Comment 245 for bug 868034

madbiologist (me-again) wrote :

Sleepy John wrote:-

> Could we perhaps take a closer look at the differences between the early part of the re-initialisation sequence that Maverick and Natty used to perform, compared to what Ocelot and subsequents are now doing?

Sure. Can you please attach the log file/s from Natty and the log file/s from Oneiric after plugging in the modem? (See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingNetworkManager) My apologies if you have provided this information before, but this bug is getting rather long and it would be easier if you could provide them again at this point.

> I'm still left with a gut feeling or hunch that there's still something basic that changed between Natty and Oneiric that we've missed. I don't know what it is, but it appears to have carried forward and still be causing the same problems in Precise and Quantal.

This has indeed been a protracted and frustrating issue. Many networking things were changed in Oneiric, some in the kernel, some in usb-modeswitch, some in modemmanger and some in network-manager. Reverting them en masse is likely to break other things. Some of them may not be able to be reverted individually/separately as they may be inter-related to others. However focusing on the past might be counterproductive given that the problem seems to be finally fixed in a newer version. More on that in a moment.

Is there any particular reason that you want to continue using Oneiric? Also, official Canonical support for Ubuntu 11.10 "Oneiric Ocelot" ends in April 2013 - see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases

This problem might have been fixed in Precise by the patch reversion mentioned in comment #244. However comments #203, #226 and #240 say otherwise. It is almost certainly fixed in Quantal's modemmanager 0.6.0.0.really-0ubuntu1, as stated in comments #220 and #233. I realise that comments #228, #229 and #230 say otherwise, but two of them are different modems (E1550 and E353) and we don't have their USB product IDs to see if they are the same as the one that you, Pablo and Aleksander have (1003). The E220 in comment #228 is more of a concern but we don't have it's USB product ID either. It has been shown previously that some E220's are in fact a rebadged E156/E169/E1550 (I can't remember which one anymore).

Mark Fraser, Naresh and LinaPorras - can you please attach the output of lsusb -v

If we can get some more people testing E220s on Quantal that would be good. When doing so please attach the output of lsusb -v and the firmware version of your modem.