)

 

These symptoms by themselves seem to point to an issue with the connection between the RE650 and the Router.

 

However, when you are pinging from the routers diag page, you get 0% loss to the RE650.

 

Router pings RE650 with 0% Loss:

PING 192.168.1.195 (192.168.1.195): 64 data bytes
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=1  time=1.286 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=2  time=1.164 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=3  time=1.005 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=4  time=0.784 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=5  time=0.853 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=6  time=0.991 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=7  time=1.169 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=8  time=1.260 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=9  time=0.999 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=10  time=1.589 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=11  time=1.027 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=12  time=1.027 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=13  time=0.893 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=14  time=0.896 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=15  time=1.101 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=16  time=1.338 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=17  time=0.867 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=18  time=1.178 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=19  time=1.036 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.195:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=20  time=1.555 ms

--- Ping Statistic "192.168.1.195" ---
Packets: Sent=20, Received=20, Lost=0 (0.00% loss)
Round-trip min/avg/max = 0.784/1.101/1.589 ms

 

Router pings wireless device connected through RE650 0% loss:

PING 192.168.1.193 (192.168.1.193): 64 data bytes
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=1  time=76.637 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=2  time=2.454 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=3  time=2.283 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=4  time=3.940 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=5  time=3.678 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=6  time=4.563 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=7  time=2.618 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=8  time=5.915 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=9  time=3.236 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=10  time=3.152 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=11  time=2.860 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=12  time=2.547 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=13  time=2.538 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=14  time=2.416 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=15  time=2.280 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=16  time=11.011 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=17  time=2.240 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=18  time=2.426 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=19  time=2.858 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.193:  bytes=64  ttl=64  seq=20  time=2.233 ms

--- Ping Statistic "192.168.1.193" ---
Packets: Sent=20, Received=20, Lost=0 (0.00% loss)
Round-trip min/avg/max = 2.233/7.094/76.637 ms
 

Router pings wired desktop connected through RE650 Ethernet port with ~25% loss:

PING 192.168.1.192 (192.168.1.192): 64 data bytes
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=1  time=2.144 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=2  time=1.536 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=3  time=1.952 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=4  time=201.315 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=5  time=1.862 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=6  time=1.840 ms
Request timed out!
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=8  time=300.899 ms
Request timed out!
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=10  time=1.385 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=11  time=1.443 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=12  time=1.498 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=13  time=1.572 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=14  time=1.385 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=15  time=1.293 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=16  time=1.147 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=17  time=1.449 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=18  time=1.141 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.192:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=19  time=1.577 ms
Request timed out!

--- Ping Statistic "192.168.1.192" ---
Packets: Sent=20, Received=17, Lost=3 (15.00% loss)
Round-trip min/avg/max = 1.141/30.908/300.899 ms
 

Now, this seems to be an issue with either the desktop, the cable, the ports on either side (desktop or RE650), or the RE650. 

 

When Desktop is wired directly to the Router, there is 0% loss(IP Change since the MAC changed when not coming from the RE650):

PING 192.168.1.196 (192.168.1.196): 64 data bytes
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=1  time=0.802 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=2  time=0.567 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=3  time=0.543 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=4  time=1.367 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=5  time=0.614 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=6  time=0.630 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=7  time=0.596 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=8  time=0.501 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=9  time=0.631 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=10  time=0.620 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=11  time=0.493 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=12  time=0.642 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=13  time=0.640 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=14  time=0.711 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=15  time=0.821 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=16  time=0.606 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=17  time=0.782 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=18  time=0.724 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=19  time=0.638 ms
Reply from 192.168.1.196:  bytes=64  ttl=128  seq=20  time=0.683 ms

--- Ping Statistic "192.168.1.196" ---
Packets: Sent=20, Received=20, Lost=0 (0.00% loss)
Round-trip min/avg/max = 0.493/0.681/1.367 ms
 

This clears the desktop from being the root cause. 

I've used two different validated cables between the RE650 and the Desktop, this clears the cable as the root cause. 

I'm left with what I believe to be a bad Ethernet port on the RE650. 

 

Am I missing anything and does my logic track? 

If it's a bad port, where do I go from here? 

What else could I do to test and validate my hypothesis? 

 

Thanks for reading. 

 

Cody

 

Edit: Minor corrections and clarifications

 

  0      
 
  0      
 
#1
Options
8 Reply
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2020-10-28 10:12:58 - last edited 2020-10-28 11:17:31

Update: Prior to posting, I tried to fix the problem by power cycling everything (desktop, re650, router, and modem) but the problem persisted.

 

I just power cycled the RE650 again and now the problem isn't happening. You gotta love intermittent issues like this.

 

Now, I don't know if it is the port because I would expect a bad port to behave consistently.

 

Any thoughts? Is the RE650 known for issues like this?

 

Edit: That didn't last long :(

 

Pinging google.com [172.217.23.110] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=117
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=117
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=117
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=117
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.217.23.110: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=117
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 172.217.23.110:
    Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 16, Lost = 7 (30% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 223ms, Average = 40ms
Control-C
^C

  0  
  0  
#2
Options
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2020-10-30 06:48:29

@coaldric 

Good day,

Thanks a lot for your time and patience.

I don’t think it is due to the bad port on the RE650 since the Desktop can ping RE650 with 0% loss, right?

It is more like the packets dropping happened randomly.

And did you actually notice if there is any drop-out of internet connection on the devices connected to the RE650?

Would it happen to both wireless and wired connections?

Have you tried to modify the channel on the C5400X to be channel 11 for 2.4ghz, channel 48 for 5G-1?

 

Thank you very much.

>>Landscape Mode - Tapo App for Pad. >>Smart Action 2.0 Explore and meet the next level home automation. >>How to position my TP-Link camera for optimal performance.
  0  
  0  
#3
Options
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2020-10-30 08:46:31

@Solla-topee 

 

Thank you for your reply. 

 

The desktop can not ping the RE650 with 0% loss. The desktop only achieved 0% loss when cabled directly to the router, bypassing the RE650 all together. 

 

The wireless devices did not lose internet connectivity and could be ping'd at 0% loss at the same time as the desktop via the Ethernet port on the RE650 would lose ~25% of packets. 

 

It only seems to be affecting the Desktop which is using the Ethernet port on the RE650, wireless connections to the RE650 do not seem to be affected. 

 

I have not tried those specific channels for those bands, but will implement that now. 

  0  
  0  
#4
Options
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2020-10-30 08:55:06

 

Is this expected? 2.4GHz no longer connects on the RE650 after changing the Archer channel to 11. 

  0  
  0  
#5
Options
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2020-11-02 07:11:31 - last edited 2020-11-02 07:16:05

@coaldric 

Good day,

Thank you very much for your detailed information;

In this way, we might need to follow up on your case by email and ask senior engineers for more advice.

At the same time, may I know how long have you had the RE650, and did this issue start out of the box?

And if possible, did you have another wired laptop to have a test as well?

Thanks a lot.

>>Landscape Mode - Tapo App for Pad. >>Smart Action 2.0 Explore and meet the next level home automation. >>How to position my TP-Link camera for optimal performance.
  0  
  0  
#6
Options
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2021-05-23 02:19:31

Was there ever any resolution this this issue?  I'm have the same exact problem. 

Solla-topee wrote

@coaldric 

Good day,

Thank you very much for your detailed information;

In this way, we might need to follow up on your case by email and ask senior engineers for more advice.

At the same time, may I know how long have you had the RE650, and did this issue start out of the box?

And if possible, did you have another wired laptop to have a test as well?

Thanks a lot

 

  0  
  0  
#7
Options
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2021-05-23 07:25:15

@Iceraider12 

 

Unfortunately no, there was no resolution. They replaced the device and it had the same issue. I ended up removing the TP-Link devices and going with a Fritz extender instead and that has worked a lot better. 

  0  
  0  
#8
Options
Re:Dropped Packets - RE650
2021-05-24 12:20:11 - last edited 2021-05-25 02:48:48

@Iceraider12 Hello, 

 

Here is the latest firmware for RE650 (EU)V1  please confirm your device is on the latest firmware 

Please confirm the ping is okay when the same device is connected to router's wifi. 

 

If still the same problem, may i know does the packet lose when you connect to RE 2.4Ghz/ 5Ghz wifi, or by wire. 

If possible, you could wire a PC to RE and check if there is any package loss? 

May I know the firmware and hardware version of your RE650?

Please let me know the model of your router and your network topology, thank you

>>Landscape Mode - Tapo App for Pad. >>Smart Action 2.0 Explore and meet the next level home automation. >>How to position my TP-Link camera for optimal performance.
  0  
  0  
#9
Options

Information

Helpful: 0

Views: 1237

Replies: 8

Related Articles
My RE650 died
1122 1
RE650 Packet loss
414 0
OneMesh support for RE650??
10807 5
RE650 does not work with 5gb
1431 0
RE650 disconnect my router
144 0
Re650
244 0
About Us
Press
Copyright © TP-Link Systems Inc. All rights reserved.