ADSL ERR_SSL_BAD_RECORD_MAC_ALERT error

[#1]

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 2023.12.14 08:38
IP address: 212.159.xxx.xxx
Client OS/browser: Android (Chrome 120.0.0.0)

TCP options string: 020405b40402080a433d0cf90000000001030308
MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 65536 (not multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 8 bits (2^8=256)
Unscaled RWIN : 256
Recommended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920, 1027840
BDP limit (200ms): 2621 kbps (262 Kilobytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 1049 kbps (105 Kilobytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 50
Timestamps: ON
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

[#2]

That MTU looks normal.

Also your IP address 212.159.xxx.xxx - I believe is a static WAN address which is another good point.

[#3]

Assuming that your ADSL line stats are currently anything like as good as they were here

the only thing remaining I can think of to test is whether your connection has terrible latency, and consequently dropping so many outgoing data packets that it is causing sequences of SSL packets to get interrupted.

On a WIRED connection, AND for a couple of minutes when NOBODY is actively using your broadband,

can you post a screenshot of the "BUFFERBLOAT GRADE", "LATENCY" and "SPEED" results you get from this test - https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat 

On ADSL2+, you should be able to achieve a "B" or better

[#4]

@Anonymous 

Quick note the Hub One does not have any QOS setting,

[#5]

Thanks Dan, yes I had assumed that, BUT I've checked and the TP-Link does have QoS when used in 'router' mode rather than 'Wireless Access Point" mode.

If the resulting bufferbloat is a disastrous "F",  my suggestion would be use the TP-Link as a router (with QoS enabled), and come up with a better solution for a modem,  either by bridging the DrayTek, or suggesting getting an eBay  Vigor 130, or a Billion 7800 or 8800 of some description that can be bridged.

[#6]

It is also annoying that the Hub 1 can't respond to WAN pings, otherwise I would have suggested setting up a ThinkBroadband BQM, to see what is going on - especially as this connection is already on a static WAN IP !.

[#7]

For BMQ the Hub One option is to put a dumb wired device which reponds to ping in the DMZ.

With this Hub routerstats could be used, best run on 24/7 device running windows

[#8]

@Dan_the_Van  do you have a link for @batesi  to the version of routerstats that works with the Hub 1 ?

I remember there was a full and a "Lite" version, but I've not used that for about 8 years so have lost track.

[#9]

On a WIRED connection, AND for a couple of minutes when NOBODY is actively using your broadband,

can you post a screenshot of the "BUFFERBLOAT GRADE", "LATENCY" and "SPEED" results you get from this test - https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat 

On ADSL2+, you should be able to achieve a "B" or better

Thanks - I will try that later - what I want is a time when no-one is using the broadband and also when I observe the errors or slowness.

Generally I'd just like to comment - I'm not getting hung up on analyzing why/if there might be a problem with my Plusnet hub to TP Link access point setup - when I test I will eliminate the TP Link and go straight into the router via ethernet - if the fault disappears then happy to look into suggestions.

[#10]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I remember there was a full and a "Lite" version, but I've not used that for about 8 years so have lost track.

---

Hub One routerstats http://www.vwlowen.co.uk/RouterStatsHub/routerstatshub.htm 

[#11]

Thanks Dan, yes I had assumed that, BUT I've checked and the TP-Link does have QoS when used in 'router' mode rather than 'Wireless Access Point" mode.

If the resulting bufferbloat is a disastrous "F",  my suggestion would be use the TP-Link as a router (with QoS enabled), and come up with a better solution for a modem,  either by bridging the DrayTek, or suggesting getting an eBay  Vigor 130, or a Billion 7800 or 8800 of some description that can be bridged.

I'm using TP-Link in Access Point Mode.

[#12]

1. Product name:	Plusnet Hub
2. Serial number:	+081441+NQ13349066
3. Firmware version:	Software version 4.7.5.1.83.8.289.1.3 Last updated 27/01/22
4. Board version:	Plusnet Hub One
5. DSL uptime:	1 days, 01:56:59
6. Data rate:	1091 / 16889
7. Maximum data rate:	1096 / 17004
8. Noise margin:	6.5 / 6.2
9. Line attenuation:	10.1 / 24.1
10. Signal attenuation:	10.4 / 22.1
11. Data sent/received:	4.9 GB / 42.0 GB
12. Broadband username:	xxxxx@plusdsl.net
13. 2.4 GHz Wireless network/SSID:	PLUSNET-R586
14. 2.4 GHz Wireless connections:	Disabled
15. 2.4 GHz Wireless security:	WPA2
16. 2.4 GHz Wireless channel:	Automatic (Smart Wireless)
17. 5 GHz Wireless network/SSID:	PLUSNET-R586-5G
18. 5 GHz Wireless connections:	Disabled
19. 5 GHz Wireless security:	WPA2
20. 5 GHz Wireless channel:	Automatic (Smart Wireless)
21. Firewall:	Default
22. MAC Address:	10:d7:b0:4a:cc:ee
23. VPI/VCI:	0 / 38
24. Modulation:	G.992.5 Annex A
25. Latency type:	Fast
26. Software variant:	AA
27. Boot loader:	1.0.0

[#13]

@batesi 

You seem to have a data hungry network.

Data sent/received: 4.9GB / 42.0 GB

From the Helpdesk page DSL uptime; that is in just under 26 hours, this assumes that this is the total system up time as the data usage only gets reset on a Hub reboot

I guess some of that is work related?

The line stats look good though.

Dan. 

[#14]

BQM attached from the 3 day period where I used the Draytek Router. I had a few disconnections as can be seen.

[#15]

You seem to have a data hungry network.

Data sent/received: 4.9GB / 42.0 GB

From the Helpdesk page DSL uptime; that is in just under 26 hours, this assumes that this is the total system up time as the data usage only gets reset on a Hub reboot

• Work (the work laptop is heavy on updates) and as a developer download new tools etc.
• 2 Kids xbox gaming / YouTube / facetime calls
• Netflix

My connection worked better than I expected in the last 3-4 years, I'm getting to the end of my patience with Plusnet and contract is up end January unfortunately FTTP/FTTC isn't available in near future, 4G is variable here and no 5G. I'm thinking Starlink but installation costs are v.high..